Venezuela's literacy rate went up. Chavez announced in "Venezuela is officially declaring its territory illiteracy-free on 28 October 2005" (at <http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=42794&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>). That's something that the multinational ruling class cannot easily take away from Venezuelans, whatever it might do to the country once oil prices go down. But even literacy rates can go down if the revolution gets terminated, as they apparently have in Nicaragua after the Sandinista years: "Poverty and treatable diseases are rampant, infant mortality and illiteracy rates have risen and access to primary education, despite its universal pretext, is more difficult due to IMF imposed 'user fees.' Additionally, Nicaragua now rivals Haiti in the unenviable distinction of being the Western Hemisphere's most destitute nation" (at <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/major150805.html>).
Luciano Wexell Severo wrote: "While in the second quarter of 1999 the share of non-oil GDP was 70.5 percent of total GDP, today it stands at 76.0 percent. And, partly as a result, in this period, the share of the oil GDP in total GDP shrunk from 20.1 percent to 14.9 percent. Even more significant is the acceleration in the manufacturing industry between early 2003 and the present. Manufacturing was the sector that grew the fastest in the period, recently surpassing oil GDP -- for the first time since 1997, starting year of this statistical series at the BCV" (at <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lws160306.html>). That's also very good news, and one hopes that it will sustain the Venezuelan economy after this oil boom passes. But it was said in 2003 that "Venezuela depends on oil for 80% of its export earnings, 50% of its government revenue" (at <http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1042>), which I doubt has changed much since then.
And despite Chavez's indefatigable efforts to diversify Venezuela's trade relations, Venezuela may have grown more tied to the US than before: "Still, trade between the United States and Venezuela has grown steadily for the past four years, and reached about $39-billion in 2005, an increase of 35% over the previous year, according to official figures out this week. Venezuela's exports to the United States were valued at $21-billion, largely as a result of high oil prices. The United States imports 1,5 million barrels a day from Venezuela, almost half the South American country's total output" (at <http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=262620&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/>).
That's rather worrisome, but there is no easy way to change it.
About Iran (unlike Venezuela), I have yet to see any left-wing economist taking a close look at any changes made between last August and now (not that any significant economic changes could be made that fast), and if the way Doug is looking at the country is any indication of other English-speaking economists' and economic journalists' attitude, a detailed analysis won't be forthcoming any time soon. So, I'll have to make do with the corporate press. The Economist mentions "the fact that the economic liberalisation nudged forward by Muhammad Khatami, Mr Ahmadinejad's timidly liberalising predecessor, has been halted" and that "the president has promised unprecedented spending on housing, public works and government bodies, such as the broadcasting authority, that propagate the official ideology. He has also ordered big public banks whose books are full of non-performing loans to lend generously, especially to ordinary citizens. With subsidies and controls, the president and members of parliament, who compete to be generous, have ensured that the prices of petrol, electricity and basic foods rise more slowly than inflation, if at all" (<http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6878318>).
To me, that sounds like a good start; to Seth, that's just about the same as what the Saudi royalty are doing. Draw your own conclusion.
In any case, just as in Venezuela, the early years of the Ahmadinejad administration will be beset by capital flight, as The Economist says is already happening. To Doug, I'd remind him that a classic anti-Semitism is the sort that would blame problems like that on "International Jewry"; the anti-Semitic remarks that Ahmadinejad made were not of that sort but of a typical Middle-Eastern anti-Semitism concerning Israel, motivated by "Holocaust envy."
-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>