On 5/22/06, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> 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>)....
> 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.
I dunno. It sounds like the usual self-destructive third-world populism (spend, increase the money supply). But what about oil. Who controls the oil now?
Re-asking the question: In Venezuela, foreign oil companies and local allies (including some labor unions) controlled the oil and received the rents. Chavez's government has wrested a lot of those funds away from those folks and redirected them in a generally progressive way.
Who owns/controls Iran's oil? who controls the revenues? the mullahs? the current Iranian state? what is Our Man in Iran doing about this?
Doug: > I think I'll stick with Chavez.
Ulhas:> Rest of the world must follow Cuba and Venezuela?
I can't speak for Doug, but he was talking abut Venezuela vs. Iran (and which was a better cause to support?), not which country is the best for the "rest of the world" to "follow." -- Jim Devine / "These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people." -- Abraham Lincoln (attributed)