Venezuela economy expands 4.5 percent in 1st quarter amid recovery

[Judi Lynn]

Venezuela economy expands 4.5 percent in 1st quarter amid recovery
By Associated Press,
Updated: Tuesday, May 17, 2:16 PM

CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuela’s economy expanded 4.5 percent for the first quarter, confirming strong growth after nearly two years of recession, officials said Tuesday.

Growth in both the public and private sectors contributed to the recovery, even as the key oil industry contracted 1.8 percent, Central Bank president Nelson Merentes said at a news conference.

~snip~
Sectors that boosted growth included manufacturing (7.6 percent), retail (10.4 percent), communications (8 percent) and transportation and warehousing services (7.8 percent).

Planning and Finance Minister Jorge Giordani said the quarter’s results show that “we’re going toward growth that is going to be sustained.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/venezuela-economy-expands-45-percent-in-1st-quarter-amid-recovery/2011/05/17/AFVbNv5G_story.html?wprss=rss_economy

[Peace Patriot]

1. As in 2003-2008, the most growth was in the PRIVATE sector...

"The public sector grew 3.3 percent, while the private sector grew 4.6 percent, Merentes said." --from the OP

----

It surprises me to see an Associated Pukes article, published in the Washington Pest, about Venezuela, that does NOT include snark. Though the article does not take the usual, anonymous pot shots at Chavez ("His critics say...".), it nevertheless contains black holes where information should be, for instance...

---Venezuela was recently designated "THE most equal country in Latin America" on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean; the Chavez government has cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by over 70%;

---the Chavez government maintained low unemployment throughout this worldwide, Bush Junta/Wall Street-induced depression;

---the Chavez government continued to maintain and even expand social programs--education, health care, grants/loans to small business and coops, land reform, et al--throughout this worldwide depression;

---the Chavez government has been taking measures such as nationalizing the Bank of Venezuela to provide easy, low cost credit to the poor, in a safe (non-bankster) institution, and helped to create the Bank of the South (a Venezuelan inspiration) so that no member country is forced to take usurious, ruinous loans from the World Bank/IMF;

---the Chavez government oversaw sizzling (10%) economic growth during the 2003 to 2008 period (a period of maximum hostility and destabilization efforts by the U.S. government and its rightwing trainees in Venezuela) with the most growth in the PRIVATE sector (not including oil)--an astonishing feat in itself and one that also left Venezuela with large cash reserves for the Bushwhacks' "rainy day";

---Like Brazil, Venezuela rejected the advice of "the blue-eyed wonders of Wall Street" (Lula da Silva's phrase)--maintained tight regulation of the banksters; refused to inflict "austerity" measures on the poor; refused to sell off public services and assets to private corporate interests, and, in short, went the opposite way from U.S. "neo-liberalism" and instead has attended to the interests of the poor majority.

As a consequence of all of the above, the Bushwhack financial calamity--which has enriched the rich and devastated the poor in the U.S. and Europe--was NOT inflicted on the poor majority in Venezuela, not even during Venezuela's slow growth period (2008-2010). The Chavez government instead followed the "New Deal" policy of putting money in the hands of the poor, as the most logical and humane measure when the rich fuck things up for everybody else.

That is WHY Venezuela is bouncing back, while the U.S. and Europe (including England) are languishing, trapped in the downward "neo-liberal" spiral whereby the rich suck all the wealth out of the country and the poor suffer.

What is missing from articles by the Associated Pukes, et al, is CONTEXT, cuz--in this case--they don't want you to know that the best way out of fuckups by the rich is cushioning the poor.

The other issue that is never mentioned--and is one of the reasons that Venezuela and other Latin American countries with leftist governments have landed on their feet--is multi-lateral trade, both south-south trade (trade amongst themselves and with other "global south" regions such as Africa) and trade with China, Russia, Italy, Spain, Japan and other more developed countries, on a level playing field--a field not tilted toward the U.S. Trade with the U.S. is heavily weighted with bullying conditions that favor U.S.-based transglobal corporations, U.S. banksters and U.S. war profiteers. Venezuela was the pioneer in South America away from U.S. control of Latin American economies--for instance, by the Chavez government staring down Exxon Mobil and insisting on a better deal for Venezuela (and getting it--a deal that Exxon Mobil walked away from, with other corps stepping into the breach) and rejecting the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs" and its attendant U.S. boots on the ground in the dominated country (i.e., Colombia and Honduras).

This new, independent Latin America is largely due to the Venezuelan peoples' election of the Chavez government and defense of the Chavez government, when the inevitable U.S.-backed coup was attempted, in 2002--the first major victory against U.S. domination of Latin America. What has followed is the election of leftist government after leftist government across Latin America, and formation of political/economic institutions such as UNASUR (South America) and CELAC (all Latin American countries) which specifically and pointedly exclude the U.S. and its lackey Canada. CELAC is even called "the anti-OAS."

The advantages of Latin American independence--of Latin American control of its own trade and economic policy, and of autonomous democracies as opposed to U.S. puppet governments--have become plain to see--not only in economic growth and quick bounce-back from the Bushwhack depredations--but in sharing of the wealth, bootstrapping of the poor and Latin Americans' sense of optimism. Venezuelans are the happiest people in Latin America, according to objective measures. They rate their democracy as one of the best in the region (Uruguay is first--also a leftist government, followed by Venezuela). They rate their own satisfaction with life and future prospects fifth in the world (ahead of the U.S. and the U.K.).

Dry GDP and growth statistics tell only part of the story. Who is benefiting? How is wealth distributed? And what policies are producing growth, employment, elimination of poverty, increased educational levels, access to health care and general prosperity and happiness?

And I can only think--as this is a corpo-fascist 'news' article about Venezuela--that that black hole is deliberate.

I do find the lack of snark intriguing, though. Does this portend some kind of deeper change, say, in CIA objectives in Latin America? Or is it a mistake--an oversight?

There is other evidence of shifting ground in U.S. policy in Latin America--possibly an Obama/Clinton/Panetta move away from military objectives (perhaps due to Latin American solidarity on U.S. aggression) toward economic objectives (getting U.S. corporations back in the game in this new, more level playing field, especially in South America). The corpo-fascist 'news' is worth watching, in this respect--their level of nastiness toward the leftist leader of the region, Venezuela; what they DON'T say, what they have been saying and are not saying NOW, etc.

[Bacchus39]

2. most unequal societies

http://www.aneki.com/unequal.html

happiest countries


http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html



another happiness index. Colombia number 2 in the world


http://www.colombia.travel/en/international-tourist/colombia/news/521-colombia-the-second-happiest-country-in-the-world


where you are getting your info?

[Peace Patriot]

3. Mine are excellent sources...

The UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (April 2010)
(Venezuela THE most equal country in Latin America)
(a good explanation) http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=3016
(the report) http://www.eclac.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/publicaciones/xml/1/39711/P39711.xml&xsl=/pses33/tpl-i/p9f.xsl&base=/tpl-i/top-bottom.xsl

The well-established, long-running, highly respected Latinobarometro poll (by a Chilean NGO) (2007)
Venezuelans' satisfaction with their democracy leaped from 35% in 1998 to a whopping 59% in 2007. Only Uruguay is higher.
http://left-click.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=235&Itemid=63

Gallup did the "well-being" poll which placed Venezuela fifth in the world, in the estimation of its own citizens (April 2011)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147167/High-Wellbeing-Eludes-Masses-Countries-Worldwide.aspx
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x51448

And here is a Venezuelan government report on stats in 2010 and prognosis for 2011, that fits reality (current outcomes), with a punch in the nose to the IMF for its inaccurate (lowball) predictions for Venezuela. One sign of a good government is the accuracy of its economic predictions.
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5798

----

Your sources, on the other hand, are highly questionable:

Forbes magazine (self-interested billionaires)

Colombia Travel (yeah, right).

Aneki.com does not have an "About Us" page, to even begin to understand who is behind it.

[Bacchus39]

4. dupe n/t

s

[Bacchus39]

5. forbes is not the source, it is reporting on the survey

you fail to make the distinction. the same with Colombia travel. they are reporting on the survey, they didn't make the survey.

thanks for mentioning the Latinobarometro poll though. where Chavez is the least admired leader in the hemisphere.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Snipe away, Bacchus39! Your sources suck by comparison.

And it's quite interesting how, when my reliable sources report something positive about Venezuela, it NEVER GETS REPORTED by the corporate press (let alone by Forbe$$$). So it must be quite a mystery to most casual readers/viewers of the news--the majority of readers/viewers--how Chavez and Correa could possibly have been elected, why they keep winning most VOTES OF THE PEOPLE on issues, why their approval ratings have generally been through the stratosphere (with Chavez in a rare trough right now, of about 50%, which is still quite good after two terms), and why do other democratic leaders in the region like them, and are allied with them, and share a lot of the same positions and policies? Because they are "caudillos" and "dictators"?

It's only a mystery if you are DISINFORMED--or just dense--or are so rightwing that you plug your ears when facts are mentioned that challenge the prevailing rightwing/corporate narrative. For most people, it's because they are disinformed.

I wonder sometimes at the hysterical disinformation campaign that I see throughout the corporate press, concerning the Latin American left. You'd think that business men and women, investors, economists, analysts and others who need REAL information would want accurate reports (like the Wall Street Journal news pages used to provide, before Murdoch took over), rather than this garbage and propagandistic drivel that is so pervasive.

Portraying Chavez or Correa as "caudillos" or "dictators" is fundamentally inaccurate--and it utterly fails to prepare people who need accurate information in their professions, for this sea change in Latin America--an independent Latin America that is insisting on a level playing field, and an increasingly united Latin America on social justice and sovereignty issues. Such people NEED to understand WHY Chavez was elected, re-elected and may be elected to a third term (which the voters of Venezuela decided to permit). They NEED to understand that these elections are CLEAN.

It's not like the old days in Latin America where money (or worse) controlled the election results and they could count on business-friendly governments willing to sacrifice their people and their country's resources for a bribe, or write business-friendly laws, or bring out the troops to put down labor unrest. Well, they can still count on these things (and worse) in Colombia and Honduras and a few other places. But the overwhelming trend is democratic and independent, and committed to social justice, with the leftist governments allied with each other for collective clout--and, on some issues, such as opposing U.S. interference, region-wide unity including even rightwing governments.

It is simply NOT TRUE that these achievements in Latin America--its change of direction toward social justice and independence--has been brought about by "dictators." That is a desperate lie by rich powermongers who feel threatened (or are engaged in evil, anti-democratic plotting). Where do people who simply want to make good business decisions, or provide good advice to others, or need true, balanced, objective information, for whatever reason, go for that information? It does not exist in the corporate press. And that means that such information seekers are likely going to make bad decisions, and, if they travel to Ecuador or Venezuela or Brazil or some other country with a leftist government, they are not going to understand the people they are dealing with.

It's not that the corporate press is providing "both sides" for their news consumers to make up their own minds. Their reporting is entirely UNBALANCED. It does not contain Clue One as to what is really happening in Latin America.

You seem business-oriented. Maybe you can explain this to me. What kind of business is based on such inaccurate and distorted information? Does this not give U.S. and other foreign business people who consume such distorted news a serious handicap in competing in Latin America?

I understand the motives of the powermongering corporate moguls, who don't want anybody investing in these countries--they want to crash these economies--punish them, defame them--to topple their popular governments and bludgeon these countries back into line, or, in the case of Brazil, they want to "divide and conquer" Brazil from the others. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about ordinary, average business people, analysts, investors and so on, who don't have that intention, and who seek and need real information. Where can they get it--so that they, when they are looking around Latin America, to invest or analyze or form partnerships--don't make big blunders?

Imagine a modest U.S. business enterprise, say, looking to provide portable canopies for Brazil's farmers' markets. They have a design they want to sell, and they meet with various local manufacturers and make "dictator" jokes about Chavez to break the ice. The manufacturers don't like Chavez and they don't like their own Lula/Rousseff government (allies of Chavez) either, so they get a hee-haw from the joke and everybody's amicable to a deal. Then the U.S. business person meets with the leaders of the farmers' market organization and tells the joke again. Dead silence around the table. The farmers and their retailers admire Chavez and are working closely with Chavez government ag experts to replicate aspects of Venezuela's subsidized food program and land reform program in Brazil. The farmers sour the deal. They've got an offer from more compatible business people from Argentina or Italy or China.

You see what I mean? This is a simple example but it illustrates the bigger problem. The people in the modest U.S. business enterprise were ignorant and uninformed. They didn't catch their mistake in time. And where did they get the wrong impression of a general belief that Chavez is a "dictator"--except from the corporate press?

This kind of thing could seriously hamper business people and others who NEED accurate information. To overcome their inaccurate view of things, they would first of all have had to GUESS that maybe the farmers' market people were sympathetic to Chavez. Then they would have to worry that someone in the room during the manufacturers' meetings might report the joke to the farmers. They might then blunder and screw things up for the manufacturers, who laughed at their stupid joke. And so on.

They are HANDICAPPED because they DON'T KNOW what's happening in Venezuela--popular social programs like the food subsidy and land reform programs--because they are assuming certain things from IMPRESSIONS they've gotten from all the news reports that they've checked--the impression that "everybody thinks Chavez is a dictator" and Venezuela is "for shits--nothing good happening there." They are HANDICAPPED because they don't know of the beneficial programs in Venezuela, and they never saw reports on the Brazil-Venezuela alliance, and they think that Brazilians must view Venezuelans as rivals, not as partners, and haven't the foggiest idea about the new cooperative spirit that leftist governments have fostered. The manufacturers are in the old paradigm; the farmers are in the new--and the ignorant U.S. business people stumble around like doofuses, botching the deal.

Maybe this deal was dead on arrival because of the political differences between the canopy manufacturers and the farmers' market reps, but then again, maybe not. People CAN put their political differences aside for mutual benefit--if they know enough about each other to be polite and respectful. And they shouldn't have to hire a detective agency to understand the political lay of the land. This is the BUSINESS of the corporate press--and they are NOT doing their job, on this matter, not even close. Their view is so distorted that anyone relying on it is almost bound to make stupid mistakes. It is a stupid-making view.

Please tell me where smaller scale corporate or non-corporate business people, or others in need of accurate information, can get it from. I see it NOWHERE in the corporate press. And tell me that anybody looking for a deal would have wanted to go into that meeting with the farmers' market reps NOT knowing that there were beneficial food programs in Venezuela of interest to farmers and that some of the key decision-makers in the room might have reason to admire Chavez, and that, in fact, the government of Brazil has a close, friendly alliance with the Chavez government.

Would you have wanted to go into that meeting, looking for a deal, having read my posts or not? Ha! There you go. I'll betcha five bucks my posts would give you an advantage in those meetings, if not a sealed deal. Maybe you have the wherewithal to hire a detective agency. Maybe you're smart enough to keep your mouth shut before you've sussed out the perspectives of everyone in the meetings. But, lacking the money for hiring a detective agency, or the time for a lot of pre-meeting blab, or if you're having a bad day and can't get your brain in gear and think maybe you'll shortcircuit the preliminaries by telling an anti-Chavez joke and getting a laugh, THEN accurate background information becomes vital. What you have read in the papers. What you could find on-line. A good general understanding of where people might be coming from.

Would you want to be in that meeting with a wrong understanding of the efficacy of an anti-Chavez joke, among Brazilians who might not think it's funny?

Wouldn't you want to know that Chavez had helped farmers with food subsidy and land reform programs--an element of his popularity--and that small Brazilian farmers might therefore be inclined to sympathy? They know about this stuff. You don't. Wouldn't you want to know, if you were meeting with them to make a deal? Wouldn't it give you an advantage? And where would you find it in the corporate press?

And please let me know the minute you spot any favorable report on Venezuela, from any source, in Forbe$$$ magazine. I'll send YOU five bucks.

It's not that such reports do not exist. It's not that the sources are not valid and reliable. It's that they are NEVER reported in the corporate press. ONLY bad reports are cited. That is massive distortion. That is a lie. And that is a handicap to anyone who needs REAL information on this subject.

[Zorro]

8. In other words

The majority of Latin Americans polled by Latinobarometro thinks Chavez sucks.

And Fidel. And Danny.

[Judi Lynn]

9. How odd they keep getting elected, isn't it?

Where are the polled people getting their information about other countries' leaders? Corporate media?

[Judi Lynn]

6. Anyone who has taken the time to READ your posts knows you come prepared, STAY prepared.

It has always been a clear-cut matter of character.

As wide a difference as between day and night.