Paralysed Venezuela vs Thriving Bolivia: Two Faces of Socialism

By Hernán Luis Torres Núñez – Aporrea.org:



Hernán Luis Torres Núñez, a frequent economics commentator on leftist Venezuelan community forum Aporrea, argues that Venezuela should learn from Bolivian president Evo Morales’ pragmatic style of governance for “21^st century socialism”. 


A few days ago a friend asked me if I’d written about the situation in the country again. I answered no, because the government hadn’t taken any action on the economy that served as an excuse for me to write something. The only thing that’s happened worth mentioning is the assassination of Robert Serra, which is in an area of events that isn’t my strength. Also I don’t like speculating about this type of issue, above all because the investigations haven’t finished solving the crime.

However it should be pointed out that not making decisions is a way of deciding. That is, maintaining the status quo is a way of signalling that although the situation is very difficult, making decisions can worsen the situation. This reminds me of the second government of [Rafael] Caldera [1994 - 1999]. When he was elected he put the economy in the freezer and let time pass. Caldera was clear that the economic adjustment measures of [former president] Carlos Andres Perez [1989 - 1993] had cost him his job. [Caldera] finally implemented these measures two years into his term, when the political atmosphere had calmed down.

These are very difficult times for the Venezuelan economy. We can’t exaggerate when we see indices of inflation and shortages of all kinds of products (because we no longer see the shortages indicator); when we see that dollars [for imports] are sporadically shared out to different economic sectors at a drip drop; when we see that oil is dropping to 80 dollars a barrel; when we have three official exchange rates to the dollar, each one overvaluing the bolivar and generating deep distortions in the economy; when we see that property prices reach 50 million bolivars (US $7.9 million at highest official rate); when the prices of used cars are crazy, etc. Therefore we can speculate that no economic decisions are being taken to stabilise the situation because these would have a very strong impact on Venezuelans’ quality of life. A strong devaluation toward one exchange rate, a generalised increase in prices (which has been happening surreptitiously), a petrol price increase, and a possible tax rise would make poverty rates violently shoot up. This situation would put the government against the wall, as its banner all these years has been the eradication of poverty. The goal of zero poverty would be smashed to smithereens.

On the other hand, it’s important to point out that politicians pursue power, and once obtained, they try to keep it for the longest time possible. Good economic performance is something that can favour the politicians in government, and bad management sooner or later ends up taking its toll and hastening the fall of the governors, above all if we live in an effective democracy. By virtue of what’s happening in the economy and with parliamentary elections next year, the fear of losing political power is a close possibility. As such, in these moments political calculation can impose itself over economic reality.

Meanwhile, Evo Morales has just won his third term in Bolivia, and overwhelmingly. Bolivia is experiencing economic growth, and in 2015 is expected to be the country that grows most in the region. There is a construction boom in La Paz, with new shopping malls full of foreign brands. In Bolivia there are no currency controls, and yet, international reserves reach 48% of GDP. It appears that there hasn’t been capital flight, and rather Bolivia is today a very attractive site for foreign investment. An important reduction in poverty has also occurred.

The opposition to Morales’ government, that at one point backed the division of the country, has softened its posture. Apparently Evo Morales has been capable of gaining the support of the middle class and some business. The conflict of his first years in government has given way to social, political and economic stability.

All of this drives us to think about what the key to success in Bolivia is, a country with far less resources than Venezuela but that has been capable of establishing a successful popular government, very different from the Venezuelan case. It’s necessary in the field of Venezuelan socialism that the Bolivian case is studied and the necessary lessons taken.

I’ve often heard the argument that other countries don’t have anti-patriotic parasitic bourgeoisies, a reasoning that seems contradictory and a little naïve, because in some way it’s saying that the success of socialism depends on the kindness and patriotism of the bourgeoisie, which is nonsense. The industrial bourgeoisie in all countries behaves in the same way, it invests to profit, and if it can’t profit it moves its capital somewhere else. We can’t forget that there was a moment that the Bolivian bourgeoisie and its half moon movement wanted to remove Morales from power the underhand way. If today the Bolivian bourgeoisie is investing and not encouraging capital flight it’s because it trusts that its investment will be respected and will perform well. All of this has occurred due to negotiation between the Bolivian bourgeoisie and Evo’s government.

The above is notable because Evo Morales has declared himself a Marxist and admirer of Fidel [Castro], however, it would appear that he is also a pragmatic man who understands that socialism of the 21^st century has to be radically different than that of the 20^th, something that the person who was our economic flag bearer, [former minister Jorge] Giordani, could never understand and less so put into practice. Strong applause for Evo Morales.

October 14, 2014

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.com.

 

Source: Aporrea.org

Ebola in the Caribbean and Latin America - a matter of when?

Ebola: Will LatAm succumb?

By Christian Molinari
  

International news has been abuzz with the Ebola outbreak, its haunting effects on victims in West Africa and its spread into Europe and the US.  So far, the epidemic has not been confirmed in Latin America, although Brazil's health ministry reported its first suspected case.

Following the death from the virus of a Liberian man in a Dallas hospital on October 8, the US government expanded airport examinations. (The screening consists of questions about a passenger's history and a fever check, which passengers can beat by taking medicine to bring down their temperature.) Previously, a nursing assistant became infected in Spain, the first person to contract Ebola outside of West Africa.

Marine Corps general John F. Kelly, the commander of US Southern Command – responsible for US military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean – admitted last month that the issue keeps him awake at night.  According to Kelly, Latin America is the backdoor through which many West Africans, part of a human trafficking chain, illegally enter the US.

And if Ebola were to take hold in the Caribbean or Central America, the streaming of immigrants into the US trying to get proper medical care would be unstoppable, he said.

The numbers are frightening – with up to 1.4mn possible infections worldwide by early 2015, according to estimates, and half of the victims dying. The World Bank forecasts billions of dollars in economic losses in West Africa alone if the epidemic lasts and continues to spread. It's being called the worst calamity since the outbreak of AIDS.

In short, it's a matter of when and not if the disease will make it to Latin America.

As the 40mn-strong online activist organization Avaaz points out, the core of the epidemic boils down to a health issue, with just 0.01 doctors for every 1,000 people in Liberia.  "There just aren't enough medical staff to stem the epidemic," it says, calling for international medical volunteers to help meet needs.

For Latin America, the overall sense is that while Ebola is sure to arrive sooner or later, it will not turn into an epidemic.  According to statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), many Latin American countries have more than one doctor per 1,000 citizens. Even the region's poorest country, Haiti, has 0.3 doctors per 1,000 – not a great figure, but still 30 times higher than in Liberia. The statistic goes all the way up to 6.7 for Cuba.

And a number of countries in the region are fairly well prepared to address the virus – Argentina (3.2 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants), Chile (1.0) and Brazil (1.9) are tightening security at airports.

Argentina, on epidemic alert, has already designated a number of hospitals in urban areas as 'Ebola-only' quarantine centers if cases are detected in the country.  Chile, in turn, while saying it is on the WHO's list of the countries least likely to be affected, has assured that it is implementing contingency plans to be able to respond to the situation should it come up.

And Brazil has for years cooperated and shared information with Hamburg-based Bernhard Nocht Institute (BNI) for Tropical Medicine. According to Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, BNI's virology department director, Brazil is actually very well prepared thanks to past work the institute has carried out in conjunction with local authorities regarding dengue-based viral hemorrhagic fevers. That has allowed the University of Rio de Janeiro to have a virus diagnostic center to perform tests and detect Ebola relatively quickly. Additionally, the health ministry said that 37 hospitals in 25 states are in condition to receive patients infected with the virus.

The Ebola virus – believed to be naturally hosted by fruit bats – is not endemic to Latin America, which in and of itself is an impediment to its propagation, Schmidt-Chanasit said, according to German publication DW.

In summary, Ebola will arrive in Latin America, if it hasn't already. But with proper precautions and controls, it will not have the effect seen in West Africa, and cases will be limited. Keep calm – mass hysteria and panic have never helped in any situation.

October 10, 2014

BN Americas

National Money Laundering Risk Assessment - The Bahamas

AG: “Zero Tolerance On Money Laundering”

By JonesBahamas:

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Allyson Maynard-Gibson yesterday reiterated the government’s zero-tolerance position on money laundering as she opened a two-day workshop to address the risks associated with this practice.

With the growing recognition that illegally earned funds are being concealed more and more throughout the Bahamas, officials met to continue the first of three phases of the National Money Laundering Risk Assessment at the Melia Resort early yesterday morning.

“My presence here this morning indicates the commitment of the government to Financial Services and doing all that it takes to correct the ease of doing business ratings – it’s very very low…lower than we ought to have,” the attorney general said.

Bahamas Anti-Money Laundering Coordinator, Stephen Thompson, said the sole purpose of the National Risk Assessment is to identify money laundering and terrorist financing risks in the Bahamas. The two day workshop facilitated by the World Bank will consist of training on exactly how to identify the risks.

“This is a workshop where once we would have determined the money laundering terrorists and financing risks, we will determine how we go about putting mechanisms in place to strengthen what already exists or put in place mechanisms to identify areas that are not currently regulated. We will move in that direction” said Thompson.

Mr. Thompson told reporters that all financial services legislations will be reviewed for the assessment to determine the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing risks in the Bahamas.

“What we do is we look at what is called Typologies, Money Laundering Typologies. These would be the means by which people have laundered money in the past” said Mr. Thompson, “Those will be the areas, obviously, that we will focus on. In addition to that, we will look at any other areas of vulnerabilities. Meaning, any area that is susceptible to criminal activity, obviously, cash intensive businesses will be very critical for us to look at. Any area that we know from a global perspective poses as a risk for money laundering.”

Attorney General Alyson Maynard was also present at the assessment this morning. She said As the risk assessment continues, Mr. Thompson and his team hope to find any area that is vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing within the country.

October 09, 2014

Jones Bahamas

Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church? Part-2

Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society more than the church community? Part 2

By Dr Lazarus Castang:


Continuing from part 1, where the question was left unanswered, I propose, from numerous perspectives, an answer to the question: Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?

On the question of majority rule, for the maintenance of social order there must be some sort of political, or military, or numerical majority. Numerically, there are far more professed Christians than homosexuals in the Caribbean society. Heterosexuals are a sexual majority and LGBTs are a sexual minority. A vote for the repeal or retention of Caribbean sodomy laws may result in its retention because of social, cultural and religious norms that do not favour men having sex with men (MSM). So, purely on the basis of a numerical majority rule as to whether homosexuals should influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church, the verdict is on the side of the Caribbean church.

“Should” brings the question of morality into play, while “can” puts the question of ability on the screen. Homosexuals can influence Caribbean public policy through political pressures and funding agencies. But it may still be an uphill battle to overthrow the will of the numerical majority to legislate what homosexuals do as legitimate, normal or normative.

The question of the tyranny of the majority over the minority misses the important distinction between parallel rights and conflicting rights. Where there is a conflict of rights in society, one right will be made fundamental and the other less than fundamental. In the Caribbean, there is a right to conscience (religious liberty), but there is no right to homosex. If the distinction between parallel rights and conflicting rights is not kept in mind, then it can be indiscriminately argued that Caribbean legislations and religious norms create tyranny of the majority over a minority with crimes of drug addiction, incest, pedophilia, homosexuality, and bestiality.

On the question of a sexual orientation rule, homosexuals may be born with tendencies to homosex, and early in life feel attracted to the same sex. It is an injustice of tremendous proportion to discriminate or legislate against homosexual orientation over which homosexuals have no choice. Moreover, how will evidence of orientation be reliably culled where there is no external evidence of homosexual practice? Therefore, a clear distinction must be maintained between homosexual orientation and the behavioural expression of it. In like manner, a clear distinction must be maintained between pedophilic orientation and the behavioural expression of it.

Legal and moral consistency requires parity of treatment for homosexual and pedosexual behaviour. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church. Analogies between homosexual behaviour and slavery or women issues are not the best analogies. Sexual analogies like incest, pedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, adultery, polygamy, polyamory, and male polysexuality are the best analogies.

On the question of morality rule, the argument that a “right” to sexual orientation is an automatic right to any sexual behaviour on a sexual continuum is fallacious. Many men have a polysexual orientation, so is it an automatic right for them to sleep with as many consensual adult sex partners in order to be true to their polysexual orientation/identity? Married women will not agree to this, nor will loving, committed gay partners agree to it.

What is considered “normal” is not automatically moral and there is no natural right to homosexual behaviour to make it a fundamental right. Those who call homosexual behaviour a universal human right have not made the case for the rightness, or universality, or humanity of homosex. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.
Morality should not be disregarded even if it is alleged or made to stand in the way of economic growth. In fact, widespread economic growth itself presupposes a reduction or stifling of political and moral corruption in society.

On the question of harmful rule, if homosexual behaviour is a victimless crime, then incest and bestiality are victimless crimes that should be decriminalised, legalised and protected. Furthermore, since there is no scientific research showing that pedophilia causes measurable harm to all children in all cases, then, pedophilia should be legislated against on a case by case basis. Harmful rule and victimless crime have been used to give a pass to prostitution. Interestingly, homosexual behaviour is against the natural use of women and against the perpetuity of the human race. Therefore, it is sexist and against our humanity. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.

On the question of freedom, social inclusion, tolerance, equality and acceptance rules, these are so-called morally neutral issues that attempt to evade any talk of the morality of homosexual behaviour. We cannot have a society that declares a sexual matter a right by sheer ideological fiat. Nor can we have a society that physically abuses and professionally, or medically, or socially discriminates against homosexual persons because they come out or covertly engage in private, consensual adult homosex.

Above all, we cannot have a society that is morally all-embracing from incest to prostitution to homosexuality to pedophilia to bestiality. How far do we extend the principle of right to sex if sexual satisfaction is a right? A moral society must draw the line. Homosexuals draw the line to include homosex as personally acceptable. The church draws the line to exclude homosex as morally unacceptable but to tolerate homosex, like adultery, fornication, male polysexuality as social immoralities beckoning sincere repentance of heart and reformation of behaviour.

The Caribbean church will not support the legal protection of homosex that criminalises Christianity’s moral stance against homosex. Homosexuality is not a moral equivalent of heterosexuality. The opposite of both homosexuality and heterosexuality is moral purity. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.

On the question of privacy, consensuality, male-adult, ownership-of-one’s-body, and right-to-choose rule, it works on the individual level with a purely private matter, but is inadequate a rule on the public level. Gay lobby, gay parades, the homosexual movement/community, promotion of gay lifestyle as a normal variant of human sexuality and gays coming out are public, not private matters.

This rule gives free reign to any adult sexual behaviour that crosses gender, species, or blood-relatedness boundaries. It accommodates abortion, prostitution, incest, male polysexual behaviours, bestiality, polygamy, and polyamory. Therefore, such rule is virtually worthless being exclusive only of children and cognitively disabled individuals, but accepting of all other sexual behaviours, whether harmful or not. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.

October 02, 2014

Caribbeannewsnow

- Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?  Part-1 

What now for Scotland?

• The United Kingdom will need to reform its relationship with the Scots following the political unrest that led to the referendum

Linet Perera Negrin

Scotland will not become an independent country because that is what the majority wanted. However, the United Kingdom will need to reform its relationship with the Scots following the political unrest that led to the referendum, analysts have claimed.

"Better Together" the No campaign slogan. Photo: La Nación

The "No" vote won in Scotland. After 307 years of union and following polls suggesting victory for Scottish sovereignty, in the end 55.3% of the electorate decided to continue as part of the United Kingdom.

With a lead of 10%, those in favor of the union won with 55.3% against 44% in favor of independence. 1,914,000 of those who went to the polls voted "No", while 1,539,000 supported the "Yes" vote.

Although the British government is celebrating the victory, Edinburgh awaits the concessions promised, should the "No" campaign win.

Whilst the Scottish National Party (SNP)’s request for more tax-raising powers was denied by the central government in 2012, this will now have to be taken into account in the process which is already underway, according to a pledge signed by the three main political parties.

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the Labour opposition all promised greater powers, resources and more autonomy for Scotland, which will impact not only in other parts of Britain, but throughout Europe.

In response to the results of the referendum, British Prime Minister David Cameron promised that Scotland will have increased rights as part of the promises made by his government on the eve of the vote.

Cameron said that implementation of the promises set out in terms of taxation, spending and social welfare will advance over the coming months.

He also pledged to push reforms for the rest of the UK and stated that he had instructed William Hague, former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to draw up plans for decentralization. The changes will be reflected in bills that should be ready by January 2015.

The British Prime Minister also referred to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and said the population of these territories should have more say in their internal affairs.

If local authorities are given more powers, the Scots will have more autonomy in regards to tax collection, expenditure budgets and social services.

Similarly, during the campaign leading up to the referendum, Cameron promised to maintain the so-called Barnett Formula of distribution for Scotland, a system of distribution of public spending designed by the former Minister of Economy, Joel Barnett, in the 1970s.

Scots will therefore continue under this formula which, even with a smaller population, ensures they receive sufficient resources to run their public services, granting funds per capita 19% higher than in England.

Another controversial topic was the British National Health Service or NHS.

Supporters of independence assured that only separation would protect the health service from the cuts imposed by London. Meanwhile, the leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties included a categorical promise that the last word on the money spent in the National Health Service in Scotland would be for the Scottish Parliament.

On the other hand, by preserving the union, London maintains its benefits in terms of the oil and natural gas reserves in the North Sea and other natural resources on the Scottish mainland.

Similarly, the British government will continue to recive taxes from the production of whiskey, wool, silk and fishing from the rich Scottish waters. In addition, the British military bases remain in Scotland.

Another detail is that the Royal Bank of Scotland, like other financial institutions that had announced plans to move their headquarters to England in case of a separatist victory, announced that it would not be making any changes to its structure.

In this context, and after learning the results, the price of the pound rose on the Foreign Echange Market.

In the political sphere, Scottish Minister Alexander Salmond, the main champion for independence, announced his resignation after the defeat.

October 03, 2014

Granma.cu

Property Tax Reform in The Bahamas

Tax System Inadequate, Says Halkitis

By Jones Bahamas:



The current property tax system is inadequate and riddled with duplications, this according to Minster of State for Finance Michael Halkitis who stressed that an overhaul of the entire system is needed as the government moves to collect outstanding property taxes.

“What we recognise is that the IT system we have in place is inadequate to track and make updates to make sure the information is corrected so we have entered into an agreement with an IT provider to give us a new property tax system that is modern and based on GPS,” he said.

“Going forward we want to have clean information system so that we can do a better job so that years from now we are not back in this position.”

He added that the government is faced with a huge task of collecting Real Property Tax dating as far back as 30 years ago.

While the number value is still unknown, Mr. Halkitis said that $500 million dollars in outstanding property tax figure that is being thrown around, however he said that dollar amount could very well be an inflated estimate.

“What we have learned is that the information in the system is not always reliable, we find almost daily people coming in and they say I receive this huge bill but when you take a second look at it in many occasions you may find for example, a common error is where something being classified as commercial when it should have been classified as residential so you make adjustments to correct the information and you begin to find that the numbers we believe are outstanding is really not outstanding.”

The accounting firm Kikivarakis & Co and private debt collectors are currently assisting the government with recovering its debt.

On that note Mr. Halkitis said that the government is making some progress towards recovering those monies owed.

He added that by the mid-year budget or even before then, he will be able to give an update on those property tax reform measures.

October 02, 2014

Jones Bahamas

Democracy in Latin America: The left marches on?

By David Roberts


Latin America's democratic credentials go on display once again in October, with presidential and other elections taking place in three countries – Brazil on the 5th, Bolivia on the 12th and Uruguay on the 26th.

While no one would seriously question the strength of democracy in Brazil and Uruguay – despite all the institutional and governance issues, particularly in the former – the same cannot be said about Bolivia.  The country has enjoyed relative political stability since Evo Morales became president in 2006, and in recent years strong economic growth too, but democratic practices have lagged behind and his socialist party's stranglehold on the state apparatus is expected to give him a clear advantage in the polls.

What is more, some question whether Morales should be allowed to stand for a third term at all, as that is forbidden by the constitution.  Morales is managing to get round that minor inconvenience by maintaining that his first term didn't count as it was before the current constitution was introduced.

Even so, few would doubt the popularity of the incumbent and the voting process itself is expected to be clean.

Left-leaning candidates will also probably triumph in Brazil and Uruguay, although run-off elections are likely. In the former, the contest between leading candidates President Dilma Rousseff of the workers' party and Marina Silva of the "soft left" socialists is neck and neck, while in Uruguay former president Tabaré Vàsquez, who has the backing of current left-wing head of state José Mujica, is ahead in the polls.

So does this mean the shift to the left in Latin America continues unabated?  Maybe, but increasingly less so in the manner of a few years back when the Bolivarian Alba left-wing bloc of countries led by Venezuela's Hugo Chávez on the one hand and liberal pro-market nations on the other were seriously polarizing the continent.

In fact, Venezuela's influence in the region has waned, and was doing so even before Chávez's death in March last year.  With its own economy in disarray, and oil exports falling (at least according to independent accounts), Venezuela has become an increasingly less attractive model to follow.

At the same time, those governments on the left of the political spectrum that have emerged in recent years, from El Salvador to Uruguay, are a mixed bag where socialist ideology has taken a distinctly back seat role. What path Brazil chooses if Silva does win – she's expected to adopt a more liberal, outward-looking approach on issues such as trade – will perhaps be the key to how things develop in the continent in the years ahead.

In any case, this tendency to move away from polarization is to be welcomed, as is the current strength of democracy in the region, as evidenced by the upcoming elections.

September 23, 2014

BN Americas