US denies jet flew over Venezuela by GinoBiffaroni

Keep the Shiny side up

Don't know why the US might be overflying Venezuela. However, I can understand why Pres. Chavez might make the claim.

His economy is running to 25% inflation, and he's just had to de-value the Bolivar against the US dollar. It went from 2.15 to 1 to 2.60 to 1 for 'essential' items and 4.30 to 1 for items considered 'non-essential' - reportedly to reduce imports and spur exports. In the unofficial markets it's going for as high as 6 to 1.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8449721.stm

And there's been no real resolution to the issue of relatives of his cabinet members getting government contracts and skimming millions.

What better time to wave the flag and denounce the Yankee Imperialists? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 9, 2010 4:39 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Heck, I'm sure Francis Gary Powers SWEARS we never flew over the Soviet Union, too. ;)

And I'm sure we got permission from Cuba before flying over their nation, right?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 9, 2010 4:46 AM

By the way, if Chavez wants to get some pictures, or even shoot them down (kinda hard to claim we weren't there if he can produce wreckage and a pilot, eh, Francis?), I know where he can get a HELL of a deal on some nice Sukhoi Su-27s. Only about $5 million each, ready to go. :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 9, 2010 8:55 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
hope next time out Chavez gets some pictures

Here it is. Obviously a U.S. plane flying over Mount Mas Prisa. That's Marx and Che on the left (well, actually, they're all on the Left). The one with the glasses must be Lenin, and the bearded one...Fidel Castro?. Yeah. That's it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 9, 2010 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Don't know why the US might be overflying Venezuela. However, I can understand why Pres. Chavez might make the claim.

His economy is running to 25% inflation, and he's just had to de-value the Bolivar against the US dollar. It went from 2.15 to 1 to 2.60 to 1 for 'essential' items and 4.30 to 1 for items considered 'non-essential' - reportedly to reduce imports and spur exports. In the unofficial markets it's going for as high as 6 to 1.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8449721.stm

And there's been no real resolution to the issue of relatives of his cabinet members getting government contracts and skimming millions.

What better time to wave the flag and denounce the Yankee Imperialists? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

As economists have been advising this move for a few years now to boost domestic manufacturing, cut inflation, and react to the tanking US dollar, I'd have to say its about time this happened...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/90dcf1ac-fd1b-11de-8952-00144feab49a.html?nc
lick_check=1

of course the other route is to borrow a ton of money from China and try to spend their way out of the global recession... I think he made the better choice.

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 9, 2010 10:32 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, if Chavez wants to get some pictures, or even shoot them down (kinda hard to claim there weren't there if he can produce wreckage and a pilot, eh, Francis?), I know where he can get a HELL of a deal on some nice Sukhoi Su-27s. Only about $5 million each, ready to go. :)

He already bought a crapload of Migs, Mikey.

I.. err, have some interests in military surplus and logistics, and I can tell you straight up that since our last failed attempt to start a coup in his country* he's been tooling up his military for a set-piece scenario based around defending his country from us - not that it'd be all that effective against a bloated military machine like ours run by folks willing to spill any amount of blood that isn't theirs, but it would substantially raise the cost of picking shit with him.

We'd win, but he'd fucking bleed us white in the doing of it, and he *knew* that ever since kicking out foreign oil companies for, yanno, not actually PAYING for the oil (or even rent, for that matter) that sooner or later we'd get all in his shit over it, especially since we've been nonstop provoking him for a damned long time, and haven't even *tried* to hide it, mind you.

That ain't to say he's a decent guy or even all that good of a leader, but he's less ruthless and exploitive than one of our puppets would be and so has the firm support of his own people despite his flaws.

Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, Chavez *is* capable of sticking a pin in our paw if we swat at him, and our long history of misdeeds in Latin America will bring him allies and us enemies if we make an issue of that, so the better policy is to quit pickin shit and giving the locals a reason to support him - eventually his own hubris will do the job for us without any need for us to get involved.

The only thing at stake is the egos of the assholes he has BEATEN on the clandestine front time and time again, our so-called "protectors" of the alphabet soup crowd, and for all I care the incompetent and rapacious bastards can lump it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 9, 2010 11:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As economists have been advising this move for a few years now to boost domestic manufacturing, cut inflation, and react to the tanking US dollar, I'd have to say its about time this happened...

From a governmental standpoint it may make sense, but the average Jose in Caracas just saw most any imported goods, say consumer electronics, an automobile, or a bottle of bourbon, double in price. Since there is very little production of these items in-country, it's pretty much either imports or nothing. The folks on the street won't be happy with this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 9, 2010 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, if Chavez wants to get some pictures, or even shoot them down (kinda hard to claim there weren't there if he can produce wreckage and a pilot, eh, Francis?), I know where he can get a HELL of a deal on some nice Sukhoi Su-27s. Only about $5 million each, ready to go. :)

He already bought a crapload of Migs, Mikey.

I.. err, have some interests in military surplus and logistics, and I can tell you straight up that since our last failed attempt to start a coup in his country* he's been tooling up his military for a set-piece scenario based around defending his country from us - not that it'd be all that effective against a bloated military machine like ours run by folks willing to spill any amount of blood that isn't theirs, but it would substantially raise the cost of picking shit with him.

We'd win, but he'd fucking bleed us white in the doing of it, and he *knew* that ever since kicking out foreign oil companies for, yanno, not actually PAYING for the oil (or even rent, for that matter) that sooner or later we'd get all in his shit over it, especially since we've been nonstop provoking him for a damned long time, and haven't even *tried* to hide it, mind you.

That ain't to say he's a decent guy or even all that good of a leader, but he's less ruthless and exploitive than one of our puppets would be and so has the firm support of his own people despite his flaws.

Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, Chavez *is* capable of sticking a pin in our paw if we swat at him, and our long history of misdeeds in Latin America will bring him allies and us enemies if we make an issue of that, so the better policy is to quit pickin shit and giving the locals a reason to support him - eventually his own hubris will do the job for us without any need for us to get involved.

The only thing at stake is the egos of the assholes he has BEATEN on the clandestine front time and time again, our so-called "protectors" of the alphabet soup crowd, and for all I care the incompetent and rapacious bastards can lump it.

-F

Yeah, Frem - I was being a bit facetious with that snark. I've no doubt Hugo has already ordered quite a fair number of surplus goodies from the former Soviet Union. In fact, if memory serves, one of the "surplus" things he ordered was a Kalashnikov factory to make his very own AK rifles (probably the updated 5.45x39mm AK-74, but could just as easily be the classic AK-47 or AK-M in 7.62x39mm). And if he really wants to export things, especially to the U.S., Americans seem to have a real affinity for a good, solid semi-automatic rifle. :) And it's damned near impossible to find a decent American-made one that's anywhere near as reliable or solid, and a half-decent AR-15 will only run you around $850 or so, compared to around $300 for a nice AK clone.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 9, 2010 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As economists have been advising this move for a few years now to boost domestic manufacturing, cut inflation, and react to the tanking US dollar, I'd have to say its about time this happened...

From a governmental standpoint it may make sense, but the average Jose in Caracas just saw most any imported goods, say consumer electronics, an automobile, or a bottle of bourbon, double in price. Since there is very little production of these items in-country, it's pretty much either imports or nothing. The folks on the street won't be happy with this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I have to admit I don't really understand how the dual exchange rate policy will work...

but in this economy, there as much as here keeping costs down on food, medical supplies, etc would have to be a priority.

and keeping folks in country working seems to be one of the end results of the deal... taking that into account it seems to be a temporary measure to shore things up until the world economy bounce back...

Mind you, compared to Argentina lately it is all roses

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 10, 2010 3:45 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I have to admit I don't really understand how the dual exchange rate policy will work...

but in this economy, there as much as here keeping costs down on food, medical supplies, etc would have to be a priority.

and keeping folks in country working seems to be one of the end results of the deal... taking that into account it seems to be a temporary measure to shore things up until the world economy bounce back...

To me, the dual exchange rate looks like the government is, in effect, putting a 100% tariff on most imported goods by a means which doesn't violate the letter of any fair trade agreements Venezuela has with other countries. This may cause some increase in domestic manufacturing, but I don't see local auto makers or flat-screen TV factories popping up any time soon. I'd guess Pres. Chavez just wants to keep more Bolivars from leaving the country.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 10, 2010 4:49 AM

I seem to remember the U.S. pushing for the same kinds of tariffs at various times in our history. Some are still pushing for such tariffs against cheap Chinese-made goods, with the goal being to try to keep manufacturing jobs and U.S. dollars here in the U.S.

Is that a bad thing for us to be doing, trying to keep jobs and dollars from flowing offshore?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 10, 2010 6:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I seem to remember the U.S. pushing for the same kinds of tariffs at various times in our history.

Well, yeah. Along with most every country in the world, at one time or another. Has it ever worked out well in the long run?

Quote:
Some are still pushing for such tariffs against cheap Chinese-made goods, with the goal being to try to keep manufacturing jobs and U.S. dollars here in the U.S.

True, although I don't give them much chance. We usually go through the WTO now if we believe China, or whoever, is dumping product.

Also, since Venezuela has little internal manufacturing of, say, consumer electronics or cars, there's no jobs to lose - just a virtual 100% surtax on any imports besides food, medicine and industrial machinery. I'd suspect that repair shops will be about the only winners, if they can get parts. Clothing makers might profit, since they have a ready and cheap labor pool. I wonder if any Chavez cronies have interests in the local fashion business?

Then again, administering this dual exchange rate business seems to offer a great opportunity to skim a little off the top here and there.

Quote:
Is that a bad thing for us to be doing, trying to keep jobs and dollars from flowing offshore?

Given the way things have generally ended up when protectionism has been tried, it seems a pretty futile effort.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 10, 2010 8:56 AM

Quote:

True, although I don't give them much chance. We usually go through the WTO now if we believe China, or whoever, is dumping product.

Which would mean that the Bush Administration was in the wrong when it imposed tariffs on Chinese-made goods in 2007...

Quote:

Also, since Venezuela has little internal manufacturing of, say, consumer electronics or cars, there's no jobs to lose - just a virtual 100% surtax on any imports besides food, medicine and industrial machinery. I'd suspect that repair shops will be about the only winners, if they can get parts. Clothing makers might profit, since they have a ready and cheap labor pool. I wonder if any Chavez cronies have interests in the local fashion business?

Oh, I'm sure there will be skimming. They may even go so far as to call such corrupt practices "no-bid contracts". ;)

By the way, you'll note tht the U.S. has little internal manufacturing of, say, consumer electronics or cars these days, too. Shall we stop any and all efforts to create jobs or save them, then, and just let other jobs go as well?

I'm not defending Chavez's actions in saying any of this; I'm just not willing to condemn him for taking the same kinds of actions that we routinely take. I figure if I don't bitch about it when we do it, I shouldn't bitch about it when someone else does it.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 10, 2010 9:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I seem to remember the U.S. pushing for the same kinds of tariffs at various times in our history.

Well, yeah. Along with most every country in the world, at one time or another. Has it ever worked out well in the long run?

Quote:
Some are still pushing for such tariffs against cheap Chinese-made goods, with the goal being to try to keep manufacturing jobs and U.S. dollars here in the U.S.

True, although I don't give them much chance. We usually go through the WTO now if we believe China, or whoever, is dumping product.

Also, since Venezuela has little internal manufacturing of, say, consumer electronics or cars, there's no jobs to lose - just a virtual 100% surtax on any imports besides food, medicine and industrial machinery. I'd suspect that repair shops will be about the only winners, if they can get parts. Clothing makers might profit, since they have a ready and cheap labor pool. I wonder if any Chavez cronies have interests in the local fashion business?

Then again, administering this dual exchange rate business seems to offer a great opportunity to skim a little off the top here and there.

Quote:
Is that a bad thing for us to be doing, trying to keep jobs and dollars from flowing offshore?

Given the way things have generally ended up when protectionism has been tried, it seems a pretty futile effort.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

But is there a huge market for cars and flat screen in Venezuela anyway?

and th US has been known to ignore WTO rulings when they thought they could get away with it, depending on the political scene... dems and reps have done it

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:17 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm not defending Chavez's actions in saying any of this; I'm just not willing to condemn him for taking the same kinds of actions that we routinely take.

Not really the same, since we don't routinely impose a 100% tariff on everything - except food, medicine, and industrial machinery - imported from anywhere. This is what Chavez has done. And to distract attention from things getting more expensive, he's back on the "America did..." button.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm not defending Chavez's actions in saying any of this; I'm just not willing to condemn him for taking the same kinds of actions that we routinely take.

Not really the same, since we don't routinely impose a 100% tariff on everything - except food, medicine, and industrial machinery - imported from anywhere. This is what Chavez has done. And to distract attention from things getting more expensive, he's back on the "America did..." button.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

or the US did buzz them with a P-3 like he says...

they have done it enough times everywhere else,

hell, wasn't it a P-3 that had collided with a chinese fighter

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/06/world/collision-with-china-washingto
n-chinese-pilot-reveled-in-risk-pentagon-says.html?pagewanted=1

Turkey threatened to start shooting down US planes in 2007 for wandering across their border...

Cuba complains this is a common occurance

Just because Chavez uses it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, the US track record on denials being factual isn't so hot

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 10, 2010 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm not defending Chavez's actions in saying any of this; I'm just not willing to condemn him for taking the same kinds of actions that we routinely take.

Not really the same, since we don't routinely impose a 100% tariff on everything - except food, medicine, and industrial machinery - imported from anywhere. This is what Chavez has done. And to distract attention from things getting more expensive, he's back on the "America did..." button.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Valid point, I'll give you that.

But it certainly wouldn't be unexpected for the U.S. to be overflying Venezuela, either, especially the more Chavez ramps up the "But America did..." rhetoric. Any time someone in the world starts blaming all the world's ills on America, I rather expect us to start keeping a closer eye on them.

Having a spokesman say that "it's not United States policy to overfly countries without their permission" is really pretty weak of the government to do. Sure, it's not OFFICIALLY our policy, but then again, we don't really torture, either, except when we do. So it's not official policy. But it DOES happen, often under direct orders from the President, the NSA, the CIA, and/or the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 10, 2010 1:47 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
But it certainly wouldn't be unexpected for the U.S. to be overflying Venezuela, either, especially the more Chavez ramps up the "But America did..." rhetoric.

Don't really see the need for it, since you can hop a commercial flight to Caracas from any major US city, and travel pretty freely within Venezuela. Sigint can be done from across borders and satellites can do pretty good visual and electronic recon. Also not too sure what we would be looking for. Besides, despite all the posturing, we still have a good bit of trade with Venezuela, and get something like 7-8% of our oil from them (more than we get from Iraq).

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 10, 2010 1:50 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
or the US did buzz them with a P-3 like he says...

Can you think of any good reason for the US to do so?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 10, 2010 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
or the US did buzz them with a P-3 like he says...

Can you think of any good reason for the US to do so?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

as in the case of China or Cuba... no

other than to keep the piss off with them and Columbia going in order to pressure the Colombians...

Mind you I accept that all the info isn't public

Doesn't change flying military aircraft into someone else's airspace is against international law

Maybe like in the Iraq case I posted above, they are looking to get somebody shot down

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 3:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
or the US did buzz them with a P-3 like he says...

Can you think of any good reason for the US to do so?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Aw, crap - now we need valid REASONS for trying to pick shit with other nations?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 4:35 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
...other than to keep the piss off with them and Columbia going in order to pressure the Colombians...

Chavez will take care of that on his on. He needs external or 'class' enemies to keep folks' minds off what his government is doing.

For example, he's gonna blame rising prices for imports - which now cost twice as much due to his economic policy - on merchants 'speculation', and encourage folks to 'denounce' any merchant who won't sell his goods for less than it now costs him to buy them wholesale - with the threat of the National Guard 'nationalizing' any businesses that are denounced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8451056.stm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 8:26 AM

Due to his economic policy ? Thats completely discounting what is going on with the global economy...

Venezuela does not operate in a vacuum

As for " the threat of the National Guard 'nationalizing' any businesses that are denounced. "

is that any different than using the IRS or local law enforcement in the US to seize businesses operating outside the laws the government comes up with ?

" Why would the US do that ? "

Why are the US deployed down there to begin with ?

Perhaps that might be a great place to start the inevitable cost cutting

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 8:35 AM

JKIDDO

Quote:
Well, yeah. Along with most every country in the world, at one time or another. Has it ever worked out well in the long run?

Well -yes, son, it has. Just ask the Chinese.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 8:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
Quote:
Well, yeah. Along with most every country in the world, at one time or another. Has it ever worked out well in the long run?
Well -yes, son, it has. Just ask the Chinese.

Oh, Signy - why must you hate America?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 1:54 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Due to his economic policy ? Thats completely discounting what is going on with the global economy...

Sorry, but the economic policy we've been discussing, the two-tier devaluation of the Bolivar, is what's gonna cause prices on imports in Venezuela to go up(especially in the short term), not the world economic situation. The devaluation is also what Chavez is referencing in his 'speculation' comments.

Quote:
As for " the threat of the National Guard 'nationalizing' any businesses that are denounced. "

is that any different than using the IRS or local law enforcement in the US to seize businesses operating outside the laws the government comes up with ?

Although it really doesn't matter in this situation what the US does or doesn't do, especially to folks in Venezuela who may lose their businesses by decree if they're denounced: yes. For one thing, there has to be due process in the U.S. Charges filed and trials held, not just presidential decrees.

Quote:
" Why would the US do that ? "

Why are the US deployed down there to begin with ?

Well, in the Netherlands Antilles it's probably mostly Navy planes for weather monitoring and joint training to support defense treaties with the Dutch. In Columbia it's for the drug war, which I agree should be cut.

BTW, hate to nitpick, but it should really be "Either you're with the terrorists, or ... you're with the terrorists".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Due to his economic policy ? Thats completely discounting what is going on with the global economy...

Sorry, but the economic policy we've been discussing, the two-tier devaluation of the Bolivar, is what's gonna cause prices on imports in Venezuela to go up(especially in the short term), not the world economic situation. The devaluation is also what Chavez is referencing in his 'speculation' comments.

My understanding is this economic policy is a response to the global economic crisis, a projected lowering of oil revenues, etc

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chavezs-snap-devaluat
ion-sparks-panic-in-the-aisles-1863904.html

" The move is nonetheless a humiliation for Mr Chavez, who changed the official name of the currency to the "strong bolivar" three years ago, promising an end to devaluations. While the government had used gushing oil revenues to pay for social programs during the boom years, the falling price of oil after 2008 and the global financial crisis have sent the economy into recession. Away from formal currency controls, the value of the bolivar had already collapsed on the black market to about one-third of its official level. "

And this gamble is also a political move, such as the " stimulus " programs in the US

" Devaluing the currency: What happens next ...

When Harold Wilson, the British Prime Minister, devalued sterling in 1967, he told the public that "the pound in your pocket" would be worth the same. He was being a bit disingenuous. It depends what you are buying with it.

A weaker currency means that buying goods from abroad is suddenly more costly – but politicians routinely hope there will be compensating benefits. If imports are more expensive, the reverse is true: exports are cheaper, something which can boost the export sectors of an economy.

That happened when the pound was devalued again in 1992, crashing out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Since then, the value of sterling has fluctuated according to trading on global financial markets.

Venezuela, by contrast, runs a system that fixes the exchange rate of its currency, the bolivar. And like Britain in 1992, it has found that global economic realities eventually catch up.

A country cannot go forever with an exchange rate that is out of sync with the balance of its economic interactions with the rest of the world. So while Venezuelans last week needed only 2.15 bolivars to buy one US dollar's-worth of goods from abroad, this week they need 4.3 bolivars. That means that imported goods suddenly cost more – something that will inevitably hit the pockets of consumers, but Hugo Chavez has his eye on a specific offsetting benefit. The US dollars that his government makes from selling Venezuelan oil will go further inside the country. Whether they go into infrastructure investment or straightforward giveaways to the poor, Mr Chavez now has more bounty to spend ahead of September's elections. "

So it is what it is, protecting jobs, creating infrastructure projects ( a bit cheaper ) to get or keep this moving until oil prices bounce back

Quote:
As for " the threat of the National Guard 'nationalizing' any businesses that are denounced. "

is that any different than using the IRS or local law enforcement in the US to seize businesses operating outside the laws the government comes up with ?
Although it really doesn't matter in this situation what the US does or doesn't do, especially to folks in Venezuela who may lose their businesses by decree if they're denounced: yes. For one thing, there has to be due process in the U.S. Charges filed and trials held, not just presidential decrees.

There are examples of Presidential decrees in the US where due process has not existed, but that is not for this thread...

I do not know what the legal process down there is , or how this will play... have to wait and see what happens when this law is enforced.

Quote:
" Why would the US do that ? "

Why are the US deployed down there to begin with ?
Well, in the Netherlands Antilles it's probably mostly Navy planes for weather monitoring and joint training to support defense treaties with the Dutch. In Columbia it's for the drug war, which I agree should be cut.

I think the war on drugs would be better attacked on the treatment and rehabilitation side, with possible savings in law enforcement and related budgets... but I am no expert.

Quote:

BTW, hate to nitpick, but it should really be "Either you're with the terrorists, or ... you're with the terrorists".

lol You have me there

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 6:28 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
My understanding is this economic policy is a response to the global economic crisis, a projected lowering of oil revenues, etc

Per the article you cite, it seems to me that Pres. Chavez artifically kept the Bolivar strong against the dollar when he thought it would benefit him, and is now betting that he and his buddies will rake in more Bolivars selling oil, and screw the folks who have to pay more for consumer goods. I expect that the next election there will be a farce, making the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, look like models of democracy.

Quote:
There are examples of Presidential decrees in the US where due process has not existed, but that is not for this thread...

I agree. What the U.S. did or didn't do relating to American businesses isn't germane to what Venezuela's government does to business in Venezuela at all.

Quote:
I think the war on drugs would be better attacked on the treatment and rehabilitation side, with possible savings in law enforcement and related budgets... but I am no expert.

You'll get no argument from me on that. U.S. drug policy for quite a while has been a massive waste of time, money, and lives.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 6:49 PM

Well, I don't think we will agree on Venezuelas economic policy...

It could go either way, boosting corruption as well as saving jobs by boosting exports and assisting the lower class folk who are not in the market for high price imports...

I can only point out in that same cite Britain did the same in 1967, and again in 1992 to mixed results.

I am not sure what an election more of a farce than Afghanistan might look like, Monty Python scripted perhaps... If they maintain the international monitoring they have had in their previous elections I have hopes they will do fine... While Chavez might not be popular with wealthy landowners down there, his base seems to be the folk who were disenfranchised peasants under previous regimes, and this economic policy seems to protect their interests... ie jobs, food, healthcare.

I wonder if the other options for him were to borrow tons of money to keep things running, or slash the services the social support net offer... this may have been the best of bad choices... at least in the short term.

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 7:09 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
It could go either way, boosting corruption as well as saving jobs by boosting exports and assisting the lower class folk who are not in the market for high price imports...

Lower class people might like to have a radio or an icebox. Maybe a TV. The chance of getting those items, and many more, just got a lot slimmer. Even if industries to manufacture them eventually start up, I doubt that economies of scale will allow businesses which have a relatively small market in a not so well off country to bring the prices down to anything near pre-devaluation prices.

Quote:
I can only point out in that same cite Britain did the same in 1967, and again in 1992 to mixed results.

The pound was devalued by 14.3% in 1976 and floated in 1992. Hardly a de facto 50% decrease in value overnight.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:26 AM

AG05

Re: Possible skirting or violation of airspace

Since the advent of radar and guided missiles, it is a not uncommon practice for SIGINT gathering aircraft to skirt another countrys airspace in a attempt to provoke the target into activating its military tracking and targeting radars. When the aircraft is targeted (but not fired upon, obivously) information can be gathered about the type, number and location of the enemy's air defenses. Handy info to have when the sabres start rattling.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:45 AM

Quote:
Posted by Geezer:

I agree. What the U.S. did or didn't do relating to American businesses isn't germane to what Venezuela's government does to business in Venezuela at all.

Why does it not surprise me at all that you wouldn't want to hold the U.S. to any of the standards you want to hold other nations to?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
Re: Possible skirting or violation of airspace

Since the advent of radar and guided missiles, it is a not uncommon practice for SIGINT gathering aircraft to skirt another countrys airspace in a attempt to provoke the target into activating its military tracking and targeting radars. When the aircraft is targeted (but not fired upon, obivously) information can be gathered about the type, number and location of the enemy's air defenses. Handy info to have when the sabres start rattling.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

So that answers the question of WHY the U.S. might do such a thing...

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:44 AM

AG05

Right. I thought that question (why would the US want to overfly Venezuela) came up earlier in the conversation.

Whether or not Venezualan airspace was actually violated, no idea.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:29 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Why does it not surprise me at all that you wouldn't want to hold the U.S. to any of the standards you want to hold other nations to?

And where did I say that? I just said it isn't germane to the current discussion of Venezuelan economic policy, specifically the dual-tier devaluation of the Bolivar and Chavez's reaction. We could throw the latest FIA rule changes for Formula 1 or the Dutch Tulip Bubbles of the 1600s into the discussion, and they'd be about as related to the issue at hand.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
Re: Possible skirting or violation of airspace

Since the advent of radar and guided missiles, it is a not uncommon practice for SIGINT gathering aircraft to skirt another countrys airspace in a attempt to provoke the target into activating its military tracking and targeting radars. When the aircraft is targeted (but not fired upon, obivously) information can be gathered about the type, number and location of the enemy's air defenses. Handy info to have when the sabres start rattling.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

As I have read, the defending country has the right under international law to shoot down aircraft doing this...

Wouldn't that make it an act of war?

and the US would be the aggressor...

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:43 AM

AG05

If that countrys airspace is violated, then yes technically the plane could be shot down. But few ever are. The real trick is to fly just outside the enemys airspace, but close enough in that his AA radar can pick you up. No one ever said it wasn't risky.

Countries commit "Acts of War" all the time. If the troops got called up every time somebody pulls stunts like this, there would be a near constant state of warfare.

You also have to consider that what the target country considers its airspace can be quite a bit different than what the international community recognizes.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Why does it not surprise me at all that you wouldn't want to hold the U.S. to any of the standards you want to hold other nations to?

And where did I say that? I just said it isn't germane to the current discussion of Venezuelan economic policy, specifically the dual-tier devaluation of the Bolivar and Chavez's reaction. We could throw the latest FIA rule changes for Formula 1 or the Dutch Tulip Bubbles of the 1600s into the discussion, and they'd be about as related to the issue at hand.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

So you're saying you consider the FIA F1 rule changes or the 1600s tulip bubble to be relevant to a discussion of how America and Venezuela act in similar economic fashions?

No wonder you don't get it.

By the way, all I ever see you do when it comes to Venezuela or Honduras is piss and moan, bitch and whine; I've never seen you offer anything by way of any kind of SOLUTION, just more whinging about how it ain't fair how they're acting.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:57 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you're saying you consider the FIA F1 rule changes or the 1600s tulip bubble to be relevant to a discussion of how America and Venezuela act in similar economic fashions?

If that had been the discussion, then maybe. As I was discussing Chavez's possible reasons for claiming American flyovers - the topic of this thread - It really has pretty much the same relevance as limiting downforce or how much a tulip bulb is really worth.

You're the one who has to unendingly try and inject something about what some American government may have done or not done sometime in history into most every thread about almost anything going on in any country in the world, no matter how tangentially (if at all) related.

Why is that, Mike?

Quote:
By the way, ... when it comes to Venezuela or Honduras ... I've never seen you offer anything by way of any kind of SOLUTION

Don't see any requirement to offer solutions on every problem in the world. Sometimes I just note them. Venezuela's problems are theirs, not mine.

However, I did offer a solution for Honduras. Leave them alone and let them work it out, without sanctions or pressure from the outside.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:28 PM

Quote:
However, I did offer a solution for Honduras. Leave them alone and let them work it out, without sanctions or pressure from the outside.

I note for the record that you ONLY suggested that AFTER a military coup put a U.S.-backed government into power.

I also note that you'd NEVER suggest leaving Venezuela alone and letting them work it out without sanctions or pressure from the outside.

Why is that, Geezer?

Quote:
Don't see any requirement to offer solutions on every problem in the world. Sometimes I just note them.

But you certainly seem to feel the requirement to bitch about it when someone else (Rue, Signy, me) notes problems in the world, and you whinge on for days about how we're not offering solutions, just bitching.

Curious that you don't mind the exact same behavior when YOU do it, and can't see the problem with it. ;)

Oh, by the way, you WEREN'T discussing possible reasons for U.S. flyovers of Venezuela (the topic of this thread) - you dismissed those allegations out of hand and quickly tried to change the subject to that bad ol' evil Hugo Chavez and how he's screwing with the economy down there, taking us far, far away from the REAL topic of this thread.

So what is the value of a tulip bulb these days, since you have no interest in actually discussing the REAL topic of this thread, and you have nothing of relevance to offer other than tulip twattle.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I also note that you'd NEVER suggest leaving Venezuela alone and letting them work it out without sanctions or pressure from the outside. Why is that, Geezer?

*Raises hand and waves it wildly*

Can I answer for Geezer?
Can I?
Can I please?
Huh? Huh? Huh?

Then I can put words in HIS mouth for a change!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

We can ALL do it AND go around with bumper stickers "WWGS ?"

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:33 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I know where he can get a HELL of a deal on some nice Sukhoi Su-27s. Only about $5 million each, ready to go. :)

I think it's funny when countries buy obsolete jet fighters because they claim they are threated by the US. They could spend their entire military budget on jets and if the US needed to, we could destroy them all on the ground before they ever got one in the air. Even if they did get in the air they would'nt fare any better. The only reason these big mouth dictators by jets is to threaten their own neighbors, or more often just to impress them. If they really feared the US, they would spend all of their money on defensive missile systems instead of worthless junk.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I know where he can get a HELL of a deal on some nice Sukhoi Su-27s. Only about $5 million each, ready to go. :)

I think it's funny when countries buy obsolete jet fighters because they claim they are threated by the US. They could spend their entire military budget on jets and if the US needed to, we could destroy them all on the ground before they ever got one in the air. Even if they did get in the air they would'nt fare any better. The only reason these big mouth dictators by jets is to threaten their own neighbors, or more often just to impress them. If they really feared the US, they would spend all of their money on defensive missile systems instead of worthless junk.

Nukes... the only way to go.

then you just need a couple guys and a sailboat to the US. Port of Baltimore or New York perhaps

that'll teach the fuckers to stay home and mind their own business

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I know where he can get a HELL of a deal on some nice Sukhoi Su-27s. Only about $5 million each, ready to go. :)

I think it's funny when countries buy obsolete jet fighters because they claim they are threated by the US. They could spend their entire military budget on jets and if the US needed to, we could destroy them all on the ground before they ever got one in the air. Even if they did get in the air they would'nt fare any better. The only reason these big mouth dictators by jets is to threaten their own neighbors, or more often just to impress them. If they really feared the US, they would spend all of their money on defensive missile systems instead of worthless junk.

One can only assume that you are lumping the U.S. into that category as well. I mean, since we already blew BILLIONS on a piece of complete and utter crap (the F-22 Raptor) that can't even get wet.

Oh, and we've spent MORE countless billions on defensive missile systems, too.

So who is it that WE fear so much, eh? I mean, if everyone else is supposed to fear OUR vaunted, undaunted superior air power, why is it that we're putting so much money into defensive missile systems?

And when you refer to all these "big mouth dictators" who are buying jets to threaten their neighbors, I have to ask: Which neighbors are WE trying to threaten, then? And which American big-mouth dictator were you referring to?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:00 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Nukes... the only way to go.

then you just need a couple guys and a sailboat to the US. Port of Baltimore or New York perhaps

that'll teach the fuckers to stay home and mind their own business

Nukes might be good as a deterant, but once someone uses the first one, a like kind respone in inevitable. That's the problem for countries that would use nukes on the US through terrorists, you never know who we'll end up responing against.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Nukes... the only way to go.

then you just need a couple guys and a sailboat to the US. Port of Baltimore or New York perhaps

that'll teach the fuckers to stay home and mind their own business

Nukes might be good as a deterant, but once someone uses the first one, a like kind respone in inevitable. That's the problem for countries that would use nukes on the US through terrorists, you never know who we'll end up responing against.

Yes hard to tell when the US might invade someone who had nothing to do with it at all

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:10 PM