RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

Another Verdict on the "Hopeless Scenario" in Venezuela

Print
Written by David Starr   
Tuesday, 02 April 2013 03:39

There is a similarity in U.S. media reporting spanning over 100 years, from "yellow journalism" to "fair and balanced," characterized by informing, or "informing," the U.S. public about international events in a simplistic, skewed, false and omitted way when it comes to ideologically protecting its country's monetary/imperial interests, particularly regarding the provoking of war/invasion, etc.

When there's a threat, or "threat," to those interests, the media becomes more or less an inquisition-or at times a virtual cheerleader-against the enemy, or "enemy," and in turn contributes to demonization campaigns against (fill in the blank), combining its "free press" propaganda with the government's.

This "objectivity" used to report news, and make commentary, was evident like a knee-jerk reaction after the death of former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

Chavez was one of those "bad guys." The public should by now be familiar with the routine. "Soothsayers" in power, academia, think tanks, and "experts" make sure the public "gets it" by bombarding it with a "hopeless scenario" regarding conditions in Venezuela under Chavez; but more because of Chavez's "blasphemy" against the current world order-apparently decaying-where inequality, poverty and threats to sovereignty are not resolved, austerity being evident of this.

But we're once again told that "freedom and democracy," and "free" trade, are being "threatened" against the "failure," this time, of 21st century socialism.

A report by Brad Schiller in the Los Angeles Times (03/24/2013) is another example with an overall tone of hopelessness regarding Chavez' policies.

The articles' title is "Hugo Chavez's voodoo economics." But wasn't, and isn't, that the name for Reaganomics, trickle-down theory, etc., i.e., profiteering, privatizing, borrow and spend and debt-producing economics? That wasn't Chavez's objective.

Schiller accuses Chavez of trying to "repeal the law of supply and demand." Over the years the latter term has been automatically associated with the emergence and dominance of the capitalist system, but where the law of supply and demand is used to prioritize private monopolies in a relationship of capital dominating labor.

But capitalism's very nature prohibits it from prioritizing any concept of democracy. True, we in the USA have had decent living standards over the years, and products usually are readily available for purchase. But what comes with it are threats of cyclical crises - boom and bust, depressions, recessions, etc. Also included is the reality that most people are not going to be among the financially-endowed 1%, despite a conditioning illusion that anyone can get rich. Simply put, it's the-rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer scenario.

Is this the kind of supply and demand Schiller is indirectly promoting, i.e., supply from the working class earning trickle-down wages and demand by the 1% earning record profits? Worldwide, that's more often true than not.

Schiller goes into some detail about Venezuela's economic situation. The Fair Cost and Prices policy, e.g., in "all cases," has "the prices set by the government below market - sometimes far below. This has caused production cutbacks, market shortages, massive government subsidies, runaway inflation and extraordinary government intervention."

Schiller makes it sound like establishing fair prices for the masses is wrong. He says that sometimes they're set far below, which may be a valid point, anything to the extreme being detrimental. However, it sounds like Schiller doesn't consider Venezuela's changing into a new system to discard the old as being valid. But the latter hasn't worked to aim at eliminating poverty and inequality, quite the contrary, as explained above.

It is possible for government to play a positive role in maintaining and varying price controls under another ideology (without government controlling 100% of everything), when aiming at equality through a fair economy complementing an evolved form of democracy. That is if humankind, especially the 1%, is really willing to do so.

The rest of the negatives asserted by Schiller are also based on that "unworkable" government policy. But for the rest, it's still the same problem of monetary and imperial relations: few have too much at the detriment of many struggling with too little. The 2008 Great Recession is a major example: increasing deregulation, casino-like investing, wild speculation, where many lost, overall, a great amount of money. The U.S. government is further being controlled by private monopoly. There have been the booms and busts, high inflation (caused by "big gubberment?" Hmm...), an increase in homelessness, lack of food for "commoners," and high medical costs.

There are other factors Schiller doesn't mention regarding Venzuela's economic problems, and which has been a detrimental factor in many countries: The almost consistent interference of today's only super power. The 2002 coup, e.g., against Chavez was found to include U.S. assistance, connected to Bush Jr.'s government.

External factors like this-contributing to maintaining imperial relations-have had an impact on Venezuela's economy, etc. Schiller's piece, like others, mostly ignore this, rehashing the same old script of a "bad guy" and his policies producing a "hopeless scenario."

© 2013 David Starr







e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN