The plot thickens.
New revelations in Venezuela have linked U.S. private security firm Blackwater, now known as Academi, to the aircraft that was to be used as part of Thursday’s thwarted “Blue Coup” attempt.
The four-stage plan included economic war, an international media offensive against the Venezuelan government, political destabilization fomenting ungovernability, and finally the use of a Super Tucano aircraft to strike “tactical targets” in the capital, such as the Presidential Palace, teleSur, and military intelligence.
The coup was planned for the one-year anniversary of violent opposition protests known as the Guarimba and was to come one day after a public statement by leading opposition leaders calling for a “transition”.nsnbc
Venezuelan Officials allege Blackwater, U.S. and Canadian Links to thwarted Coup
Lucas Koerner | Venezuelanalysis
30 comments:
Try to find a neutral source, Tom.
Well, to use the logic that Tom has espoused on MNE, for Russia, US was feeling encircled by the EurAsians alliance who are actively courting South American countries. So the US had to assert control and make sure that they drew a red line to prevent the spread of the toxic Eastern culture. I've seen no evidence that these little green men are in any way linked to the USA.
There are no neutral sources. One needs to examine the spectrum, realizing that this is limited to the language one knows and the sources to which one has access, to form an opinion, which will necessarily be biased by one's own hidden assumptions and subliminal "stuff."
Even purported evidence is suspect, especially now with the ability to alter digital photos, and knowledge that disinformation is rampant. If the truth ever emerges, it is usually some time after the fact.
Well, to use the logic that Tom has espoused on MNE, for Russia, US was feeling encircled by the EurAsians alliance who are actively courting South American countries.
False equivalence. Do a search on US military bases and another on Russian military bases.
Cuba?
Everything We Know About The Huge Spy Base In Cuba That Russia Is Reopening
Initially Putin's Russia announced bases in Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, and Nicaragua. But then once Washington protested (and probably threatened to open bases in Eastern Europe and former Soviet nations), Russia backtracked and said they had no plans in latin america. Fairly equivalent to the alleged influence. Lavrov has been seen in Mexico. We strongly suspect he is behind much of the violence you see in Mexico. (We have lots of conspiracies and dicey evidence if you are interested)
It's pretty clear that one of the primary reasons that the US has so many bases around the world is to protect US business interests and international commerce.
Russia isn't likely to develop anywhere near along these lines anytime soon. But China is already. and it can be expected to protect its interests similarly by projecting military power globally.
It can be projected that the one alliance will be the existing one with the US at the forefront economically and militarily. The other will be an alliance among the now emerging nations led by BRICS, soon to be joined by Iran, and initially led by Russia and China militarily, who will provide cover, intelligence, and weapons systems to the others.
Much of it is a legacy from WW2. During the cold war countries aligned with the US to help provide the US with regional security and their own stability in return.
Right, and with good sense that would have been largely dismantled after the dissolution of the USSR and Warsaw Pact. Instead, the US pushed forward with global hegemony.
Looks like Lavrov's got more pressing business in Mexico. He announced last week on RT that he was going back AGAIN. While Eduard Malayán is pressing for closer "social and cultural ties" while pushing aircraft and arms sales. Encirclement.
Maybe Blackwater was trying to smuggle in some contraband toilet paper to friendlies there.... They smuggle in drugs to the US and we try to smuggle in toilet paper and feminine products into there....
Maybe they thought the Blackwater people said "over-throw" while what they really said was that any substitute products would make the toilets "over-flow".... ????
There are no neutral sources. One needs to examine the spectrum, realizing that this is limited to the language one knows and the sources to which one has access, to form an opinion, which will necessarily be biased by one's own hidden assumptions and subliminal "stuff."
Why is your spectrum limited to issuances from the Venezuelan government?
Wikipedia provides tons of sources to examine and weigh against.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela
Bob,
Wikipedia? Neutral? Right...
What has that got to do with the alleged coup? The government is claiming a coup was organized, and those apprehended will be prosecuted in the courts, so we can then judge from the proceedings.
The Wikipedia article can be read different ways — from the neoliberal perspective that it has Dutch disease by relying on oil production, and from the social perspective that the Gini coefficient is coming down and the there is greater equality of distribution.
According to the neoliberal view prosperity is based on GDP per capita regardless of distribution. According to the social democratic view, distribution is the basis of prosperity.
In the neoliberal view "What's good for General Motors is good for America." In the social democratic view it is how the people as whole are doing, not just the wealthy. In Venezuela the upper decile own half the wealth and that is the declared wealth, not what is stashed secretly abroad. The lower decile owns 3% of the wealth.
Tom,
We can observe what has/is happening with the economy, as well as social conditions. Facts help to give us a sense of the bigger picture.
As long as the Venezuelan government wants to talk about coups, just as the American government wants to talk about "the recovery", we need to look elsewhere.
Jeff,
Wikipedia is not neutral, but it does list its sources, which are supposed to be of higher quality than say, a blog.
The question then becomes why a country is not doing well economically. Venezuela and most other emerging countries are not likely to do well unless follow neoliberal policy for a number of reasons not related as much to economics as to politics and power. All of Latin America and much of the rest of the world has been under the boot for centuries since the advent of imperialism and colonialism. This has shifted from the imperialism and colonialism of Old Europe to the post WWII neoliberal, neo-imperialist, and neocolonial order under US plutocratic hegemony. Gunboat diplomacy has been somewhat replaced by other methods such as economic warfare and violence has generally relegated to proxies and black ops although the US continues to intervene military, too.
From an MMT perspective, Venezuela could have done more to strengthen and diversify its economy. Matt says "we know how to do economics". Apparently they didn't, and they had 15 years with which to learn.
Good economic policies are crucial to keeping critics and bullies at bay.
Criticizing economic decision based on not understanding MMT is all well and good, but it's so general as to be meaningless. There has hardly ever been a government that has run itself on such understanding.
If all governments understood MMT, the world still would not be a utopia because many other factors are operative.
MMT is not a panacea for many countries, in fact, probably most countries, and MMT proponents who present it as such do MMT a disservice. It comes across as naïve and dogmatic.
The economies might be somewhat better but they also might not. Again, there are a lot of factors operative that influence outcomes, especially having to do with asymmetries. MMT doesn't address that as either an operational description or a macro theory.
Tom:MMT is not a panacea for many countries, in fact, probably most countries, and MMT proponents who present it as such do MMT a disservice. It comes across as naïve and dogmatic..
The economies might be somewhat better but they also might not. Again, there are a lot of factors operative that influence outcomes, especially having to do with asymmetries. MMT doesn't address that as either an operational description or a macro theory.
Nonsense. Try replacing MMT here with "addition & subtraction". Sure, a society might not be better off if it "adopted MMT" i.e. understood what it was doing all along - and the obvious consequence - full employment, the JG. Same way being "naive & dogmatic" about 2+2=4, rejecting the earlier 2+2=5 theory & replacing all them square wheels with round ones might not help.
If other nations started bombing it or blockading it. Military force. No. Other. Way.
Thinking otherwise indicates a dire need for studying some more MMT/FF. As I have been saying for a long time, the end of Abba Lerner's Economics of Employment is wonderful on such matters.
Venezuela's main economic problem up to now has been a stupid dual exchange rate system -see Mark Weisbrot, who a la MMT= common sense says, let it float.
You may as well say that poor countries are destined to remain impoverished, and that economic policies can improve their outcomes only marginally. You may as well say TINA.
There is plenty to criticize in terms of currency exchange and price controls that don't necessarily have to have an MMT perspective. The Venezuelan government can ignore such criticisms, but they won't be able to ignore the reality that their current course is unsustainable.
"God will provide." Yeah, right.
My view is that social and political conditions trump economic knowledge. The wisest economic policy will not help if it is not both adopted and carried through. There are always powerful interests aligned against allowing that to happen, so far it almost never has. Even FDR did not always listen to those who we understand to have been his best advisers. 1937 is a demonstration of that. The cause of the world situation is not so much ignorance of economics as pursuit of personal, family and class interest. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply being naïve in my view. What this means is that it is not possible to reform what passes for liberalism, and attempting to compromise with it might succeed temporarily, but they'll always be back as long as social and political conditions permit it.
Again, one simple solution if it is proposed as such. Might help and then and again it might not if certain parties decide to bury the currency in order to destabilize the country. Would China step in to stabilize it as apparently it did with the falling RUB?
Even the US, which is operating a floating currency isn't in reality. Allan Greenspan — We ( the Fed) run as if on a gold standard.
As Bill Black has pointed out, all the necessary tools, ,laws and regs were in place to prevent the crisis as well as to repair it quickly. They were not used because that would have hurt TPTB, so the rest of the country got to take one for the team.
You may as well say that poor countries are destined to remain impoverished, and that economic policies can improve their outcomes only marginally. You may as well say TINA.
Until they can stand up to TPTB, that will be the case. MMT won't save them.
That won't happen without a multipolar world and strong alliances against the Western alliance, as many countries are now recognizing.
For example, Stephanie has been in DC for some time now, long enough to get it. I am willing to bet she is now thinking, WTF?!!!!
Tom:Until they can stand up to TPTB, that will be the case. MMT won't save them.
People stand up to the TPTB all the time. Problem is that their rifles are usually pointed at themselves - to the amused delight of TPTB. All that MMT says is which way to point them. This knowledge really, really, really helps everyone who learns it. Just like knowing how to add & subtract, which is most of MMT anyways.
Bob - yes. Basically Tom is saying TINA. Venezuela's policies and record were pretty good except for the exchange rate follies - far better performance than if it had obeyed the neoliberal thugs. I am at a loss to express adequately how profoundly shortsighted, irrational and inconsistent with millennia of history and thought Tom's views are here. While as usual grossly exaggerating the power of foreign countries to hurt others via purely economic means.
To show how widespread such distorted thinking is: Yves Smith of NC is great! But is groundlessly, irrationally pessimistic about Greece. I told her Greece can feed itself - according to the Greek farmers. But foreign commerce just must be ALL IMPORTANT - so yesterday she rhetorically asked- what about the food riots after Grexit? :(
My view is that social and political conditions trump economic knowledge.
The radical left will agree with you, which is why they emphasize the importance of building a social consensus (grassroots, bottom up movement). The social consensus then builds its own political consensus.
Does that trump economic knowledge? No, that knowledge is still necessary, whether in the hands of a few technocrats, or recognized by everyone.
Well, we differ on this and in my view it’s the major flaw of economists. They underestimate the social and political factors that result, for example, in class interests and the power to impose them, both domestically and internationally.
While I agree that a well-managed country at least has a chance at success, if powerful forces oppose, then that government will not survive or eventually be coopted.
Look at the US and the New Deal. Most of what was needed was it place and US became the world leader and largest economy after WWII, with reasonably well distributed prosperity. However, TPTB sought from the very beginning to turn that around and eventually they did.
If that can happen in the US, who else is safe, especially smaller countries like Venezuela, especially now that the US using sanctions to isolate opponents. Yes, Cuba survived but with a very basic economy and no prospects, to the degree that it is now willing to step into the tiger's mouth.
The New Deal was undone in part because capitalism cannot be reformed. The means to influence government policy was left in the hands of large corporations and property owners. And they had every incentive to roll back what FDR had begun.
Representative government became much less representative of the concerns of ordinary citizens.
Extreme inequality leads to social disruption. The US is not immune to the kind of social movements, whether they be grassroots or populist, that are powerful enough to overcome the status quo. The deciding factors are the level of desperation of those seeking change and the level of repression that those opposed to change are able to apply.
What happens in the longer term depends on what kind of change was instituted. Marxists will argue that mere reforms are insufficient to permanently 'fix' the excesses of capitalism. Progressives will argue that there is a way to reform institutions and policy, so that lessons from the past will not be repeated.
I'm of the belief that lasting change must be based on a direct democratic model. This requires the participation of an informed citizenry who understand the importance of politics as well as economics. Economic illiteracy must be fought and be seen as necessary as having reading and math skills.
Surely we can build a society and an economy that serves the needs of ordinary people, so long as the people have power. While representative democracy can respond to pressure from below, it has shown a tendency to re-appropriate power for itself as time goes by.
As for geopolitics, that is a problem borne from nation states and their rivalries. I can only surmise that a direct democratic movement would not be interested in maintaining that type of posturing. Depending on the hostility of other regimes, they may have to.
Cuba, Venezuela and others have remained independent by maintaining popular support. A major factor to that is how they are doing economically. What they have experienced in the past also plays a role, for better or worse.
Post a Comment