5 ms·

On August 25, 2017, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order limiting the government of Venezuela's ability to access certain types of international

On August 25, 2017, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order limiting the government of Venezuela's ability to access certain types of international financing. This would certainly curtail the governments ability to ease the pressure of bond payments. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/25/executive-order-trump-imposes-new-round-venezuela-sanctions/601667001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/25/exec... when you cant sell assets, you cant repay a bond. PDVSA, the nationalized oil asset of the state of Venezuela, is now legally prohibited from dealing with US markets. While this all seems to be a reasonable response to the Maduro leadership issues in the country, one becomes immediately suspicious of the US intent in latin america when Vice President Pence cites the motivation as 'ensuring democracy.' the sentiment has about a 40 year grim history in the region as it applies to US foreign policy.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> one becomes immediately suspicious of the US intent in latin america These restrictions are forcing an inevitable outcome sooner. Venezuela's debt load is unsustainable for reasons entirely of Chavez and Maduro's doing (as well as the people who elected them in elections that were, until fairly recently, fair and free [1]). Suspicion is good. Using baseless suspicion to deflect attention from a well-based problem is not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Venezuela#Voting_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Venezuela#Voting_...
- ProAm 9y ago
  > one becomes immediately suspicious of the US intent. I suggest your read or watch this and you'll be immediately less suspicious [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    I've read and enjoyed it. Knowing good people who work and have worked for Bechtel, et cetera, I can assure you that the riveting read it makes contains some truths and many exaggerations. The laws the U.S. is deploying here are designed to prevent a despot from pilfering a population's wealth to pay cronies. Letting Maduro liquidate PDVSA to pay debts which should be defaulted on is precisely the intent of the law, an intent which aligns the United States with Venezuela. Again, suspicion is healthy. But using the possibility of an international conspiracy to detract from a well-established national one (in Venezuela) is disingenuous.
    - r00fus 9y ago
      The answer could be both. The problem is the lack of coverage on the ground.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    In this case, though, the point is that it doesn't actually matter. Maybe the Washington Consensus really is a racket designed to turn underdeveloped nations into 1%-favoring client states. (Frankly, the least convincing part of Perkins is the claim that this is a formal conspiracy instead of a convenient result of non-conspiracy functioning.) Even if that's true, refusing to deal with PDVSA is far from unreasonable on a practical and moral level. Maduro is running an unsustainable, patronage-based con, to the detriment of his country. Freezing his ability to do that via international finance is a pretty reasonable move, so it doesn't actually tell us anything about the presence or absence of a conspiracy.
- oliwarner 9y ago
  > inevitable outcome That's the problem here. You've decided the only way Venezuela can emerge through this is by collapse and rebirth. Pushing 31 million people right to the brink and hoping they fall your way is far from inevitable. It doesn't have to be that dramatic and painful.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > You've decided the only way Venezuela can emerge through this is by collapse and rebirth No, I have not. There are three ways a sovereign can deal with its debt: taxation, inflation and default. Chavez nationalized everything he could. Maduro inflated away the locally-denominated debt [1]. Dollar-denominated debt is immune to Bolivar inflation, so what's left is further taxation or default. Maduro is choosing further taxation. ("Taxation" refers to the government's take rate of economic activity. Democracies publish tax rates. Dictatorships seize.) I'm arguing they should default. This would be good for Venezuela but bad for Maduro's regime, which appears to use dollar debt for patronage. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Venezuela%27s_Annual_Inflation_Rates.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Venezuel...
aaron-lebo 9y ago
You probably mean well, but you are basically arguing against progress. The US might have ill intent, but even assuming ill intent, that intent is still better for the people of Venezuela than the current government which has left them starving and represses them.
- abalone 9y ago
  The president of the U.S. undermining the results of a free and fair Latin American election is not "progress". That's par for course since at least 1904.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Getting a non authoritarian regine in place would be progress in almost every way. The Monroe Doctrine precedes 1904. It's interesting that the Venezuelans have been in favor of it at times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_crisis_of_1895 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_crisis_of_1895
    - abalone 9y ago
      It is clear what Venezuelans are in favor of; they just had an election. If you support undermining the election for their own good... who is the authoritarian here?
      - aaron-lebo 9y ago
        If you really believe what you are saying, you are great prey for authoritarians, so watch out and take care.
        abalone 9y ago
        Either you believe the election was unfair or you believe it was fair but we, the U.S., have the right to undermine it. The latter is trivially an authoritarian, anti-democratic stance, although unfortunately par for course in U.S. - Latin American affairs. If you think it was unfair, you're going to have to cite some evidence. I've cited independent observers who noted the very high transparency of Venezuelan elections, to which you really had no response.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15536102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15536102
jfaucett 9y ago
regardless of what you think of Trump, this is the correct action. The maduro govt is not just full of issues, they are murdering and starving their own population and any funds are used to prop up the privileged few elite in the aristocracy. El mercosur is about to expulse venezuela so this is not just some yankee only EEUU foreign agression bs. If you support the Maduro government, you're against humanity at this point. https://elhem.co/2017/07/27/nicolas-maduro-accused-of-crimes-against-humanity/ https://elhem.co/2017/07/27/nicolas-maduro-accused-of-crimes...
- abalone 9y ago
  54% of the population supported the Maduro government in the election.[1] If you think Trump is taking the "correct action," you're against democracy at this point. [1] https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/venezuela-election-result-blow-right-wing-opposition-trump https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/venezuela-election-resu...
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    You're really citing results from an authoritarian regime known for scrubbing numbers and propaganda as evidence of popular support?
    - r00fus 9y ago
      Wait are we talking about Trump or Maduro?
    - abalone 9y ago
      No, there is good reason to believe the election was fair. The mainstream U.S. reporting on this is extremely biased; the U.S. has a long history of deeply anti-democractic attitudes towards Latin America (since at least the Monroe Doctrine). Excellent and detailed reporting here:[1] "...key opposition candidates in the governor's races in Venezuela are gradually accepting the results as legitimate, except for one controversial close race that is being challenged in the State of Bolivar where opposition has some serious allegations due to the discrepancy in the results that the CNE announced, that's the election commission in Venezuela, the results that they announce and the printout of the report that was given to each party by the voting machines." "ALEXANDER MAIN: First of all, it's really nothing new... Already in 2002, much of the corporate media internationally was suggesting that the presidency of Chávez had become something of a dictatorship and completely ignoring some of the anti-democratic activities of the opposition parties in Venezuela, and namely a coup d'etat was supported by most of Venezuela's opposition parties in April of 2002. This was initially represented as some sort of a popular uprising against the dictatorship, and it was really, I think, thanks to the reaction of other governments in the region that clearly saw that there was a coup d'etat that the narrative began to change around that. "Soon afterwards, we got back into this tradition of suggesting that there was creeping authoritarianism going on in Venezuela. Very little was said about the fact that nearly every year, sometimes twice a year in Venezuela, you had elections being held at different institutional levels. These elections would typically have very big turnouts, they'd be very transparent, very free and fair... In fact, it can be argued that the electoral system in Venezuela has gotten more and more refined in terms of the degree of transparency, to the extent that in fact, it [speaks] in part to that transparency and the internal checks and balances that today you do have this controversy in the state of Bolivar... They can do this, in fact, because they have records from electronic voting machines, which everyone believes... the fact is that you have a system that's in place that can very easily allow for verification... It really is sort of a direct contradiction of this constant claim that the country is slipping into dictatorship. You don't have that when you have constant elections in which people, the majority of voters participate and where you can have confidence in the results." [1] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20273 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
asf4232 9y ago
The ability of external powers is a point I bring up when people go on about Venezuela being a failed socialist state. With the stroke of their pens, other nations have limited what Venezuela can achieve on its own, and are forced to play the game as usual. How anyone can say it a symbol of failed socialism states when you're being squeezed by international super powers into a corner with no real access, I have no idea. Blind zealotry of their home land, IMO. I have zero faith or respect for humanity at this stage.
- whatok 9y ago
  Venezuela was well on its way to failure well before the US introduced any sanctions.
  - asf4232 9y ago
    RECENT sanctions. The US and other governments have been meddling in SA for decades. Something that CANNOT be tolerated when it comes to the US and its most recent election, right?
    - whatok 9y ago
      Not sure why you're bringing up election meddling when both Chavez and Maduro were elected. What was this meddling supposed to accomplish?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> one becomes immediately suspicious of the US intent in latin america These restrictions are forcing an inevitable outcome sooner. Venezuela's debt load is unsustainable for reasons entirely of Chavez and Maduro's doing (as well as the people who elected them in elections that were, until fairly recently, fair and free [1]). Suspicion is good. Using baseless suspicion to deflect attention from a well-based problem is not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Venezuela#Voting_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Venezuela#Voting_...

ProAm 9y ago
> one becomes immediately suspicious of the US intent. I suggest your read or watch this and you'll be immediately less suspicious [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  I've read and enjoyed it. Knowing good people who work and have worked for Bechtel, et cetera, I can assure you that the riveting read it makes contains some truths and many exaggerations. The laws the U.S. is deploying here are designed to prevent a despot from pilfering a population's wealth to pay cronies. Letting Maduro liquidate PDVSA to pay debts which should be defaulted on is precisely the intent of the law, an intent which aligns the United States with Venezuela. Again, suspicion is healthy. But using the possibility of an international conspiracy to detract from a well-established national one (in Venezuela) is disingenuous.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    The answer could be both. The problem is the lack of coverage on the ground.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  In this case, though, the point is that it doesn't actually matter. Maybe the Washington Consensus really is a racket designed to turn underdeveloped nations into 1%-favoring client states. (Frankly, the least convincing part of Perkins is the claim that this is a formal conspiracy instead of a convenient result of non-conspiracy functioning.) Even if that's true, refusing to deal with PDVSA is far from unreasonable on a practical and moral level. Maduro is running an unsustainable, patronage-based con, to the detriment of his country. Freezing his ability to do that via international finance is a pretty reasonable move, so it doesn't actually tell us anything about the presence or absence of a conspiracy.
oliwarner 9y ago
> inevitable outcome That's the problem here. You've decided the only way Venezuela can emerge through this is by collapse and rebirth. Pushing 31 million people right to the brink and hoping they fall your way is far from inevitable. It doesn't have to be that dramatic and painful.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > You've decided the only way Venezuela can emerge through this is by collapse and rebirth No, I have not. There are three ways a sovereign can deal with its debt: taxation, inflation and default. Chavez nationalized everything he could. Maduro inflated away the locally-denominated debt [1]. Dollar-denominated debt is immune to Bolivar inflation, so what's left is further taxation or default. Maduro is choosing further taxation. ("Taxation" refers to the government's take rate of economic activity. Democracies publish tax rates. Dictatorships seize.) I'm arguing they should default. This would be good for Venezuela but bad for Maduro's regime, which appears to use dollar debt for patronage. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Venezuela%27s_Annual_Inflation_Rates.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Venezuel...

aaron-lebo 9y ago

You probably mean well, but you are basically arguing against progress. The US might have ill intent, but even assuming ill intent, that intent is still better for the people of Venezuela than the current government which has left them starving and represses them.

abalone 9y ago
The president of the U.S. undermining the results of a free and fair Latin American election is not "progress". That's par for course since at least 1904.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Getting a non authoritarian regine in place would be progress in almost every way. The Monroe Doctrine precedes 1904. It's interesting that the Venezuelans have been in favor of it at times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_crisis_of_1895 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_crisis_of_1895
  - abalone 9y ago
    It is clear what Venezuelans are in favor of; they just had an election. If you support undermining the election for their own good... who is the authoritarian here?
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      If you really believe what you are saying, you are great prey for authoritarians, so watch out and take care.
      - abalone 9y ago
        Either you believe the election was unfair or you believe it was fair but we, the U.S., have the right to undermine it. The latter is trivially an authoritarian, anti-democratic stance, although unfortunately par for course in U.S. - Latin American affairs. If you think it was unfair, you're going to have to cite some evidence. I've cited independent observers who noted the very high transparency of Venezuelan elections, to which you really had no response.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15536102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15536102

jfaucett 9y ago

regardless of what you think of Trump, this is the correct action. The maduro govt is not just full of issues, they are murdering and starving their own population and any funds are used to prop up the privileged few elite in the aristocracy. El mercosur is about to expulse venezuela so this is not just some yankee only EEUU foreign agression bs. If you support the Maduro government, you're against humanity at this point. https://elhem.co/2017/07/27/nicolas-maduro-accused-of-crimes-against-humanity/ https://elhem.co/2017/07/27/nicolas-maduro-accused-of-crimes...

abalone 9y ago
54% of the population supported the Maduro government in the election.[1] If you think Trump is taking the "correct action," you're against democracy at this point. [1] https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/venezuela-election-result-blow-right-wing-opposition-trump https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/venezuela-election-resu...
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  You're really citing results from an authoritarian regime known for scrubbing numbers and propaganda as evidence of popular support?
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Wait are we talking about Trump or Maduro?
  - abalone 9y ago
    No, there is good reason to believe the election was fair. The mainstream U.S. reporting on this is extremely biased; the U.S. has a long history of deeply anti-democractic attitudes towards Latin America (since at least the Monroe Doctrine). Excellent and detailed reporting here:[1] "...key opposition candidates in the governor's races in Venezuela are gradually accepting the results as legitimate, except for one controversial close race that is being challenged in the State of Bolivar where opposition has some serious allegations due to the discrepancy in the results that the CNE announced, that's the election commission in Venezuela, the results that they announce and the printout of the report that was given to each party by the voting machines." "ALEXANDER MAIN: First of all, it's really nothing new... Already in 2002, much of the corporate media internationally was suggesting that the presidency of Chávez had become something of a dictatorship and completely ignoring some of the anti-democratic activities of the opposition parties in Venezuela, and namely a coup d'etat was supported by most of Venezuela's opposition parties in April of 2002. This was initially represented as some sort of a popular uprising against the dictatorship, and it was really, I think, thanks to the reaction of other governments in the region that clearly saw that there was a coup d'etat that the narrative began to change around that. "Soon afterwards, we got back into this tradition of suggesting that there was creeping authoritarianism going on in Venezuela. Very little was said about the fact that nearly every year, sometimes twice a year in Venezuela, you had elections being held at different institutional levels. These elections would typically have very big turnouts, they'd be very transparent, very free and fair... In fact, it can be argued that the electoral system in Venezuela has gotten more and more refined in terms of the degree of transparency, to the extent that in fact, it [speaks] in part to that transparency and the internal checks and balances that today you do have this controversy in the state of Bolivar... They can do this, in fact, because they have records from electronic voting machines, which everyone believes... the fact is that you have a system that's in place that can very easily allow for verification... It really is sort of a direct contradiction of this constant claim that the country is slipping into dictatorship. You don't have that when you have constant elections in which people, the majority of voters participate and where you can have confidence in the results." [1] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20273 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...

asf4232 9y ago

The ability of external powers is a point I bring up when people go on about Venezuela being a failed socialist state. With the stroke of their pens, other nations have limited what Venezuela can achieve on its own, and are forced to play the game as usual. How anyone can say it a symbol of failed socialism states when you're being squeezed by international super powers into a corner with no real access, I have no idea. Blind zealotry of their home land, IMO. I have zero faith or respect for humanity at this stage.

whatok 9y ago
Venezuela was well on its way to failure well before the US introduced any sanctions.
- asf4232 9y ago
  RECENT sanctions. The US and other governments have been meddling in SA for decades. Something that CANNOT be tolerated when it comes to the US and its most recent election, right?
  - whatok 9y ago
    Not sure why you're bringing up election meddling when both Chavez and Maduro were elected. What was this meddling supposed to accomplish?