Huge US Media Lies: Venezuela, Hugo Chávez

Media lies exposed: Venezuela's economic and social performance under Hugo Chávez, in graphs

Jim McIlroy, an activist from the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity
Network
, interviewed by ABC TV News, on March 8, 2013, on the
significance of Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chavez. He successfully refutes the misinformation of the hostile "interviewer".

March 10, 2013 -- Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal -- Following the tragic death of Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez from cancer after 14 years in office, the world's big-business media has gone into overdrive to dishonestly describe Chavez's record as being "authoritarian", "dictatorial" and having made the Venezuelan economy a "basket case", as was rudely interjected by an Australian Broadcasting Corporation "journalist" in the video above. Such media lies have been refuted by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and VenezuelAnalysis.

Below the respected Center for Economic and Policy Research exposes the falsity of the charge that Venezuela's economy and social indicators have suffered under the the Bolivarian Revolution.

* * *

By Jake Johnston and Sara Kozameh

March 7, 2013 -- Center for Economic and Policy Research -- Below is a series of graphs that illustrate the economic and
social changes that have taken place in Venezuela during this time
period.

1. Growth (average annual percent)

GDP PerCap

Source: Banco Central de Venezuela

This graph shows overall GDP growth as well as per-capita growth in the pre-Chávez (1986-1999) era and the Chávez presidency.

From
1999-2003, the government did not control the state oil company; in
fact, it was controlled by his opponents, who used it to try to
overthrow the government, including the devastating oil strike of
2002-2003. For that reason, a better measure of economic growth under
the Chávez government would start after it got control over the state
oil company, and therefore the economy.

Above you can see this
growth both measured from 2004, and for the 1999-2012 period. We use
2004 because to start with 2003, a depressed year due to the oil strike,
would exaggerate GDP growth during this period; by 2004, the economy
had caught up with its pre-strike level of output. Growth after the
government got control of the state oil company was much faster.

2. Public vs. private Growth – 1999-2012 (average annual per cent)

Private Public

Source: Banco Central de Venezuela

This graph shows the growth of the private sector versus the public sector during the Chávez years.

3. Inflation: pre-Chávez vs. Chávez years

inflation

Source: Banco Central de Venezuela

Inflation in Venezuela, consumer price index.

4. Unemployment rate: before and after oil bosses strike

unemployment

Source: Banco Central de Venezuela, INEC

After
the oil strike (and the deep recession that it caused) ended in 2003,
unemployment dropped drastically, following many years of increases
before Chávez was elected. In 1999, when Chávez took office,
unemployment was 14.5 percent; for 2011 it was 7.8 percent.

5. Poverty and extreme poverty rate

poverty

Source: INEC

Poverty
has decreased significantly, dropping by nearly 50 percent since the
oil strike, with extreme poverty dropping by over 70 percent.

6. Gini coefficient, 2001-2003 Latin America

gini

Source: Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean

The Gini coefficient, measuring income inequality, fell from 0.5 to 0.397, the lowest Gini coefficient in the region.

7. Social spending as a per cent of GDP

socialspending

Source: SISOV

Social spending doubled from 11.3 per cent of GDP in 1998 to 22.8 per cent of GDP in 2011.

8. Education: net enrollment

net enrollment

Source: SISOV

9. Graduates from higher education

higher ed

Source: Ministerio del P.P. para la Educación Universitaria

10. Child malnutrition age 5 and under

malnutrition

Source: Instituto Nacional de Nutrición

11. Venezuelans receiving pensions

pensions

Source: Instituto Venezuela de los Seguros Sociales

The number of Venezuelans receiving pensions has increased from less than 500,000 in 1999 to nearly 2 million in 2011.

Source: Media lies exposed: Venezuela's economic and social performance under Hugo Chávez, in graphs | Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.