Vote for socialists and experience the joys of brownouts

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Maybe he should quit buying tanks and fighters and send that money to build plants...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081023/wl_nm/us_venezuela_electricity

SAN FELIX, Venezuela (Reuters) – Despite having some of the world's largest energy reserves, Venezuela is increasingly struggling to maintain basic electrical service, a growing challenge for leftist President Hugo Chavez.

The OPEC nation has suffered three nationwide blackouts this year, and chronic power shortages have sparked protests from the western Andean highlands to San Felix, a city of mostly poor industrial workers in the sweltering south.

Shoddy electrical service is now one of Venezuelans' top concerns, according to a recent poll, and may be a factor in elections next month for governors and mayors in which Chavez allies are expected to lose key posts, in part on complaints of poor services.

The problem suggests that Chavez, with his ambitious international alliances and promises to end capitalism, risks alienating supporters by failing to focus on basic issues like electricity, trash collection and law enforcement.

"With so much energy in Venezuela, how can we be without power?" asked Fernando Aponte, 49, whose slum neighborhood of Las Delicias in San Felix spent 15 days without electricity -- leading him to block a nearby avenue with burning tires in protest.

Just next door, Carmen Fernandez, 82, who is blind and has a pacemaker, says she has trouble sleeping through sultry nights without even a fan to cool her.

Experts say Venezuela for years has skimped billions of dollars in electrical investments, leaving generation 20 percent below the level necessary for a stable power grid and increasing the risk of national outages. Officially Venezuela has a capacity of 22,500 megawatts for a population of 28 million people, but a sizeable proportion is not working, analysts say.

And while Chavez has won praise for investing in health and education, his government has done little to repair local distribution systems that deliver electricity to end users, from barrio residents to business and industries.

'GOD HEARD ME'

Pastora Medina, a legislator representing San Felix and nearby cities suffering chronic power problems, this month tried to bring the issue up in the national Congress in Caracas, but the legislature's leadership refused to let her speak.

Several hours later, as the legislature discussed a South American integration plan created by Chavez, Congress itself lost power for around 10 minutes.

"Congress wouldn't listen to me, but God must have," Medina said with a chuckle as she recounted the incident later at her office in San Felix.

Though it is a key oil exporter, most of Venezuela's power comes from hydroelectricity generated in dams in the southeast, near Brazil, and sent to the rest of the country. The remainder comes mainly from aging oil-fired plants.

The transimission system is also suffering from underinvestment, which makes it vulnerable to the failures that caused this year's blackouts.

The government has responded by building dozens of tiny local plants that generate a fraction of a percent of national consumption, a model known as "distributed generation" used in Cuba, where a U.S. embargo impedes electrical development.

But to keep up with demand, Venezuela needed to add 1,000 megawatts of new generation capacity every year for at least the last five years, but instead it has installed only about 350 MW a year.

"We have to reach the most remote villages with the system of distributed generation," Chavez said in recent speech, inaugurating a generator in a town with deficient power.

His government has also promised to accelerate new generation and boost transmission grid investment.

BARRIO IMPACT

But critics say these small power plants are political quick fixes that avoid tackling the thorny problems of boosting generation and fixing decrepit distribution systems.

"We need a clear energy policy, because the policy we have is not sustainable," Andres Matas, a former planning chief for a state power company. "This is a problem for the entire country."

He said this will require investment in local distribution systems, speeding up generation projects stalled for years by bureaucracy and lifting state-imposed price controls that keep tariffs at about 20 percent of what U.S. residents pay.

It will also require collecting fees from millions of barrio residents who illegally link their homes to the power grid with improvised and dangerous lines -- a move not likely to be popular with a government that depends on barrio votes.

Even as he enjoys strong support for his oil-financed social development campaign, polls show Chavez sympathizers are losing patience with the national and local politicians' inability to tackle bread-and-butter issues.

Chavez last year fired up his supporters with a wave of state takeovers including the nationalization of electricity operations, among them Electricidad de Caracas, which was majority owned by U.S.-based AES Corp.

But his supporters now seem more concerned about deteriorating service than the state ownership.

Chronic power problems take the strongest toll in barrios like those of San Felix -- still bastions of Chavez support -- where power surges routinely burn out home appliances.

"Our refrigerators have burned out so we can't shop for the week, we can only shop for one day at a time," said Nestor Pacheco, 39. "The situation is serious."

(Reporting by Brian Ellsworth; Editing by Eddie Evans)

**reds8n**

Frazzled wrote:Maybe he should quit buying tanks and fighters and send that money to build plants...

indeed

Bloody Democrats ! Not even elected yet and already there's an energy shortage !

**Frazzled**

Not in Texas. We're #1 in wind energy, finally harnassing the power of Hot Air...

**Kilkrazy**

We've got the opposite problem.

Having privatised the national grid our power balancing difficulties have greatly increased.

Not to mention our privatised water industry, privatised train industry, privatised gas and electricity and amazingly, our privatised building societies.

Our privatised nuclear industry is a joke. We've just decided to sell what's left of it to the French. Our privatised airline and airport are doing bably too.

The amazing thing is many of these privatised industries still suck up so much public subsidies and favours.

The UK is no.1 in off-shore wind energy.

**Miguelsan**

In Spain the energy industry was privatized on late 90s and proceed to make HUGE profits buying and selling the smallest companies. Come 2005 and country wide brownouts due to lack of capacity and obsolescence of the infrastructure, the industry claims for new deregulation of prices and markets because they have blown the previous benefits playing empire building...

I agree Frazzled, Socialism is a joke, but real world Capitalism and free market are a worse joke

M.

**Frazzled**

Miguelsan wrote:In Spain the energy industry was privatized on late 90s and proceed to make HUGE profits buying and selling the smallest companies. Come 2005 and country wide brownouts due to lack of capacity and obsolescence of the infrastructure, the industry claims for new deregulation of prices and markets because they have blown the previous benefits playing empire building...

I agree Frazzled, Socialism is a joke, but real world Capitalism and free market are a worse joke

M.

Really. Its that real world capitalism that allows you to type and post that message. Its real world capitalism that reearched and developed the medicines you'll be using, the machinery you'll be using, and most of the techniques you'll be using. Communism invented nothing but pain and death. Socialist countries without capitalism have historically pulled GDPs of half that of capitalist countries. Look at the evolgin fascist state of China and Vietnam. Both started growing rapidly when they started to capitlize. Now look at North Korea. The only thing it grows is death camps. Unfettered anything is bad, but lets stay in the real world here.

**Kilkrazy**

The Internet was invented by a US government research agency, and the WWW was invented by a European government research agency -- both supported by taxes. Perhaps fettered capitalism is the way.

(And while I'm at it, computing was invented by a UK government research agency.)

**Frazzled**

How about the computer you're typing on? How about the software?

**Mannahnin**

Moving the goalposts.

**Kilkrazy**

The software is a freeware browser developed under the Open GPL.

**Frazzled**

Mannahnin wrote:Moving the goalposts.

No actually, thats what I meant. The Computers were made by evil capitalists. The defense systems putting together the initial internet was capitalist. The software and systems are made by evil capitalists. The servers were designed, built, and sold by evil capitalists. The pizza eatern by the programmers when programming was made by evil capitalists. Without evil capitalists we revert to Vietnam 1978. Corporations suck but government sucks even more.

Fedex overnight, cheap. US Mail, gets there sometime, maybe.

**Mannahnin**

US Mail is cheap and very reliable. Fedex has been pretty bad for me this year.

**Frazzled**

I never send anything through themail if I can help it. I've found it to be the opposite. It may be a regional thing.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

No actually, thats what I meant. The Computers were made by evil capitalists. The defense systems putting together the initial internet was capitalist. The software and systems are made by evil capitalists. The servers were designed, built, and sold by evil capitalists. The pizza eatern by the programmers when programming was made by evil capitalists. Without evil capitalists we revert to Vietnam 1978. Corporations suck but government sucks even more.

There is a time for the corporation and a time for government. In the late 70's, when the capital gains tax was 70%, the government needed to be reigned in. Now, when the capital gains tax is 15%, the government needs to be expanded. Tax the wealthy, adjust the corporate tax, and spike the short-term capital gains tax. All while increasing the net tax revenue of the state. If people want public services, they have to pay for them.

**sebster**

Frazzled, you seem to be working on the assumption that the Western world is capitalist. It isn’t. There have been brief periods of systems that were fairly close to unregulated, capitalist markets and they were pretty universally disastrous. There are select markets out there that are pretty close to unregulated open markets, but they’re rarely where you think they are (stock exchange definitely not, second hand lawn mower market yes).

The West, including that bastion of free markets the US, is a market economy with strong levels of government intervention. Exactly where and how much intervention is debatable, but we know two very important things, no intervention leads to systemic abuse, and the inefficiency inevitable in the tragedy of the commons, while excessive intervention leads to distortions, bureaucracy and a stifling of progress.

At the end of the day, people need to stop with the silliness about capitalism and socialism. You were both right, but mostly you were both wrong. Neither ideology is entirely effective in the real world. The way forward is to be found in markets with proper regulation and intervention.

**Kilkrazy**

We ought to define what we mean by "success" before we start looking at how to achieve it.

For example, the US is the world's largest economy, richest nation, lots of millionaires and so on, but has some fairly poor public health stats.

Scandinavian countries on the whole have much better public health, but high taxes.

Is there an ideal balance and does it depend on the population's psychology? US citizens are more individualistic than Europeans who tend to be more group oriented. (British are in between.)

**Frazzled**

Capitalist markets does not mean unregulated markets. I'm not sure where you procured that interesting concept from.

**Redbeard**

Frazzled wrote:
Maybe he should quit buying tanks and fighters and send that money to build plants...

My wife tells me to stop buying tanks and fighters too.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Capitalist markets does not mean unregulated markets. I'm not sure where you procured that interesting concept from.

Probably the part where you said government is worse than the corporate sector. This isn't meant as a dig. Just pointing out that its the message I from reading that line.

**warpcrafter**

It's not about capitalism or socialism, it's about the balance between greed and lust for power and the need to keep the people and the infrastructure functioning. If the governments (Like ours...) allow themselves to be suborned by corporate interests, everyone suffers. If the governments (Like in N. Korea) are too heavy-handed, also everyone suffers. The people have become too complacent. The powers that be will continue to trample over the people until the have some fear struck in them.

**AgeOfEgos**

Frazzled wrote:Capitalist markets does not mean unregulated markets. I'm not sure where you procured that interesting concept from.

Because the term is ill-defined. You can't simply state 'Capitalist' without context and expect people to understand what you mean. Mixed economy capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism...or?

**Miguelsan**

It´s the same with socialism.

An example: I´ve been part of a socialised medicine plan paid with taxes since I was a child (a big "horror movie" for quite a few US citizens) I´ve never had any complaint and it was very efficient. Of course there are long waiting lines in some fields and places, that´s inevitable, but when some years ago my father had liver trouble he went to the private sector and guess what he got put on a 3 month waiting list, he went back to the public health service and skiping Madrid´s, where I used to live, hospitals for Valencia´s ones , where he was born, a city with 3 times less population he was out ot the OR and back at home before his first visit to this private doctor was due.

My point, the image of socialised markets are not the same at both sides of the pond and that as always the true virtue lies on the middle point.

Its real world capitalism that reearched and developed the medicines you'll be using, the machinery you'll be using, and most of the techniques you'll be using.

Even when, as already pointed, the people that designed those machines or was trained on those techniques or developed those medicines used public resources coming form the State?

Communism invented nothing but pain and death.

They put satelite (I´ll grant you that at a great cost to their people) out there first forcing the US goverment to set up a national space agency. Look communism was not the best deal of the century but they had their share of advances and not everything can be reduced to a GNP number or a balance sheet and Free Market has quite a few pitfalls, for starters corporations that are anything but Free Market supporters.

M.

**AgeOfEgos**

Miguelsan wrote:It´s the same with socialism.

An example: I´ve been part of a socialised medicine plan paid with taxes since I was a child (a big "horror movie" for quite a few US citizens) I´ve never had any complaint and it was very efficient. Of course there are long waiting lines in some fields and places, that´s inevitable, but when some years ago my father had liver trouble he went to the private sector and guess what he got put on a 3 month waiting list, he went back to the public health service and skiping Madrid´s, where I used to live, hospitals for Valencia´s ones , where he was born, a city with 3 times less population he was out ot the OR and back at home before his first visit to this private doctor was due.

My point, the image of socialised markets are not the same at both sides of the pond and that as always the true virtue lies on the middle point.

Its real world capitalism that reearched and developed the medicines you'll be using, the machinery you'll be using, and most of the techniques you'll be using.

Even when, as already pointed, the people that designed those machines or was trained on those techniques or developed those medicines used public resources coming form the State?

Communism invented nothing but pain and death.
They put satelite (I´ll grant you that at a great cost to their people) out there first forcing the US goverment to set up a national space agency. Look communism was not the best deal of the century but they had their share of advances and not everything can be reduced to a GNP number or a balance sheet and Free Market has quite a few pitfalls, for starters corporations that are anything but Free Market supporters.

M.

Absolutely right. To expore it even further, one could state that the Soviet Union was socialist, not communist (even if identified as such). True communism destroys the state while socialism requires it...and even then socialism is seen as a necessary step to realize true (Marxist) communism.

I believe we are on the road to a quasi-socialist state, which I'm perfectly comfortable with. Universal Health Care will be a big step in the right direction...

**lord_sutekh**

One could even say that a true communist seeks less and less intrusion of government into society, until it ceases to exist... so the whole "smaller government" push on the Republican side could be construed as a push toward communism, while the push toward larger/necessary government on the Democratic side goes toward socialism. Another thing to consider: most of our allies are fairly stronger on socialism than we, while our enemies (at the moment) are mainly less socialized.

**dogma**

In 450 BCE Confucius espoused his 'Doctrine of the Mean'. In 350 BCE Aristotle spoke of the 'Golden Mean'. In the year 2008 most people remain ignorant of both.

In any case, I think its more accurate to say that both big government and small government are pushes towards a communist ideal. In the case of big government technology becomes so advanced, and concentrated, that the government becomes superior to the people (Post-War scientific progress, the advent of heavy cannon following the Landschnekt period). While for small its more a case of the people becoming superior to the government through the technology diffusion (the spread of computers, cheap AK-47s). It is illuminating to note that only through cooperation does technology progress, so the question isn't really one of individualism vs. collectivism, but of to what degree is cooperation necessary for advancement.

Oddly enough it turns out that more complicated things require more cooperation to develop, but that only through less cooperation can those same articles become widespread. If the articles never become widespread, then there is no reason for the cooperation necessary for their development to continue. At that point cooperation stops and capitalization takes over as the upper echelons cash in on their advantaged position. Eventually capitalization leads to collusion as the extremely wealthy discover the only way for them to continue making money is by interacting with each other. At this point there is a deliberate effort by those at the top of the financial to remain in such a position. The economy stagnates, and the desire to cooperate trickles down from the upper echelons.

This is by no means to be taken as anything approaching truth (its part of a proposal I'm writing for a grant), but I find it interesting for a couple reasons.

1) It postulates that a social democracy is the only state which is capable of making major leaps in technology. And that, as a result, only a social democracy can maintain a privileged position in an economy through nominal market forces.

2) It would seem logical that, given the close association of technology and organization, Moore's Law should also apply to the theory of political cycles. Basically, the bounce between cooperation and capitalization speeds up, and in doing so flattens out. Barring major externalities (nuclear war, asteroid, aliens, et al).

**Kilkrazy**

The fact is that organisations succeed or fail depending on the management and workforce, whether they are in the public or private sector.

**Waaagh_Gonads**

He wants to be a part of...

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:Capitalist markets does not mean unregulated markets. I'm not sure where you procured that interesting concept from.

If you want to look at the argument at a very theoretical, very basic level, then sure. But the only reason to pretend you wanted to do that was to score a cheap point on the internet.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can keep in mind the context in which this debate takes place, in which the right wing free marketeers consistantly argue against government intervention, often arguing for no more intervention than the protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts.

**PanamaG**

Frazzled wrote:Communism invented nothing but pain and death. Socialist countries without capitalism have historically pulled GDPs of half that of capitalist countries.

Wooo there is sanity in the dakka OTF.

**PanamaG**

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:He wants to be a part of...

Well Im never going to KFC again. Who knew the colonel was a pinko traitor?