Westside - Is it bad form to point out that you dont direct any comments to the facts in the article.

Facts? What facts? There are no facts in the article -just innuendos and half truths along with a few lies. If the writer wants to convince a reasonable person that the Venezuelan "brain drain," assuming that it even exists, is ruining the country, then he needs to bring up statistics like poverty rates, unemployment rate, economic growth rates, change in personal income, etc., etc. He brings up none of that, because when you look up those actual facts, they point in a direction opposite to the ideological thesis he wants to put forth.

But for what it's worth, I did address the main crux of the article. Some rich people leave, others come in droves (the corporate media doesn't want to talk about migration to Venezuela from the neoliberal paradise of Colombia). And judging by actual facts -meticulously gathered from such left-wing sources as the US State Department and the CIA World Factbook -the country is not being ruined but in fact just about every socioeconomic indicator has gotten better under Chavez. I know, I know, it's impossible. Your brains are set to "socialism doesn't work" as an A Priori Truth. So when confronted with clear evidence that it does, your heads simply explode. You cling to every scrap, every fabrication you can find to support your ideology. Unfortunately for you, the facts, Marcel, simply disagree with your ideology. I know how this ends -eventually, when confronted by too many facts, you just deny them because they just don't fit your frame.

Your comments about living standards being wonderful in Venezuala only means you buy into that same perception that has been mantrad about Cuba.

No, I just buy into the mountain of statistical data out there.

The simple fact is you cant lose all your tallent and have living standards rise.You cant lose all your craftspeople and buisness owners and stay functional.

Business owners you can lose. For the most part these are individuals of very limited talent who produce nothing. Craftspeople and professionals are another matter. But Venezuela isn't exactly losing them. See, here's the thing... some of the wealthy elites have chosen to take their ball and go home, but at the same time Chavez has made a university education available to 60%+ of the population to whom it was previously unattainable. That, Marcel, was a huge, vast waste of human talent that the capitalist system was throwing away. It's an insulting, elitist notion that only a tiny sliver of the population is capable of becoming professionals, and that the country will just fall apart if they leave. Chavez swept away that notion and opened the doors to everyone, understanding that the children of the poor are just as intelligent and just as capable if given half a chance. You're a capitalist, so you disagree. But again, the proof is there. Living standards are rising, in spite of the immigration of some of the nation's elite.

Chavez is a disaster for Venezuela. Not for the dirt poor who never had anything and love the fact that no one else does now either.

That's just ridiculously false, and really makes no sense. First of all, there are still wealthy elites in Venezuela. Their wealth actually hasn't decreased much -after all, it's still a mostly capitalist economy. The difference is that they have to share now. Now, the poor have healthcare, they have access to education, subsidized food and housing, and for the first time, a real say in their government. And frankly, there are a lot fewer of them under Chavez -50-60% poverty when he took over, less than 30% now.

And, if Chavez, by your own admission, has NOT been a disaster for the poor, and the poor were most of the country when he took over, then how can he be a disaster for the country, when he's been good for at least the majority of the country? Wait, I know the answer. Those people don't count! Right? Isn't that the way you right wing capitalists think?

When the US arms negotiators first started to enter into negotiations with Soviet Diplomats they began to notice that when they would come back from lunch all their pens and pencils would be gone. They couldnt figure this out. Then one of the Soviets fessed up that such things couldnt be made in the Soviet Union. Seems Ol Joe Stalin had all the people who could make such things executed or banished to Siberia.

Obviously you know very little about life in the Soviet Union, but think, Marcel, think! They couldn't produce pens and pencils? What do you think, Soviet kids all scratched their schoolwork on stone blocks or something??? If you ever happen to meet a real live Russian, why don't you ask him if they had pens and pencils when he was growing up. Just don't ask him after too much vodka. He'll probably think you're an ignorant American and trying to insult him.

Its obvious you havent checked recent statistics vis a vis Columbia.

Oh, I have, as recently as March 2nd of this year as a matter of fact. This is just a sample of the aforementioned thread (and there's much, much more where this came from, so don't mess with me -I have enough facts to make your head spin, while you, like your idol Sarah Palin, are clearly in way over your head):

For what it's worth, this is how Venezuela under Chavez compares to Colombia under Uribe in terms of a few economic indicators that actually mean something for the lives of real people:

Poverty Rate:
When Chvez took office in 1999, it was 48% in Venezuela, rising to 55% during the treasonous sabotage of the nation by the opposition in 2002-03. Since then, it has been reduced to 30%, a 45% reduction in poverty (not counting the benefits received from social programs, which have made even poverty itself easier to endure).
In Colombia, 55% of the population lived in poverty in 1999, similar to Venezuela. How much has Uribe done to alleviate poverty? Nothing. Less than nothing, actually. Poverty has grown to a whopping 60% of the population today!

Unemployment:
Chavez started out with 15% unemployment, and now has the country at 8%. Uribe started out at 20% and now it's at 12%. This is probably the one economic indicator that makes him look good, but clearly not as good as Chavez.

Per Capita GDP (PPP):
According to the 2001 CIA World Factbook, in 2000, Venezuela and Colombia were exactly equal, at $6200 each.
Today, after 10 years of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela is at $14,000, making its citizens among the wealthiest in South America, while Colombia languishes at 64% of that total, or $9,000, making its citizens among the poorest.

The UN Human Development Index:
From 2000 to 2006,
Venezuela went from being 65th on the list, to 61st. Keep in mind that the 2002-3 strike and sabotage caused a prolonged and deep recession in the country, and many of the fastest gains in some the components of the HDI came in 2005-2008.
During the same period, Colombia went from 68th, to 80th.

GINI Index:
From 2003 to 2008, Venezuela has gone from 48 to 41.
I couldn't find exact comparable dates for Colombia, but from 2000 to 2006, Colombia went from 51 to 56.
The dates are not exactly comparable, but the trends are clear. What this means in practical terms is that Venezuela has taken dramatic steps to reduce severe inequality that Chavez inherited in the country after decades of capitalist misrule, to the point that in several short years he has peacefully, democractically reduced inequality to levels that start to be in line with the civilized world.
Meanwhile, Uribe has led Colombia deeper into the abyss. 56 is a level of inequlity of Dickensonian proportions. To give you an idea of just how atrocious the situation in Colombia is, just 5 (five) financial groups now control 92% of the nation's assets, according to the Wiki article above.
Just for comparison, the US GINI index of economic inequality reached a high of 45 just before the 1929 economic collapse, recorded a low of 39 in 1968 after decades of policies that had the effect of reducing inequality, and then started to really rebound in the Reagan era until reaching an all-time high of 47 in 2006, just before the current economic collapse.

Looking at the gestalt of all this, you can clearly see that at the beginning of the 21st century, you had 2 neighbor countries that started out almost exactly equal on measures of poverty, income, inequality, and general living standards. Right about then, Venezuela elected socialist Hugo Chavez, and Colombia elected neoliberal capitalist Alvaro Uribe.

The results cannot be any clearer. Just one decade of democratic socialist leadership has brought a dramatic improvement in the lives of the Venezuelan people; while neoliberal capitalism in Colombia has proven to be a failure of epic proportions for its citizens, plunging the country into an abyss of poverty, misery, violence, and despair.

No Marcel, it's obvious that you haven't looked at the statistics recently. You should've done some research before you opened your mouth. Reposting a blog by some second-rate flunkie doesn't count.

And also please note that the Democrats since they took over noth houses of Congress in 2006 obstructed all measures that could help that country more.

There are so many things wrong with this statement on so many levels, but I'll just mention one. You do realize that Venezuela has gotten zero help from the US during that time! While Colombia got billions in aid, all Venezuela got was a brutal US-supported attempt at the overthrow of their democratic government, followed by economic sabotage by the country's wealthy elites! This is like running a sprint where you get a five second head start, your opponent gets a kick in the nuts, and you still lose! And then, you have the audacity to argue that you didn't win because you didn't get a 10 second head start! I thought you conservatives didn't believe in affirmative action!

And now... with respect to President Obama...

It took the Obama administration eight days to figure out whether Iranians being gunned down for protesting a fraudulent election and demanding basic civil liberties deserved to be acknowledged by the president of the United States. It took the O-Team less than eight hours to side with Cuba's Fidel Castro, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega over the ouster of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras - Oliver North in his column.

politicized the state oil company that dominates the economy.

Another example of through the looking glass thinking. When the profits of the people's resources go into the pockets of foreign corporations, that's not political. But when those profits are turned around and reinvested into the community, ooh, that's politicizing. One of the most annoying things about the US neoliberal ideology is that it tries to deny that it is an ideology.

He is spending billions on an international, anti-U.S. diplomatic campaign and

propping up the regime of his mentor, former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

He's helping the Cuban people overcome an embargo that the whole world condemns. If Obama were truly like Chavez, like you maintain, he could start by ending this insane embargo.

Venezuela has one of the world's highest inflation rates.

Again, dramatically lowered from his capitalist predecessors' governments, a fact you continue to conveniently gloss over.

Price controls on food, medicines, and basic services discourage private production and lead to shortages.

Marcel, this would require a long lesson in economics, but the basic fact is that price controls don't cause shortages. Shortages are caused by a decrease in supply, or an increase in demand. In Venezuela's case, it's almost exclusively the latter. When you lift 10 million people out of poverty in just a few short years, you get a huge increase in demand, because those folks can suddely afford things they never could before. Yes, that causes inflation. One of the responses of a civilized government is to control the prices -not to make businesses go out of business, but to prevent them from making obscene profit. The alternative is to have people continue to wallow in misery. If Obama truly was like Hugo Chavez, he'd put in some price controls in this country, on medicines for example, considering that we pay more than any other people in the world.

A referendum to centralize even more power in the presidency and lift term limits failed to win popular approval in December 2007 [[repeat above- used electoral manipulation to hobble opponents- this means that even his vote stuffing couldnt overcome how bad his policies are]] ,

If he really did egage in vote stuffing, I'm sure that he could have found a few extra to make up that 0.7% that he lost by. Fact is, neutral observers from dozens of countries judged the election to be free and fair, Chavez accepted the results, and moved on. We would do well to invite some international observers to examine our own elections and see what they come up with.

but Chávez continues to pursue nationalization,

Which has proven to be remarkably good for people according to the statistical evidence. Venezuelans are not "squatted down in equality of misery," as you say, but rather being lifted out of poverty at an incredibly rapid rate. Their poverty rate has been halved, their income has been more than doubled, their illiteracy has been nearly wiped out, their health care access is greater than ever before, and their democratic institutions are healthier than they ever have been. If this is not "better off" in your mind, then we most certainly are operating under different definitions of what "better off" means.

purchases of Russian arms

which amounts to a tiny, insignificant fraction of what the US spends on the military

and

friendship with Iran and other rogue states. ]]]

Chavez looks for friends where he can find them. This includes a great many democratic nations, and he has done an enormous amount to bring about regional cooperation, friendship, and self-determination among the democratic countries of the Americas. He's also maintained good relations with Iran. I understand why he does it. He's trying to develop a counterbalance to the US, and the trade and cooperation agreements he's signed are good for his people economically. And of course our own country props up regimes far worse than Iran, even today. Still, I'm not thrilled about the Iran part. Oh, well. No one is right 100% of the time.