A Washington Post op-ed (11/26/18) called on international governments to “put considerable pressure on Venezuela” in response to health problems that are largely a result of international pressure.
Tamara Taraciuk Broner of Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Johns Hopkins professor Kathleen Page took to the pages of the Washington Post (11/26/18) to whitewash Donald Trump’s successful efforts to make Venezuela’s economic crisis much worse. Appropriately enough, at the end of the piece, the Post recommended four other articles (11/23/18, 9/11/18, 6/20/18, 8/21/18) that either attacked Venezuela’s government or stayed conspicuously silent about the impact of US economic sanctions.
Propaganda works primarily through repetition. The vilification of Venezuela’s government in the Western media has been relentless for the past 17 years, as Alan MacLeod pointed out in his book Bad News From Venezuela.
NGOs like HRW play an important role in framing the Western imperial agenda from a supposedly “independent” and “humanitarian” perspective, as dramatically illustrated after the death of Sen. John McCain (FAIR.org, 8/31/18) when several HRW officials joined the US media in sanctifying an overtly racist warmonger. In contrast, a few hours after Hugo Chavez’s death in 2013, HRW rushed out a statement vilifying Chavez’s years in office, displaying total indifference to his achievements in reducing poverty and improving health outcomes, despite the violent, scorched-earth tactics of his US-backed opponents to prevent this from happening. No such statement was rushed out by HRW to attack George H.W. Bush—the recently departed butcher of Panama and initiator of the decades-long mass slaughter in Iraq, to mention only a few of his crimes.
HRW has repeatedly invoked the impact of an economic crisis in Venezuela to call for more US-led “pressure” on Venezuela’s government, as was done by Taraciuk and Page. They wrote:
But most sanctions—imposed by the United States, Canada and the European Union—are limited to canceling visas and freezing assets of key officials implicated in abuses and corruption. They have no impact on the Venezuelan economy.
In 2017, the United States also imposed financial sanctions, including a ban on dealings in new stocks and bonds issued by the government and its state oil company. But even these include an exception for transactions to purchase food and medicines. In fact, the government has purchased food from abroad, but these efforts have given rise to corruption allegations.
The idea that “most sanctions” have “no impact on the Venezuelan economy” is appalling nonsense (FAIR.org, 3/22/18). Trump has extended Obama’s cynically declared “national emergency” over Venezuela, and escalated by directly threatening holders of Venezuelan government bonds, making it it impossible for Venezuela to “roll over” any bonds governed under US law (i.e., borrow to pay off principal when a bond comes due, as governments usually do). In January, a Torino Capital report on Venezuela’s economy stated that “all foreign-currency bonds are denominated in dollars, and all are governed by New York law.” Trump also prohibited the Venezuelan government–owned CITGO corporation, based in Texas, from sending any profits or dividends back to Venezuela.
The US allies Taraciuk and Page mentioned mainly provide propaganda cover for a US-led assault. Bear in mind that the United States, Canada and other countries within the European Union are supplying weapons and other essential military support to Saudi Arabia, even as it inflicts famine on Yemen. Why do you suppose governments barbaric enough to arm Saudi Arabia also target Venezuela with economic sanctions? Does concern over human rights and corruption, which Taraciuk and Page uncritically cited as a rationale, pass the laugh test?
It should be said that the financial sanctions the US has applied to Venezuela could not even be justified against Saudi Arabia which, unlike Venezuela, really is a dictatorship. In fact, Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most brutal and backward dictatorship on Earth, and one engaged in horrific aggression abroad. What would be justified against Saudi Arabia is cutting off arm sales and all military collaboration. That appears to be a real possibility in the United States at the moment, but recall that support for the Saudis may be funneled through Israel and other allies, as was done decades ago in Guatemala when the atrocities of US clients became overly embarrassing.
Francisco Rodriguez, the Venezuelan chief economist of Torino Capital and a longtime Chávez (and Maduro) government opponent, produced the graph below, which clearly shows the impact of Trump’s financial sanctions on Venezuelan oil production, which Venezuela depends on to get almost all the foreign currency it uses for trade. The piece Rodriguez wrote calling attention to this alarming fact was ignored by the media, according to a Nexis search done two weeks after it first appeared.
Venezuelan and Colombian oil production both fell when oil prices collapsed—but Venezuelan production kept falling after prices rose again, due to the effect of economic sanctions. (source: WOLA.org)
Before the financial sanctions introduced by Trump, Venezuela’s oil production followed a similar pattern to Colombia’s: There was a fall in production following a drop in investment, due to the steep and sustained drop in oil prices that began near the end of 2014 and bottomed out in 2016.
However, after Trump imposed financial sanctions in August 2017, Venezuela’s oil production plummeted, while Colombia’s stabilized. The impact of US sanctions therefore became much worse, but also easier to calculate. It works out to $6 billion in lost revenue to Venezuela’s government in the first year after the sanctions alone, even if one assumes that Venezuela’s oil production would have continued to decline along its pre–financial sanctions path. That’s over 600 times more than the emergency aid the UN has just approved for Venezuela.
The “exception for transactions to purchase food and medicines” Taraciuk and Page pointed to in Trump’s financial sanctions is a laughable smokescreen. The sanctions deprive the Venezuelan government of billions of dollars to buy foods and medicine, regardless of whether there are dubious “exemptions” to illegal sanctions.
According to Datanálisis, an opposition-aligned pollster whose directors appear regularly in Venezuela’s private media, more than 60 percent of Venezuelan households received subsidized food and other basic products this year, through a government program known as CLAP (in its Spanish language acronym). Taraciuk and Page mention these “corruption allegations”—like the allegations that the government has used this system to “buy support”—to falsely suggest that what concerns the US and its accomplices are revenues lost to corruption (hardly a problem unique to Venezuela).
On the contrary, the US concern is that Venezuelan government revenues might benefit the public. The worry—apparently shared by apologists like Taraciuk and Page—is that the Maduro government has been able to retain popular support by responding to the economic crisis. Sanctions take direct aim at Venezuela’s population by denying the government the revenues to do that—a depraved objective, but consistent with the behavior of the governments of the United States, Canada, France and UK, which continue to arm Saudi Arabia.
I’ve cited Venezuelan opposition sources above, not because I think they should be assumed the most reliable, but to show how extremist commentary on Venezuela has been in Western media. Even Venezuelan opposition sources are ignored when they can’t be used to support US belligerence.
In recent years, HRW officials have taken to calling Venezuela a dictatorship (CBC, 4/1/17). Pinning this label on Venezuela has been crucial to removing all legal and moral constraints on US policy. Taraciuk and Page refrained from using that label explicitly, but readers were clearly meant to get that idea:
Maduro’s government remains as opaque and repressive as ever. In January, the president called those who spoke out about the crisis “traitors to the fatherland.” His threat should be taken seriously in a country without judicial independence, where critics have been arbitrarily jailed and tortured, and hunger has been used for social and political control.
In fact, basic democratic freedoms in Venezuela remain at a level the US government would never tolerate were it faced with similar circumstances: a major economic crisis deliberately worsened by a foreign power that openly backs the most violent elements of the opposition. Just consider that, in far less dire circumstances, the liberal end of US opinion is either ignoring or viciously applauding the likelihood of Julian Assange being imprisoned in the United States for publishing government secrets.
Henri Falcón
Aggressive Maduro government critics appear constantly in Venezuela’s private media. Francisco Rodriguez traveled all over Venezuela in May, campaigning for opposition presidential candidate Henri Falcón, whom he advised on economic policy. Rodriguez made numerous appearances in Venezuela’s media during the campaign in which he lashed out at Maduro’s government (examples here, here and here).
Falcón (defying US threats) launched his presidential campaign with a 35-minute speech on Venezuelan state media. In that speech, Falcón repeatedly called Maduro the “hunger candidate,” and said that it is now common to see Venezuelans looking through trash for food. Falcón said democracy has been destroyed, and that all Venezuela’s institutions are “slaves” to the executive, that Maduro’s government has made Venezuela into a “hell,” that Venezuela faces the risk of civil war. Falcon pledged the release of all “political prisoners” and demanded that the election be held at a later date. The election was then moved back a month to May 20.
In an interview on a large private network during the campaign, Falcón said that Maduro’s government was an “unscrupulous monster,” but also “beatable” if voters turned out. Unfortunately for Falcón, much of the opposition leadership not only advocated abstention to discredit the election, but also hurled wild accusations at Falcon, saying he was in cahoots with Maduro.
About 23 minutes into the interview, Falcón advised government opponents that it’s foolish to wait for a “military invasion to save Venezuela.” The contradictions and absurdity of the opposition’s discourse, including the moderate faction, beggar belief. One shudders to think what would become of such opposition figures in Paris or Washington, but you will be shielded from such considerations reading Western media—and from understanding why Maduro easily prevailed in the 2018 election, despite an economic depression. Most importantly, you’ll be prevented from understanding how the Western media’s lies and distortions over the past 17 years have allowed the US to now pose a grave military threat to a democracy.
Messages can be sent to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @PostOpinions. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Great article Joe!
I can’t believe you guys didn’t mention that everybody EXCEPT….cough cough….Goldman Sachs was prohibited from trading Venezuelan bonds. https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/30/news/economy/goldman-sachs-venezuela/index.html
Guess that’s what you get when you do “God’s work.”
Plenty of Americans liked Chavez, as he helped supply them with heating oil during the long and cold winter days and nights. His citizens liked him because he actually worked for them. Sadly American media , when you accuse nowadays, you simply abuse your own long ago lost credibility.
Another great riposte to the Megalithic Media. I think that, like always, it boils down to the MONEY. How many dictators has the USA supported in the past 150 years? As long as they follow OUR Rules, they are free to do whatever they want to their own people. But man, threaten the flow of MONEY and all bets are off. “I see America spreading disaster, I see America as a black curse upon the world. I see a long, dark night setting in, and that mushroom which has so poisoned this Planet, withering at it’s roots.” Henry Miller 1934….I think Henry Miller hit the nail on the head…..
OF COARSE REPETITION WORKS JOESEPH GOEBBELS KNEW THAT AND SAID SO IN THE 1930S. AND TO PROVE IT TRY AND TELL ANY WEAK BRAINED AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT WHAT THEY ARE HEARING ABOUT VENEZUELA IS A LIE. THEY WILL CALL YOU A TRAITOR AND WORSE A COMMUNIST!!
I think you guys should spend more time looking into the torture camps in Venezuela. Hopefully, if you have some relatives living there, they can share some of the stories of what the Secret service does there with the help of Cuban, Russain and Chinese operatives.
Nah, you won’t find Emersberger talking about any of the abuses of the Maduro regime, because that goes against his idiotic ideology in which any government that opposes the US must be supported, regardless of how horrible they are against their own people.
Sanctions? What sanctions?
https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14111
In July 2017, the US bank Citibank refused to handle Venezuela’s payment for the import of 300,000 insulin doses to meet the needs of 450,000 registered patients.
Three months later, the US blockade prevented Venezuela from depositing funds with the UBS Swiss bank, delaying a purchase of vaccines for months and disrupting the country’s vaccination schedules.
In November 2017, transnational pharmaceutical companies Baster, Abbot and Pfizer refused to issue export certificates for cancer drugs, making it impossible for Venezuela to buy them.
And in 2018, a $9 million payment through an international account for dialysis supplies for treating 15,000 patients, free of charge, was similarly blocked under threat of US sanctions.
Human Rights Watch doesn’t live up to its name. It should criticize the human rights violations the US & its allies commit against foreigners that they go to war with. The MSM whitewashed GHW Bush’s legacy by saying he was a patriot and expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. He bombed Iraq even after Gulf War I ended, so did Clinton, GW Bush, John Major & Tony Blair.
I prefer to call them Human Rights Fraud and Amnesty International Shamnesty International.
What is funny about this article is that Emersberger accuses others of being biased simply because they do not agree with his completely erroneous and biased conclusion that US sanctions have caused major damage to Venezuela’s economy. It really is laughable, and pathetically stupid that FAIR would think this merits serious consideration. US financial sanctions have only been in place for about a year, whereas Venezuela’s massive collapse has been ongoing for nearly 5 years. It is the largest economic collapse in the history of the Western hemisphere, and was already in its 4th year when the US imposed sanctions. Even according to Emersberger’s own estimations, the sanctions have only cost Venezuela about $6 billion in revenue. This is only a very small percentage of total revenue, and almost nothing when compared to the nearly 45% collapse in the total size of the economy, which was nearly $500 billion before the crisis. But when an article doesn’t completely mischaracterize the situation by overemphasizing the tiny role of US sanctions, suddenly they are just horribly biased and must be criticized. Could it perhaps be that Emersberger is the one that is horribly biased? Nah, couldn’t be!
Hi “Danny” . That ‘s a very dumb and repulsive comment you made, especially if you are from the US or one of the countries backing US sanctions (like Canada). Here’s why
1) A loss $6 billion dollars in the year following August of 2017 represent about 6% of GDP. Most countries in the region spend about 7% of GDP on health care. It also represents a loss of about 20% of what Venezuela’s annual oil revenues have been during the crisis. It takes real malevolence (or “pathetic stupidity” as you put it) to deny that it is “major damage”. BTW US Pentagon budget is about 3.5% of GDP.
2) Illegal US sanctions have been in place and doing damage since March of 2015. Trump made them much worse and their impact easier to quantify thanks to the vilification campaign in western media for the past 17 years.
3) Venezuela’s nominal GDP in US dollars was $350 bn in 2012 according to Torino Capital and $331bn that year according to IMF. It is now worth about $100 bn according to both those sources. Your numbers are way off. Much more importantly your moral compass is stuck since your fine with the US deliberately making it worse.
Nice try Joe. You are apparently impervious to facts.
1) $6 billion may represent about 6 percent of GDP now, but is only a very tiny percent of Venezuela’s pre-crisis GDP. In other words, only if you completely ignore the real reasons for Venezuela’s economic collapse can you pretend $6 billion is suddenly an important factor in the 5th year of the collapse.
2) Sanctions in 2015 were only targeted to individuals, and everyone knows these had virtually no impact at all on the economy in general. The US has imposed similar sanctions in various countries around the world and they have never created major economic collapses.
3) How about you type “Venezuela GDP” in google and see what it says. The World Bank shows GDP to be $482 billion in 2014, the year the economy began collapsing. By the time US sanctions were imposed in 2017, the economy had already shrunk by nearly 40 percent of its size, more than any economic collapse in the history of the western hemisphere.
4) Where did I say I am “fine” with US sanctions? You can be opposed to US sanctions without making the laughably stupid claim that they are what have caused Venezuela’s economic disaster. What has really caused it are the group of criminals you keep shilling for on a daily basis.
Hey “Danny” You swrote ” $6 billion may represent about 6 percent of GDP now, but is only a very tiny percent of Venezuela’s pre-crisis GDP. In other words, only if you completely ignore the real reasons for Venezuela’s economic collapse can you pretend $6 billion is suddenly an important factor in the 5th year of the collapse”
Yes . Trump’s sanctions are imposed NOW and doing (at least) 6% of GDP per year worth of damage NOW. Any decent person recognizes that as devatating and wants them ended NOW. That shouldn’t change even if you believe Maduro’s government 100% responsible for getting Venezuela to the point where Trump could do that much damage. Thanks to the relenetless propaganda barrage against Venezuela, Trump’s sanctions could easily be made even worse (through an oil embargo) and a military attack cannot even be ruled out. Those are the US criminals you seem happy to “shill for constantly” and whose talking points you repeat who make that possible. I didn’t say the US “caused” Venezuela’s crisis. That’s a fabrication of yours though the US certainly contributed significantly to causing the crisis in many ways through its actions over the last 17 years. Obama’s sanctions did damage at the time (and were blantantly illegal) and also set the stage for Trump’s drastically worse sanctions.
As for your remark about GDP in current US dollars in pre-crisis period, I cited two updated sources (IMF and Torino) for what Venezuela’s GDP was in that period. You replied with a 5 year old World Bank estimate. You shoud try harder than typing “Venzuela GDP” into Google but that’s the least of your deficiencies.
” I didn’t say the US “caused” Venezuela’s crisis. That’s a fabrication of yours though the US certainly contributed significantly to causing the crisis in many ways through its actions over the last 17 years.”
Hahahahaha. So you didn’t say the US caused the crisis, but in the very next sentence you say “the US certainly contributed significantly to causing the crisis”. Hahahahaha. You aren’t the brightest bulb in the box are you?
“Those are the US criminals you seem happy to “shill for constantly” and whose talking points you repeat who make that possible. ”
Nice try, but I haven’t said a single thing in support of US policy, unlike you who constantly tries to shore up support for an utterly disastrous and criminal regime in Venezuela. If telling the truth about Venezuela’s crisis gives support to some of the US’s talking points, does that mean we should just lie and not tell the truth? I see that is the choice you’ve made. This is what happens when you try to make facts fit your idiotic ideology, instead of changing your ideological positions according to the facts.
Even if we use your figure for GDP, pointing to $6 billion in lost revenue as an explanation for a $250 billion collapse in the economy that began 5 years earlier is beyond idiotic.
And any decent person would want to end the REAL causes of the crisis, not focus on completely false causes while at the same time trying to shore up support for the people who are actually responsible. As millions of poor people flee the country in order to survive (something you tried to deny was happening), you point almost exclusively to a very tiny factor in the 5-year-old crisis, and paint the Maduro government as an innocent victim. It is an utterly reprehensible and disgusting position to take, and it gives zero regard for the Venezuelan people whose lives are being destroyed by the very people you’ve been propping up for years with completely false and manipulated statistics.
Hey “Danny”. It’s possible to “significantly contribute” to something without being the main cause of it – like when something has more than one cause. Sorry if that’s too hard for you to grasp. I don’t know who you are or where you are from since (probably wisely given the nonsense you spew) you hide behind a pseudonym, but the task decent people from countries like the USA and Canada should preoccupy themselves with is preventing their governments from destroying yet another country in this century. At any time, hitting a country with sanctions that cost 6% of GDP is MASSIVE. A foreign government would be nuked before it would be allowed to do anything approaching that much damage to the USA. Your argument is so moronic that even if the costs of the US sanctions were shown to be $60 bn, you’d say “well that’s still small compared to $250 bn”.
“Hey “Danny”. It’s possible to “significantly contribute” to something without being the main cause of it ”
I know its fun to hide behind ambiguous language, without confronting the facts. But the fact is that those $6 billion are a drop in a bucket compared to the (at least) $250 billion economic collapse that preceded them, and compared to the (at least) $300 billion and growing stolen by regime insiders, as even admitted by Chavez’s own finance ministers. In light of these facts, to say that $6 billion in lost revenue “significantly contributed” to the economic collapse is just laughably stupid, and takes an incredible level of self deception.
“the task decent people from countries like the USA and Canada should preoccupy themselves with is preventing their governments from destroying yet another country in this century. ”
Yes, and apparently “decent people” should also seek to distort facts and lie in order to support a regime that is ACTUALLY destroying the country as we speak. I wonder what “decent people” who have watched their loved ones die in Venezuela due to a lack of medicine, a lack of doctors, and widespread malnutrition caused by regime corruption should do? I suppose they should tell everyone to forget about the $300 billion stolen by the regime, and just worry about those $6 billion caused by US sanctions, right? I suppose “decent people” should also try to minimize reports about skyrocketing infant mortality, and try to tell everyone that only 140,000 Venezuelans are leaving per year, like you did, when in reality millions were leaving every year? And then, when people point out that your analysis is horribly distorted and based on manipulated statistics, you then accuse them of being “repulsive” and of supporting Trump’s sanctions, without any proof. Apparently this is what “decent people” do in your book.
“Your argument is so moronic that even if the costs of the US sanctions were shown to be $60 bn, you’d say “well that’s still small compared to $250 bn”.”
This is quite ironic, given that you were already making the argument that US sanctions were a significant cause over a year ago by pointing to a $1 billion loss in CITGO profits. So, in other words, you’ve already proven that no matter how small the impact of US sanctions, you will still claim that they are a major cause. Just another example of how you constantly try to make the facts fit your argument, instead of making your argument fit the facts.
Actually, $60 billion per year would be much more significant, as over only a few years time it would equal other factors, such as regime corruption. But that’s not the reality is it Joe? The reality is it would take 50 years of US sanctions to equal the amount stolen by the regime. But don’t let basic math get in the way of your ideology!
“Danny” writes “This is quite ironic, given that you were already making the argument that US sanctions were a significant cause over a year ago by pointing to a $1 billion loss in CITGO profits. So, in other words, you’ve already proven that no matter how small the impact of US sanctions” When Trump’s sanctions were imposed I said that was the easiest part to calculate, not the full impact. We now have over a year’s worth of data to better estimate the impact and $6 bn per year is still conservative. And hitting Venezuela with $1billion in damage in its present state is very far from “tiny”. Would be like hitting USA with $200 bn worth of damage in one year. What country in the world gets away with that? The imperial assumptions and innumeracy underpinning your rants could not be more odious.
Hahahaha! Once again, when your argument has been utterly trashed, just accuse the other of having “imperial assumptions” and being a Trump supporter, despite the fact I’ve never said a single thing in support of US sanctions. And I notice you simply can’t respond about your long history of distortions and inaccuracies that downplay the level of human suffering in Venezuela.
Funny though that you should bring up hitting the USA with $200 billion worth of damage, because we don’t really have to imagine what would happen. Trump’s tax cuts last year are estimated to have cost around $100 billion in their first year, yet we don’t see the US economy entering a massive collapse do we? Your level of cluelessness about basic economics is really impressive.
WOW! Tax cuts are stimulus to an economy even if badly skewed in favor of the wealthy . Same with military expenditures. That’s stimulus to the economy. Not the same – like totally the opposite – of a foreign power deliberately and openly inflicting $200 bn worth of damage to the US economy demanding the political party it supports take over in Washington. No wonder you hide behind a pseudonym.
Hahahahaha! So now you are an advocate of tax cuts to the wealthy as stimulus to an economy? Good to know! In fact, there is no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate economic growth. See here: https://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/screen_shot_2018-06-22_at_2.28.54_pm.png?itok=XrOvo3Hs
The evidence indicates that there is actually a slight positive relationship between HIGHER taxes on the wealthy, and economic growth. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#/media/File:US_GDP_Growth_vs_Personal_Income_Tax_Rate.svg
No surprise, you are once again on the wrong side of the evidence. Perhaps you should take a little course in basic economics (and common sense) before spouting such idiocy?
In fact, what Trump’s tax cuts (and Obama’s) did is remove hundreds of billions in US government revenue, the same thing US sanctions have done to $6 billion in Venezuelan government revenue. But, again, we don’t see a major economic collapse in the US do we? In fact, economic growth has been quite robust in recent years. So, yes, the comparison you made to the $200 billion in the US is correct, its just that is proves you wrong once again. Indeed, it would be hard to find anyone who is so consistently dead wrong about virtually everything they say. Perhaps you are going for the world record?
Hahahahaha! So now you are an advocate of tax cuts to the wealthy as stimulus to an economy? Good to know! In fact, there is no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate economic growth.
In fact, the evidence indicates that there is a slight positive relationship between HIGHER taxes on the wealthy, and economic growth. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#/media/File:US_GDP_Growth_vs_Personal_Income_Tax_Rate.svg
No surprise, you are once again on the wrong side of the evidence. Perhaps you should take a little course in basic economics (and common sense) before spouting such idiocy?
In fact, what Trump’s tax cuts (and Obama’s) did is remove hundreds of billions in US government revenue, the same thing US sanctions have done to $6 billion in Venezuelan government revenue. But, again, we don’t see a major economic collapse in the US do we? In fact, economic growth has been quite robust in recent years. So, yes, the comparison you made to the $200 billion in the US is correct, its just that is proves you wrong once again. Indeed, it would be hard to find anyone who is so consistently dead wrong about virtually everything they say. Perhaps you are going for the world record?
Fiscal stimulus comes from some combination of a government taxing less or spending more. You can recognize that economic truism AND be totally opposed to things like tax cuts for the wealthy and military expenditures. That’s totally off to the side of how effective or fair any particular tax cut or spending program is – the impact it will have on fiscal deficits, or investment, or growth etc…. The wealth destruction analogy your struggling to find in when the housing bubble in the USA burst in 2008. It cost the USA about 3% of GDP per year according to Dean Baker, one of the few economists to have warned about it years before it happened. That 3% of GDP per year was the hole the government had to fill when the bubble burst. And it WAS a big deal filling that hole even for a country as rich and powerful as USA. Of course it was self inflicted damage. Outside of a suicidal military or terrorist attack on the US, no conceivable mechanism through which a foreign power could inflict economic damage on the USA that’s remotely like what it is doing to Venezuela.
You need educate yourself – whoever you are.
“Fiscal stimulus comes from some combination of a government taxing less or spending more.”
Except I just linked to statistics above that show that lowering taxes in fact do not stimulate economic growth. Indeed, the opposite is true. Yet, as you have shown time and time again, you are impervious to facts.
“You can recognize that economic truism AND be totally opposed to things like tax cuts for the wealthy and military expenditures.”
Kinda like you can recognize that US sanctions have played very little role in Venezuela’s collapse AND still be totally opposed to them, right?
“The wealth destruction analogy your struggling to find in when the housing bubble in the USA burst in 2008. It cost the USA about 3% of GDP per year”
Another great comparison. Except that 3% of GDP per year only led to one year of economic contraction in the US, of about 2.8 percent in 2009, whereas Venezuela’s economy has been tanking by upwards of 5, 10, and 15 percent for over five years now, long before those $6 billion in lost revenue ever happened. See why your argument is idiotic? Of course you don’t, because you’re an idiot.
Sorry, GDP growth was also very slightly negative in 2008 in the US. So we are talking about a total contraction of about 3%, compared to a total contraction of about 45% in Venezuela. Another great comparison from genius Emersberger.
Lowering taxes on people who save a lot (btw the rich save the most) provides very little increased consumption (hence little stimulus to the economy).
Moreover, the kind of governments who push low taxes on the wealthy ALSO tend to push spending cuts for everyone else (generally under the guise of “fighting the deficit” which tax cuts make larger) and that works in the OPPOSITE direction of providing stimulus so no surprise that low tax rates for the wealthy people isn’t link to strong economic growth.
None of that means tax cuts BY THEMSELVES- however poorly targeted – produce zero stimulus.
None of that justifies your ludicrous analogy that says US sanctions on Venezuelan are like giving Venezuelans a tax cut.
Funny, you are the one that made two failed analogies to the US, not me. I simply showed you how utterly stupid those analogies were. And I notice you quickly decided to backtrack with the second comparison, as it also shows how ridiculous your argument is. Thanks for the laughs though.
Reframing the same lame insults can’t cover your ignorance. “Backtrack with the 2nd comparison”? Not even sure what you’re trying to say with that one “Danny” but perhaps you don’t either.
You compared the impact of US sanctions on Venezuela to the impact of the housing bubble in the United States. But when I pointed out that the housing bubble only caused a 3% contraction in the economy, whereas in Venezuela we are talking about a 45% contraction, you quickly went silent about that comparison. Indeed, you’ve gone silent about virtually all of your idiotic distortions when presented with the facts. What’s amazing is that people like FAIR keep publishing your drivel.
“You compared the impact of US sanctions on Venezuela to the impact of the housing bubble in the United States. But when I pointed out that the housing bubble only caused a 3% contraction in the economy, whereas in Venezuela we are talking about a 45% contraction, you quickly went silent about that comparison.”
LOL so if i don’t reply to you a million times I am “going silent”. Fine “Danny” who I am to depirve you of your glory. This will be my last reply to you – under this article anyway. Feel to free to boast that you drove me into silence. I cited the housing bubble as a real loss to the US economy that the US government was forced to respond to even tho it was only a about 3% of GDP per year hit to the world’s most economically powerful country and did not come while it was already in the midst of a crisis. You’ve been flailing away trying to whitewash a 6% GDP hit on a far more vulnerable economy that was already crisis. You also tried to depict Trump’s tax cuts as comparable to US sanctions on Venezuela – as if Trump were putting a cent into any Venezuelan’s pocket by imposing sanctions rather than the other way around.
Funny how you always seem to fail to respond when you’ve been proven wrong about something. Kinda like when you claimed only hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans were leaving per year when it is actually around a million a year. Or when you claimed infant mortality was not skyrocketing in Venezuela. And on and on and on. In this case, 3% of GDP per year for the US is comparable to the 6% in Venezuela for one year. Pointing out that the US is more economically powerful is just another of your pathetic attempts to backtrack. We are talking about percent of GDP for a reason dipshit. The fact that in the US this comparable hit to its economy only caused a 3 to 4 percent contraction should tell you right there that US sanctions are a virtual non-factor in explaining the 45 percent collapse of Venezuela’s economy. But that would require logic, common sense, and intellectual honesty, all things you’ve made abundantly clear you lack.
“You also tried to depict Trump’s tax cuts as comparable to US sanctions on Venezuela”
They are comparable in terms of how much revenue they have removed from the state’s coffers. You are the one who said US sanctions were equivalent to about $200 billion of revenue in the US. Your refusal to accept any of the comparisons I’ve made is not based on anything factual. You just don’t want to accept the obvious conclusion: that a $6 billion decline in state revenues in Venezuela could not possibly account for anything close to a 45% contraction in GDP. Indeed, it probably couldn’t even account for a 3% contraction, as in the case of the housing bubble in the US. But you’ll keep flailing around spouting nonsense regardless…