Talk:Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez administration: Difference between revisions
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:::[[User:Physalia physalis|Physalia physalis]] ([[User talk:Physalia physalis|talk]]) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
:::[[User:Physalia physalis|Physalia physalis]] ([[User talk:Physalia physalis|talk]]) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::If the "economic indicators" are as good as you claim, then Chavez wouldn't be using the miltary to seize food, and he wouldn't be calling toilet paper a "luxury." [[User:Physalia physalis|Physalia physalis]] ([[User talk:Physalia physalis|talk]]) 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I would like to point out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive this] ARBCOM ruling: |
I would like to point out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive this] ARBCOM ruling: |
Revision as of 18:16, 10 August 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez administration article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez administration. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez administration at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
|
Reliable sources should always take precedence over unreliable sources.
The BBC, Accosicated Press, the Washington Post, and Business Week are much more reliable than a bunch of opinion columns from low circulation publications that have an agenda to push.
I added this to the "Agriculture and land reform" section, but someone else took it out.
A January 10, 2006 BBC article reported that since 2003, Chavez has been setting strict price controls on food, and that these price controls have caused shortages and hoarding.[1]
A January 22, 2008 Associated Press article reported that Chavez had ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela, and that Chavez had also threatened to seize the property of farmers who sold food at prices that exceeded the government's price controls. [2]
On February 28, 2009 Chavez ordered the military to temporarily seize control of all the rice processing plants in the country and force them to produce at full capacity, which he claimed they had been avoiding in response to the price caps.[3]
On March 4, 2009, the BBC reported that Chavez had set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods that were subject to price controls, including white rice, cooking oil, coffee, sugar, powdered milk, cheese, and tomato sauce. Business leaders and food producers claimed that the government was forcing them to produce this food at a loss. [4]
A June 20, 2009 article in the Washington Post reported on Chávez's policy of redistributing farmland. Chávez has seized many large farms from their owners. Although Chávez allows small farmers to work the land, he did not give them title to the land, and they are often required to work as part of a collective. Chávez said of the farmland, "The land is not private. It is the property of the state." Because of this collectivization, the income that a farmer receives does not correspond to the amount of work that he does. Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under collective ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. Nearly five years after the start of the land redistribution program, the country is now more dependent on food imports than ever before. Production of primary foods such as beef, rice, sugar cane, and milk have fallen. Carlos Machado, an agriculture expert at the Institute of Higher Administrative Studies in Caracas, stated, "If there is a word to describe all this, it is 'stagnant'... The government policy to increase the crop production in the country is a complete failure." Felicia Escobar, a lawyer and consultant on land issues who used to work for the Agriculture Ministry, said of this farm collectivization, "That is socialism... It did not work before, and it does not work now." One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, "These people know nothing about agriculture."[5]
Chávez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.[6]
- ^ Venezuelan shoppers face food shortages, BBC, January 10, 2006
- ^ Venezuelan troops crack down on smuggling along Colombian border, Associated Press, January 22, 2008
- ^ Chavez Seizes Venezuelan Rice Plants, Associated Press, February 28, 2009
- ^ Chavez boosts food price controls, BBC, March 4, 2009
- ^ In Venezuela, Land 'Rescue' Hopes Unmet, Washington Post, June 20, 2009
- ^ A Food Fight for Hugo Chavez, Business Week, March 11, 2010
Physalia physalis (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, without this information, the article only mentions the intentions of Chavez's food and agriculture programs, but does not mention the actual results. The article should mention both the intentions and the results. Physalia physalis (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- A June 20, 2009 article in the Washington Post reported on Chávez's policy of redistributing farmland. -- most of this was the editorial opinion of the author, mixed in with one-sided opinion quotes from non-notable figures, without any supporting evidence. Furthermore, the "facts" -- the source of which the paper fails to tell us -- contradict more reliable statistics that are discussed in the agriculture section below (which claim that rice production has increased dramatically)
- Chávez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty. -- I've seen empty shelves in a store too, under the ownership of private owners. Discussing this is irrelevant and out-of-context. Of course Business Week was able to find shelves that were empty in Venezuela. They could also find them in Britain, Canada, or anywhere else with shelves. We don't need to discuss this trivia here. We are trying to cover the entire economy of a nation, and don't need to mention that doors were open, doors were shut, or shelves were empty and other such obvious facts of life. The fact that Business Week is considered reliable by blindly applying WP:RS is irrelevant. Focusing on this trivia is a violation of WP:DUE, and of common sense.
- On March 4, 2009, the BBC reported that Chavez had set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods -- this is already in the article.
- A January 22, 2008 Associated Press article reported that Chavez had ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border -- there is a national program right now to combat food smuggling by criminal syndicates. Why is this particular seizure notable? If anything, we should talk about the program itself, and not try to cover each individual raid against smugglers.
- A January 10, 2006 BBC article reported that since 2003, Chavez has been setting strict price controls on food, and that these price controls have caused shortages -- First off, what caused the shortages is an opinion. Some say that shortages are a result of private businesses hoarding food, and smuggling it out of country to make a profit. We can't choose one opinion (especially one which happens not to have any economic explanation backing it) over another.
- The BBC, Accosicated Press, and Washington Post, are much more reliable than a bunch of opinion columns from low circulation publications that have an agenda to push -- What "bunch of opinion columns" are you talking about? The sources that are provided are WP:RS and provide factual data to back their assertions, unlike the BBC, AP, and Post which are backing their assertions with selective quotations and anecdotal, non-representative examples. Just because trivia, like a raid against smugglers, is reported on it the AP, does not mean that we have to give it as much weight as large-scale economic changes such as price controls or social spending.
- Anyway, without this information, the article only mentions the intentions of Chavez's food and agriculture programs, but does not mention the actual results -- actually, it does mention the results -- that's what the entire "economic indicators" section is for.Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Food, like all commodities, always gets sold to the highest bidder. The only reason there are shortages, hoarding, and smuggling, is because of the price controls. When I first read about Chavez's price controls on food nearly a decade ago, I knew that they would cause shortages, hoarding, and smuggling, because in the history of the world, that is always what happens when the government sets price caps on food.
- These things are not "trivia." They have been happening for nearly a decade. The specific examples that are cited are notable. The sources that I cited are a lot more reliable that the "opinion" columns that were already present such as this.
- If the "economic indicators" are as good as you claim, then Chavez wouldn't be using the miltary to seize food, and he wouldn't be calling toilet paper a "luxury." Physalia physalis (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out this ARBCOM ruling:
"Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive"
"8) It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand."
"Passed 5 to 0 at 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)"
Physalia physalis (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note the requirements -- all of my removals were due to a violation of one or more of the following:
- Written in neutral narrative (which the opinion quotes, and out-of-context, anecdotal, non-representative examples are not)
- Pertain to the subject at hand (this does not include trivia like mentioning that somewhere in the nation, shelves are empty, or that a raid was made against smugglers)
- Sourced reliably (see WP:RS -- if we find more reliable sources, which these papers are contradicting, then we should go with the more reliable sources. This is especially true when the papers support their claims with quotations or examples, rather than economic statistics.) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- The BBC, Washington Post, and Associated Press are all highly reliable sources. Business Week is pretty reliable, but not as reliable as those, but still more reliable that the other sources that were already there.
- Please note that I did not erase any info from the article. I am an inclusionist, and I believe that articles should include, rather than exclude, information.
NB the 15% import tax was for "non-priority" items, not "luxury" items.[1] Rd232 talk 18:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC) And if you're talking about "shifting the burden" you ought to mention by way of explanation the VAT reduction from 15 to 9% [2] (though more recently this went up again). Rd232 talk 18:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- The source referred to the items such as imported toilet paper as a "luxury." Physalia physalis (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
When selling food for profit is treated as a crime that makes the food subject to seizure by the military, and toilet paper is considered a "luxury," you know that a country has achieved communism. Physalia physalis (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)