Talk:Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez administration

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Chávez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.

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.

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." 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.

Physalia physalis (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that the BBC, AP, et al were not reliable. However, in this case, they either:

1. Made claims that were not backed by anything other than selective quotations and examples, rather than economic statistics, whereas more reliable sources, which did back their claims with data, contradicted them.
2. Focused on trivia. It's fine if you are an "inclusionist", but unfortunately, covering the economy of a nation is a very large subject, and in order to keep the article length manageable, we should avoid focusing on trivia.
3. Were editorializing. Just because a source is reliable, does not mean that we have to include a bunch of statements of opinion. We're going to have a hard enough time keeping the length manageable just focusing on the economic facts, even without getting into the enormous amount of opinions that have been voiced on it. As an encyclopedia, I think that our primary concern to be to cover as much factual ground as possible, and then, space-permitting, add the most notable opinions -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

And other sources referred to jewelry, rugs, and Hummers as luxuries, but you seem obsessed with toilet paper. Why is that? There are hundreds of items that are being taxed, and I don't feel that there is any way to neutrally allow editors here to cherry-pick items at will, to satisfy their personal political objectives. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You can live a relatively good life without jewelry, rugs, and Hummers. But not toilet paper. Physalia physalis (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere did it say that people are living without toilet paper. It said that imported toilet paper is being taxed, not illegalized. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:12, 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)

Yeah, well I could retort that When you reject the evidence of both your own source and another, you know you've achieved dogma. Cough. Both sources state "non-priority"; the newspaper source editorially adds "luxury". It's also quite possible that the tax was only added to some categories of more expensive TP. In any case the import tax, as noted, is at least partially offset by the contemporary VAT reduction (and also we don't know for sure there is no domestic TP production). Maybe you should editorialise less and stick to the facts. Rd232 ^talk 18:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how or why Associated Press, the BBC, and the Washington Post got their information. What does matter is that they published it. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Physalia physalis (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it does matter, if the claims are made without factual support, and more reliable sources contradict it, and back their claims with supporting data. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Physalia physalis appears to be a sockpuppet for grundle2600 -- see this link: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/577844-wikipedia-editors-wont-allow-information-about-hugo-chavezs-harmful-food-policies.html -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked as such. Love the succinct response to him in that link though :) Rd232 ^talk 17:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The BBC, Associated Press, Washington Post, etc., are very reliable. The information is true. It is not "trivia" because Chavez has been doing these things for eight years, and hundreds of such articles have been published during that time. Without this information, the article gives readers a highly inaccurate account of the subject. Gitchee Goommee Noonee Wa-Wa (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does the article cite food intake in terms of pounds instead of calories?

The article states:

"Per capita food consumption in Venezuela grew from 370 pounds per year in 1998 to 415 pounds per year in 2009. The recommended amount of food that each person should consume per year is about 440 pounds per year."

This is the first time that I have ever seen food intake measured in pounds of food instead of calories. A pound of steak is not the same as a pound of celery.

Physalia physalis (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good point -- I'll add more on caloric intake right now. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for pointing that out -- I've updated it with calorie intake, and malnutrition stats. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment, and for adding it to the article. I am concnered that it says "Average caloric intake has risen from 91.0% of the recommended levels in 1998 to 101.6% in 2007" instead of citing the number of calories. It's possible that the "recommended levels" could have changed over time. For example, Associated Press reported last year that Chavez is telling people to lose weight. The article should cite the actual number of calories, not a percentage of some "recommended" amount that could be subject to change. Physalia physalis (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to look at the United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization, which is where the recommended caloric intake levels came from. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)