ЯebЯum!;2545267
You know, the term "third world" is regarded to have derogatory or out-of-date connotations. The politically correct term is "developing nation".
And I am far from PC.
So anyway, the problem with Venezuela and other countries which have changed their status towards the US is the following:
<snip>
Then they make the US as the reason why everything is bad in their country and the center of all evil. Now the badness has a name, an origin and a cause: Imperialism.
The problem here is that these countries unfortunately have their first experience with Democracy become a corrupt Democracy, which is technically, if using literal definitions, not a Democracy. Democracy requires equality among the people and a corrupt government is raising themselves above the people simply because they can. Of course it is ridiculous to expect this to happen over night. Even the US went almost 200 years before all races were given true equality (Civil Rights movement).
The funny thing is that Chavez then makes the US out to be a bad guy by accusing them of Imperialism, while at the same time giving aid to countries willing to oppose America, thus influencing these countries. The term Imperialism has become too loosely used, especially in a world with a global economy where trade with one another is a necessity. Globalization is not Imperialism, but opponents make it appear that way.
I find it very sad what has happened and it's the reason I tend to lose my tempter when someone comes with leftist ideas and starts talking about the wonders of socialism (not saying that happens here in GTP; it's more of a Spanish thing, to be honest) and how we should all embrace it and reject imperialism and capitalism.
Sadly the future holds more Chavezs and Castros and Morales, especially in South America, since around 90% of it is very poor and similar situations have arisen where the winning party is usually the one backed by Chavez/Castro. There are few exceptions (Mexico for one), but as more and more people's ignorance gets in power and developed countries fall to Venezuela's oil and cheap treaties, less of a chance will smaller countries have of getting away from the "one or the other" policy.
The trend tends to swing back and forth. Before WWII socialism looked liek a good idea and Communism was a growing trend in the world. Then we went into the Cold War and communism began to be seen as evil and the US even had Communist "witch hunts" to prevent them from infiltrating public opinion. This went well into the 80's when the largest Communist threat fell. But by the 90s Socialist ideas began to appear more satisfying because we all want what the succesful/rich have. This mindset led to support of Chavez outside of Venezuela. I am sure that things will eventually swing back again.
The question is: how much damage is done before it does?
I'm just waiting for the same thing to happen to the Philippines.
After two "bloodless revolutions", we've fallen into the same corrupt circle we were in before the fascist regime of the Marcoses. I don't see the communists taking over, or the ultra-rightists, as they've finally become part of said corrupt system, and are enjoying the fruits of demoracy (massive kickbacks, pork-barrel funding, etcetera), but I don't see the situation getting any better. We already had our "different" moment, and the guy turned out to be just as corrupt as the traditionalists.
Unfortunately, history seems to show that for a change to work it has to be a complete switch and greed cannot come into play. It is a shame when a switch from corruption happens but the new guys are just as bad. In this case teh new leaders couldn't care less about the people and the country, but want a new system so they can benefit more. This is the same mindset holding Iraq back because the different groups can't accept that being equal is the way to go.
Eventually the Philippines will have an honest leader, even if they aren't an actual government official, who will help lead teh country to where they need to be. The question is: How long will that take?
And, yeah,
where the heck do some guys get the idea us third-worlders don't drive? I live in a third world country and I've got a five car garage. Admittedly, one of those cars doesn't work, but heck, I use about as much oil as the average American...
The socialists that think I should give all my money to third-world countries because they barely are able to feed themselves, much less own multiple cars and houses. Usually this refers to places in Africa. I've actually never heard anyone say that we need to help the Philippines because they are so poor and sick.
Plus, how much of the population in the average third world country has a five-car garage and drives 80 miles a day just for work, as I do? I never claimed there were no cars. Just that it isn't an extravagance the way it is in the US.
Construction and development demands a lot of petroleum. Part of the disdain the "third-world" has for proposed greenhouse gas legislation is because it'll slow down economic development... another "imperialst" ploy to keep them down.
There is some definite misinformation if that is the thought process. Funny that the same people (Republicans) in America that Chavez accuses of Imperialism fight environmental laws because we know that it will slow progress.
First-worlders actually have the luxury of picking their poison of choice. I always laugh when anyone says that Hybrids will save the world. Obviously, they can't if 99% of the driving/commuting public can't afford them... they'll stay a niche vehicle for a niche market, and everyone else will still buy oil.
More than that can afford them, but some don't want them. Plus prices will come down over time.
As a side note, we already get electric vehicles. Crude, short-ranged, and expensive to run, even when made to a pro-poor price, they come off as more of a rich-guy's toy. People still go for motorbikes.
I remember the few electric car designs that came out. Most of them were dumped before they could even get to market. We drive to far and too fast for them to have been feesible. Maybe in the future better battery technology can come about and they will begin to become common, but not for a while.
Plus, every eco-friendly person who talked about how great and non-polluting the electric car will be had a guy like me who said, "Yep, because the electricity in the socket comes from trees. Whether you burn the oil in your car or at the power plant doesn't matter, but the electric car sucks to drive."
Development costs energy, and petroleum and coal are still the least expensive ways to get energy, even with the supplemental power coming from hydroelectricity, geothermal plants and wind farms (which are really not enough). As long as this holds true, oil producing countries like Venezuela will always have some form of power over others.
But when the large countries have developed beyond petroleum needs then Venezuela will find themselves having trouble maintaining that power financially. If the US and Europe all quit using oil I really think Venezuela would be hurting and unable to hand out cash or free oil.
