RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brazilian firms root for Chavez's man in Venezuela vote

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Brazilian firms root for Chavez's man in Venezuela vote

    Brazilian firms root for Chavez's man in Venezuela vote







    Related News





    Analysis & Opinion





    Related Topics














    Venezuela's acting President Nicolas Maduro drives a vehicle during a meeting with oil workers in the port of Guaraguao in the state of Anzoategui in this handout picture provided by the Miraflores Palace on March 20, 2013.
    Credit: Reuters/Miraflores Palace/Handout





    By Esteban Israel
    SAO PAULO | Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:22pm EDT

    SAO PAULO (Reuters) - If Brazil's business leaders could vote in Venezuela's election next month, they would cast their ballots for Hugo Chavez's political heir, acting president Nicolas Maduro.
    They never supported the anti-capitalist bluster of Chavez, who died of cancer last month, but they hope to hold on to lucrative contracts for food exports and construction projects that he signed with Brazil's former leftist leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his successor, Dilma Rousseff.
    "In the near term, a Maduro win would be best," said Jose Augusto de Castro, head of Brazil's Foreign Trade Association.
    Brazil, the world's seventh largest economy, has emerged as regional powerbroker in Latin America with moderate center-left policies that it hopes can influence more stridently left-wing neighbors such as Venezuela.
    With Brazil's economy slowing to a crawl, the last thing its entrepreneurs want to do is forfeit growing markets.
    Over the past decade, Brazil's exports to Venezuela soared by 533 percent to some $5 billion, making it Brazil's second largest market in Latin America after Argentina, both major buyers of Brazilian manufactured goods. Economists say Brazil's investments in Venezuela are around $20 billion.
    Venezuela, an oil producing nation that imports some 70 percent of its food, is now the third largest consumer of Brazilian beef and an important buyer of its chicken.
    Key infrastructure projects launched during the 14 years of Chavez's government, from the Caracas metro expansion to bridges across the Orinoco river that divides Venezuela, are run by Brazilian firms like Odebrecht.
    Polls ahead of Venezuela's April 14 election should relieve Brazilians with commercial interests there. One independent survey shows Maduro, who as Chavez's former foreign minister is already known in Brazil, with a 14.4 percent lead over his opponent, Henrique Capriles.
    "Many see his election as favorable to Brazil's presence in Venezuela," said Pedro Silva Barros, an economist at Brazil's Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA) in Caracas.
    "Businesses are working with this scenario."
    Chavez's close ties with Lula protected Brazilian firms from Venezuela's frequent nationalizations, foreign exchange controls and barriers to repatriating profits that scared competitors out of the oil producing OPEC nation.
    "We have a good relationship with Venezuela and Chavez's death should not harm business there," said Ricardo Santin, market director at Brazil's Poultry Union.
    Odebrecht's presence is so strong that Chavez even joked that he had tried to convert the firm's president to socialism. The company has 8,000 employees in Venezuela, with nine projects, including a 2.15 megawatt dam in the Amazon.
    Andrade Gutierrez, another Brazilian construction firm, has its largest project on the continent in Venezuela: a $3.8 billion steel plant.
    While businesses from other countries see Venezuela as a hostile environment, the willingness of Brazilian companies to do business there can be explained in part by the backing they get from Brazil's state BNDES development bank, which absorbs part of the risk by providing financing for projects.
    Despite the close ties, Chavez's death has generated some uncertainty for deals that haven't been finalized yet.
    In his last visit to Brazil in July 2012, Chavez bought six E-190 planes from Embraer for $271 million. The option for Embraer to sell an additional 14 planes for $630 million is still up in the air.
    The most ambitious uncompleted project is the Abreu e Lima oil refinery in northeast Brazil. Eight years after Chavez and Lula signed off on the project to symbolize their alliance, Venezuela's state-run PDVSA still hasn't put up the 40 percent financing promised to Brazil's Petrobras.
    Some in Brazil's business community say Maduro lacks the charisma needed to take the relationship to the next level and close such deals. They expect Maduro to basically continue Chavez's policies, to the benefit of Brazil.
    "If you look at the economic returns, a Maduro victory would - in theory - be better for Brazil," said foreign trade lobbyist de Castro.
    (Writing by Caroline Stauffer; Editing by Anthony Boadle and Andrew Hay)
    THERE IS ONLY ONE ONANDI LOWE!

    "Good things come out of the garrisons" after his daughter won the 100m Gold For Jamaica.


    "It therefore is useless and pointless, unless it is for share malice and victimisation to arrest and charge a 92-year-old man for such a simple offence. There is nothing morally wrong with this man smoking a spliff; the only thing wrong is that it is still on the law books," said Chevannes.

  • #2
    Venezuela under Hugo Chavez: How he marginalised powers of some big US companies

































    Read more on »world beauties|Wikipedia|Washington|Wall Street|Venezuela|The Game|Sunday ET


    11
    Tweet

    [COLOR=#04558B !important]0





    Venezuela under Hugo Chavez: How he marginalised powers of some big US companies


    EDITORS PICK






    By Harish Nambiar

    Some time in the mid-'90s a group of venerable elderly men walked into the modest living room of a man of similar age in Thane, a suburb of Mumbai, to persuade the latter of the need to organise, recoup and reclaim their community's pride of place in the Hindu social hierarchy.

    The idea was essentially to buy my father-in-law's vote for a communal conference that would seek to reinvigorate the shrinking community's past dominance. The plan of action was to reaffirm old values of community connections and to work on the well-earned intellectual pride of the community to re-charge its devious, youthful prodigals.

    My father-in-law is a taciturn son of a hardboiled communist. Once the visiting congregation had made its case with all passion and fury, his first response was a show-stopping one-liner. "Do you know why India lost the hockey crown in the Olympics in 1976?"

    The introduction of artificial grass by the American firm, AstroTurf, in the Montreal Olympics, is often cited as the death knell of hockey. Astroturf killed the skills of the various hockey wizards of the subcontinent and the game switched to physical strength forever, cutting out artistry for power, much like tennis since Ivan Lendl.

    Lighter Shade of Red

    The denial of changed realities and an instinctive withdrawal into an older benchmark might be behind the way the West has reacted to Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, much through his political life and a little later too. I hate to use "the West" as a monolithic block, much as the more popular western assessment of Islam is, but I am referring only to the United States of America, the putative leader, if also currently tentative, of the rich and influential nations of the world. The other, more hesitant half, the European Union, already smells the coffee.

    This is a situation that the social psychopathologist of colonialism, Frantz Fanon, addressed in Black Skin, White Masks as early as 1952. "Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalise, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

    A less talked-about virtue that springs directly from the West's own project of spreading democracy, has also contributed to this cognitive dissonance. Sparsely populated countries of the North are stricken by the fact that many countries of the South are throwing up leaders with the full weight of their countrymen behind them through elections.

    This muted fear of numbers, arithmophobia or numerophobia, might explain the tinge of alarm that greets the rise of the "pink tide" in Latin America. The "pink tide" is a softening of hardcore communism into an acceptable, even legal, form called socialism. The western mainstream media invests a distilled discredit into the word 'populism' that almost always carries the miasma of profligate, irresponsible spending of state money. One of its favoured epithets for Chavez being "free-spending, authoritarian populist". The scorn in that phrase is undisguised, even when the language stays parliamentary.

    Power From the People

    The point is, populism is pretty much the cornerstone of democracy. There is no way a legitimately elected government of a largely poor country can ignore its unwashed masses. The value of a citizen's vote being equivalent across CEOs, ministers, homeless urban wastrels and uneducated farm labourers, underlines the equality of the principle of one person, one vote.
    Venezuela under Hugo Chavez: How he marginalised powers of some big US companies










    Chavez won his first term in office with 56.2% of the popular vote, which he increased to 59.8% in the next elections. By the time he won his third term in 2006 he had a whopping 63% of the voters of Venezuelabacking him. The turnout for the 2006 elections was 74% of the eligible voters in the country. The nearest to competition Chavez faced was in his last term in office, when he won with support from 54% of the votes against his opponent's 45%, and that election in October 2012 saw a mind-boggling 80% voter turnout.

    The US itself has seen voter turnout barrelling past 49% in 1996 to the late 50s, suggesting more and more of the poor are learning to use their votes. Is it surprising that the voter turnout peaks for the first black president of the US?

    So what are Chavez's unforgivable crimes against Washington? From all accounts, it is that he is authoritarian and quells dissent. While these are credible charges, nobody would mistake Chavez's Venezuela for totalitarian North Korea. The rub is that 'he is a bastard', just not ours, in the lingo of late 20th century American foreign policy.

    Chavez nationalised his country's most valuable resources, marginalising the powers of some very big American companies. He chose to ally with Cuba and started a programme to import Cuban doctors from Havana's fabled health sector to help push up rural health missions in Venezuela, raising hackles inWashington. He also reached out to Iran and other countries the US deemed untouchables. In effect, Chavez is a quintessential American hero who thumbed his nose at established power centres. He also initiated far-reaching policy shifts empowering more indigenous people in the country.

    Check the Numbers

    If these enterprises were all only cosmetic, for Venezuela also had a reputation for producing world beautieswith its cosmetic surgery advances and cheap prices for such surgeries, how does one explain another set of numbers, is a question worth pondering.

    About 48% of Venezuelan households lived in extreme poverty in 1997 according to the World Bank; that is the year before Chavez first came to power. A Wikipedia chart shows that the Chavez period reduced this to 21%. Chavez managed to dramatically redistribute wealth far more equitably during his reign. And this was through the 2008 collapse of the financial system and the resultant contraction of the global economy.

    Galloping inflation has been the one big elephant in the Venezuelan presidential suite. It clocked 22.8% early March this year. However, inflation has been descending from more than 100% in 1990 to an excess of a mere 70% in mid-'90s. So any amount of control of the beast should be in keeping with its size before Chavez took over in 1998.

    To be sure, new leaders in Venezuela will have to provide economic corrections to contain the bigger fallouts from Chavez's policies in the coming years. But they can also ride the benefits of a more equitable growth.

    Widening Chasms

    Against this, is a colourful man of some substance who played the Wall Street as a Merill Lynch employee, bearing out his number-crunching ability, and a respectable voice in the US media having covered the Martha Stewart trial for Slate.

    He paid $2 million as fine and a similar amount as disgorgement fees to extricate him of charges of civil fraud, as opposed to criminal fraud, brought against him by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2003.Henry Blodget stays permanently banned from the security industry, as disclaimers of his articles gleefully inform you.

    Blodget's blog, businessinsider.com, has an interesting and popular entry about his analysis of the brief social paroxysm in the US that suggested an upsurge in the anger of the poor and politically unattended Americans more popularly known as the Occupy
    Wall Street
    movement.

    In an October 2011 entry, Blodget lays out in charts how inequity has actually increased enormously in the US. "Corporate profits as a percent of the
    economy
    are near a record all-time high. With the exception of a brief happy period in 2007 (just before the crash), profits are higher than they've been since the 1950s. And they are vastly higher than they've been for most of the intervening half-century."

    More alarming data comes from another graph which shows how CEO pay "skyrocketed 300% since 1990 while corporate profits doubled. Average 'production worker' pay has increased 4%. The minimum wage has dropped. And as he says, helpfully, "all numbers adjusted for
    inflation
    ".

    It is not that the entire North, or West, is similarly cavalier about the issues at hand. Greece's recent troubles have triggered a wave of introspection in Europe. Martin Schultz, president of the
    European Parliament
    , the EU's only directly elected institution, lamented the lack of social spending in an interview to Reuters last week.

    As much as E700 billion were set aside to rescue banks in Europe, "but little has been done to tackle the devastating social impact of the crisis, with more than 26 million people unemployed across the EU, including one in every two young people in Greece, Spain and parts of Italy and Portugal," the report said.

    "We saved the banks but are running the risk of losing a generation," Reuters quoted Schulz, a German socialist who never went to university. That is something that he has in common with another man often said to the world's most popular politician, former Brazilian president, Lula da Silva.

    In the '70s the North-South divide was best caught in the slogan that had the poorer nations lamenting western consumerism saying, "Please live simply, so we may simply live." During the
    Occupy Wall Street crisis
    a demonstrator wore cardboard flaps across her chest saying "One day the only thing left for the poor to eat will be the rich."

    Ignoring the shift in tone, from imploring to the predatory, might be too costly for governments anywhere. Not only among the richer nations. Welcome to globalisation.



    With the wane of the colonial powers and the spread of democracy, more and more leaders from the southern hemisphere are being voted by an overwhelming army of poor citizens who do not figure in the countries' tax nets. But they make their votes count, as they did in electing Chavez continuously.




    [/COLOR]
    THERE IS ONLY ONE ONANDI LOWE!

    "Good things come out of the garrisons" after his daughter won the 100m Gold For Jamaica.


    "It therefore is useless and pointless, unless it is for share malice and victimisation to arrest and charge a 92-year-old man for such a simple offence. There is nothing morally wrong with this man smoking a spliff; the only thing wrong is that it is still on the law books," said Chevannes.

    Comment

    Working...
    X