My god, the world is ending. People are being asked to use their intllecutal capital to benefit their country. In Venezuela, the majority are poor, so the human capital that the elites monopolized pre-Chavez are going towards basic needs for the general public and not luxury consumption for the middle and upper class. Let's leave! What a tyranny! Tell me: Do people leave capitalist Mexico by the millinos for the US? How about Haiti? El Salvadorians? Do people from places like Turkey not flock to Germany? Could this be about differences in economic development? Nah, it's Venezuela, they're asking middle and upper class peopel to notice that the policies that benefited them have impoverashed the majority in their countries, and we should feel horrible if they are asked to share their skills with everyone else. The alternatives are what? Obviously not "free market" nonsense, which has never lead to economic development and destroyed Latin America (pre-Chavez Venezuela included). What else ya got?
The Bolivarian Brain Drain
Hugo Chavez and his allies are tightening their grips, forcing the intelligentsia to leave in droves.
Jul 1, 2009
Member Comments
- 1
- 2
-
Posted By: Wilber1 @ 07/02/2009 3:57:12 AM
-
Posted By: Californio 1 @ 07/02/2009 4:56:34 AM
my God man! there is not a single thing in your statement that is accurate. Intellectual capital always helps anyone when we are allowed to use it anywhere. The problem isn't that they are being asked to help their countrymen, the trouble is that they are not being allowed to do so by narrow minded and fascist bureaucrats. what you suggest, forcing men and women to work solely for the benefit of others with no recompence has a name. its called SLAVERY and I hope to god that even a fool like you never suffers under it. As far as free trade goes, no Latin American nation has every really gotten free trade up until recently. There have always been barriers to both export or import on our part or theirs. The only latin nation I am aware of that benefits from actual Free Trade with the US is Chile and it has done so only recently (over about the last 20 years or so) and that trade is in no small part responsible for the comparative wealth that Chile enjoys- that and a healthy capitalist system.
-
Posted By: bacile @ 08/21/2009 7:48:07 PM
I think both posts have valid points, but they both seem like caricatures of the two sides:
Venezuela had stop being an upwardly mobile society in the late 80's , and people became tired of
it. Then they elected the idiot Chavez , who has no real ideology, but calls himself a socialist.
But it also true that the measures of the IMF and World Bank are ridiculous and disingenuous:
these are measures that none of the now-developped countries had to go to in their beginnings. -
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 8:40:30 AM
The Soviets in Germany solved the problem of people not being willing to pour their energies selflessly to "help their country" by putting up concrete barriers. "Asking" is a deceptively mild way of saying "insisting" or "forcing." I'd like for YOU, Wilbert, to give up your paying job and come volunteer with me in this project I work in that benefits kids in the inner city. No, you won't get much money and your standard of living will seriously decrease, but by God, these kids need attention. All I'm asking is for you to use all your skills to benefit these kids who need them.
No? I thought not. Socialism is most attractive because it's always about someone else making the big sacrifices, not you. That kind of puts YOU in the limelight as the self-centered, greedy citizen, doesn't it?
-
-
-
Posted By: damianocastro @ 07/02/2009 8:09:45 AM
What is the other option? Make latin american countries "good for business??? like during the 80s and 90s, when the welfare of most of the population was sacrificed to have a thriving middle class? This article does not show the other side of the story, the disastrous policies promoted by USA government in Latin America during the 70???s, 80???s and 90s, that ultimately led to an exaggerated response from the other side of the political spectrum. Democracy and good intention does not work, as Salvador Allende???s Chile shows. As we say in Spanish, cría cuervos???
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 8:43:21 AM
Are you saying that a socialist dictatorship sounds pretty good to you? God save us.
Oy.-
Posted By: bacile @ 08/21/2009 7:42:57 PM
Is that really what you make out of the post? Did you actually understand anything?.
Oy
-
-
-
Posted By: coraltown @ 07/01/2009 6:16:28 PM
One other thing... these dictatorships have nothing to do with socialism. That word is a front for lock tight control... a dictatorship. Same thing goes for the myth of communism. It never existed... just a front.
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/01/2009 6:55:35 PM
Coraltown, that's not quite true. Let me see if I can parse the way that a wanna-be dictator gets into power in the first place for you... S/he
1. get into office on a platform acceptable to the producers of the country,
2. promptly sets about destabilizing the country and
3. creating or magnifying schisms between classes,
4. promising the lower classes a piece of the wealth "unfairly" obtained or held by the upper classes, thus tipping the ignorant and gullible and greedy in the electorate further in his favor,
5. beginning to make draconian rules restricting freedoms of the wealthy/intelligent/educated while promising or implying that those strictures are temporary, necessary, and/or intended only for the filthy bourgeoisie,
6. changing constitutions to favor a lifetime dictatorship and unchecked personal power.
So socialism--the promise of giving to one group who hasn't earned it by taking from the group which has earned it--is the means to the end.-
Posted By: bacile @ 08/21/2009 6:56:14 PM
What a gross oversimplification. While many of these dictators are manipulatior and power-hungry, it is
also true that they are able to rise in these societies because those who are below perceive that they
are getting the shaft. Do you believe Castro would have risen in Cuba if Cuba was not a playground
for gangsters and the CIA?. If Cuban society was upwardly-mobile in the 50's, Castro would have
been laughed off. Same with Chavez. And this is why no one like Chavez showed up in the 70's-80's
when Venezuelan society was upwardly mobile.
You make it seem as if these dictators pop up in a political and social vaccuum , and get elected
for no real reason. -
Posted By: younhova @ 07/02/2009 1:28:41 PM
exactly! Bravo
-
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/01/2009 7:37:43 PM
Not quite so. Socialism is the platform that dictator wanna-bes use to get into power. You know, I'll take money from the evil rich and give it to you, your poor things. The poor things vote in droves, greedy to receive the spoils. They believe that they'll be safe.
-
Posted By: Stoolie @ 07/01/2009 9:01:37 PM
Ypu are right. That is also exactly what Obama promised and is in the process of doing here.
-
Posted By: sanityprevail @ 07/01/2009 11:11:14 PM
Yup, totally dude, and before you know it he will be dissolving Congress and the Supreme Court, then holding a referendum to amend the constitution so he can serve unlimited terms. Yup, just like all the other dictatorships or self-proclaimed "socialists" being talked about here. Oops, except college educated young people voted for Obama by somewhere between 2 and 3 to 1 over the poor and uneducated who voted for McCain!
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 8:35:51 AM
"College-educated" does not necessarily equate with intelligence, sorry. Especially with the fluff degrees and courses that have been offered for the last 25 years or so, too many come away with a piece of paper and absolutely no understanding of historical precedent, no ability to think beyond the lines some professors neatly spelled out. My colleagues and I are continually frustrated by the lack of intelligence we see on a daily basis in the college classroom, yet somehow these kids manage to get a degree, if only in general studies or such. College degrees have become the equivalent of a high school degree 20 years ago- all but the most idiotic can attain them. They're no longer synonymous with intelligence or reasoning power.
Please do yourself and America the favor of looking into the HISTORY of the rise and inevitable fall of socialism, whether in Cuba or Soviet Germany or the USSR or Venezuela or wherever. You'll find that it's the key to despotism, not the happy, paid-for life for which you're all wishing desperately.-
Posted By: zz333 @ 08/10/2009 11:45:24 AM
I believe you are part of the 60 generation. If you wish to blame the current watered down version of the university kids, it really started with you and your generation (the know it alls). see all of the experimantations we have failed.
I met a prof. 20 years ago who told me that the quailty of the kids had dropped then as well. See what liberalism has brought to our colleges, because we did not practice tough love .
-
-
Posted By: hlgns763 @ 07/02/2009 9:24:21 AM
hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
you really think obama is just going to decide to "dissolve" congress and the supreme court? in this country? your quite naive. our own government and people would kill him before that. how foolish your assumptions are. checks and balances, checks and balances...
look out, the sky is falling on ONLY YOU today....-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 3:10:19 PM
higns...I'm curious. You said, "you really think obama is just going to decide to "dissolve" congress and the supreme court? "
Do you really think he wouldn't if he felt he had a chance? -
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 9:48:24 AM
higns...the checks and balances of the Honduran government are what worked to keep Zelaya out. Please note how Obama and the UN are calling that illegal.
-
-
-
Posted By: callmetk @ 07/01/2009 10:14:38 PM
Boy, do I wish Bush was still president. There was a guy we all could trust to do the right thing. We would all be much better off if we just left everything the way it was.
-
Posted By: callmetk @ 07/01/2009 10:16:34 PM
Hard to keep a straight face, isn't it?
-
Posted By: tataven @ 07/17/2009 8:01:24 PM
gosh...you are funny
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/01/2009 11:12:06 PM
It's okay for you to disagree, callmetk. What's stunning is your lack of coherent or cogent argument to support your position.
-
Posted By: callmetk @ 07/02/2009 8:24:34 AM
The American people held an election a few months ago. The conservative position lost. It was confirmed that the Republican policies were not working and people weren't happy. It was not a close election. People voted for this and voted against your position. It was in all the newspapers - perhaps you missed it.
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 8:30:25 AM
The interesting thing is that it's not only the expectation of socialism that one group must carry all others that causes a brain drain. It's attitudes like yours: smirking, juvenile, "I won, you lost, now I get to tell you what to do." Attractive, indeed.
-
Posted By: callmetk @ 07/02/2009 10:33:00 AM
C'mon...Socialism? Relax and stop labeling things - you are demonizing other ideas - removing the ability for honest debate. Anything to the left of you is not automatically "socialism". Give your colleagues credit - you don't need to resort to scare tactics to get them motivated and engaged.
As another poster mentioned, the "brains" and any concept of intellectualism were pushed down the last 8 years. The brains are happy now!!!
The "I win, you lose" stuff is me mocking the last 8 years. GWB sold himself to the American people as the bipartisan-loving governor of Texas. Never happened when he got to Washington - perhaps the most divisive president ever with a long list of far-right helpers. What comes around, goes around. Take the halo off. As far left as you think things are moving..... is the mirror image - at most - of the last 8 years. People like me were just as fearful then as you are now. We see this as a healthy adjustment, you see this as a calamity.
My only suggestion is to stop using the "socialism" word..... and we'll stop using words like "fascism"...-
Posted By: drewdudemn @ 07/02/2009 11:11:22 AM
great post...
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 2:33:45 PM
Socialism isn't a dirty word. Using it is not tantamount to fearmongering. It is an identifiable sociopolitical construct in which workers are expected to pool their resources, and those who are the most able are expected to give more to those with the most needs. If that doesn't frighten you, I suspect you think you are in the "needy" group rather than the "able" group (and you may well start out that way, but you're liable to be re-educated rather quickly should this ever come to pass here).. I use the word because it is the most accurate both for the mindset and the current national trend. If it makes you uncomfortable, I suggest you closely examine why that is...perhaps the ideology sits less well with your conscience than you outwardly pretend it does.
-
Posted By: callmetk @ 07/02/2009 9:02:58 PM
You make it seem black or white - it's not. It's a continuum. You are choosing to draw the "socialism" line in a different place than other people. There are those who think anything to the left of Rush Limbaugh is socialism. Makes the label kind of useless in a discussion.
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 10:38:25 PM
Okay, I am drawing the line somewhere different than you. You mustn't assume it's because I cannot think for myself or because I listen to or watch popular personalities of any sort. My opinion comes from reading the history, from perusing the original documentation. If you haven't read it (years and years of it), then perhaps you should be wondering what it teaches, not looking to dismiss my point of view.
-
Posted By: callmetk @ 07/03/2009 9:29:05 AM
The only reason I reacted to your post in the first place was your use of the word. All I am trying to say is that your use of this word SOUNDS LIKE an over-reaction fear-mongering comment from someone who sees current events as so dire as to compare Obama to figures such as Hugo Chavez. WHETHER OR NOT YOU INTEND IT, the use of the word "socialism" immediately paints you as over the top - like anything non-Republican is automatically a flaming disaster.
Regardless of what you believe, you have to admit that Obama walked into a real bad economic situation that he did not create himself. Personally, I would expect him to be active in looking to find solutions and making changes. Leaving things alone is not the answer. Just as GWB took big scary steps in reaction to crises (think Patriot Act - also viewed by many as a power grab), Obama is doing the same.
You also have to remember that we have a pretty stable political system here in the US with lots of checks and balances. While you see the recent Obama steps as surely on the slippery slope toward socialism or worse... you are forgetting that the system also includes the rightward-leaning Supreme Court, rule of law, and so forth. Obama (or any US President) doesn't have the power that Chavez has within his country. I have confidence that the system works - if the Democrats over-reach or show no results, they will get bounced in a couple years.
What Obama is doing is not comparable to Chavez. Its just not. This is not a calamity, this is simply part of the natural yin-and-yang of American politics. Obama may certainly be on the left, but GWB was no moderate. It's all about a balance. The Republicans had 8 years and the American people chose to remove them. Give Obama a chance to address the current issues - they may just work - other approaches have not. Results will determine whether he gets re-elected.-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/07/2009 6:15:41 PM
Honduras has checks and balances, too, and the world is decrying how they are currently working, trying to insist that Zelaya be returned. I wouldn't consider our constitution nor its upholders to be infallible nor particularly reliable, but we can hope, can't we?
(And FYI, not everyone who dislikes Obama's socialistic tendencies is Republican. I'm not, for example.)
-
-
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 11:19:52 PM
Look up "social proof." Then understand this: I don't live by it. "Other people" are not relevant.
-
-
-
Posted By: repeatKentStateU @ 07/02/2009 10:48:07 PM
You should stop using "fascism" altogether. Fascism can go both ways. All it means is that you are incapable of accepting other people's views and intolerat of other ideas. You can pretty much say that about the ACLU, Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Osama Bin Laden, ...
-
-
-
Posted By: repeatKentStateU @ 07/02/2009 10:43:39 PM
Apparently, your president's (not mine) agenda is not working either. The latest example: unemployment is reported to be highest since 26 years ago and his majesty's voters are asking where is their stimulus. Don't give me that garb that he "inherited" the "mess." He's in charge. You elected him to clean up the "mess." And he's doing a hell of a job (hard to keep a straight face, isn't it)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Still Free in the USA @ 07/02/2009 10:40:08 AM
"Liberal SOCIALIST Agenda": Those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. Those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion. those that say media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement, all the while slamming the ONLY one that is (FOX).those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity. those for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation those for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs. THAT is a small portion of the Liberal Agenda.. And it is like a cancer to this country
-
Posted By: bacile @ 08/21/2009 6:48:47 PM
"Liberal SOCIALIST Agenda": Those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence."
Please explain where you got that def. from. Otherwise, it looks like a strawman. I am a liberal, and that is
not my agenda. That seems like a description out of FOX news. Watch some reasonable conservatives like
Scarborough or Buchanan. FOX is biased _ at the management_ level. While some newsman do have a
liberal slant, these newsmen are not pressured --as is the case of FOX -- to conform to any agenda.
" Those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion. "
Conservatives, _by definition_ prefer following tradition to free-thinking. go tell a conservative you are, e.g., an
atheist, or even a muslim, see how they react to you. Tell a conservative you do not believe in marriage,
etc. Your claim is nonsense. How about gays?. If you want to be approved of by conservatives, you must
follow tradition. This is the _definition_ of conservatism: respect for tradition , and preference for tradition
over independent thinking.
"those that say media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement, all the while slamming the ONLY one that is (FOX)."
And you claim that is what "the liberal agenda is". I don't believe it. And it is ridiculous to claim FOX is
balanced. I guess since they use the slogan "Fair and Balanced", that an independent thinker like you
--unlike us liberal sheep --agrees that it actually is. Get your news from many different channels and
form your own opinion, and stop drinking the FOX (or any other station's) Kool-Aid.
"those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West iseconomic stagnation those for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs. THAT is a small portion of the Liberal Agenda"........
That is a portion of your _misrepresentation_ of what the liberal agenda actually is. There are many valid criticisms
to be made of the liberal--as well as the conservative --agendas , but you might as well represent them accurately.
The liberal agenda in this country, in its broadest sense is that the state should play a role in society and the economy. There is a continuum within this agenda: conservative liberals want limited intervention, while on the other end, some believe the state should intervene at all levels.
.." And it is like a cancer to this country"
i.e., you disagree with the misrepresented version of the agenda. -
Posted By: younhova @ 07/02/2009 1:52:22 PM
Its like a cancer to all countries. We are humans and part of our human nature is to develop and move forward and build higher and reach farther and to become a better society. If it wasnt for democracy and capitalist system we wouldnt have advanced as much as we have in the last 2000 years. Socialism is just a synonym with having everything handed to you for nothing, no work no sweat... Where is the drive to succeed??
-
Posted By: angstless @ 07/02/2009 10:22:44 PM
sugar, when you put out your own fires and build and police your own streets, tell me how very independent you are and how your bootstraps got you where you are today..till then STFU
-
Posted By: zz333 @ 08/10/2009 11:50:06 AM
Angstless ,
Typical juvenile liberal who starts crying and takes his marbles home because he lost! -
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 11:15:30 PM
If your point is that we have community services paid for by taxes, then of course you are correct, however you phrased it.
My reservations come when I listen to people talk and say things like this, "socialism for our needs/capitalism for our wants." Only they don't really mean that all will have their basic needs met. They mean that certain people can keep paying for their own needs while heavily subsidizing anyone who hasn't the native intelligence or motivation to pay for their own. When pressed, they'll generally admit this, with varying degrees of defiance and "so, what?!"
There's a difference between that and mutually beneficial services coming from taxes, and you must surely know it. -
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 10:39:22 PM
Attractive reply. It has added greatly to the depth and breadth of the conversation here.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: ca83rlita @ 08/10/2009 1:48:13 PM
There would be a major problem here in the usa if the media made false accusations about the president or even worse problems if they would make up random information about the polices in this country....it is well know that America is very much control when it comes to the media, so cut the crap about freedom of speech.
In Latin America if you could understand Spanish and watch their news you would see that the media goes overboard insulting the presidents, making up stories exaggerating to the point of ridicule that there has to be a time where there is a limit to the media, when they are no longer transmitting news but just telling lies to the less educated public. So please if you are one of the few smart Americans that speak more than just English watch one of these ???independent??? channels and see for yourself ??????.
VIVA SIMOM BOLIVAR!
-
Posted By: cymbaline777 @ 07/01/2009 6:23:07 PM
What a joke of an article, pure fascist propaganda
-
Posted By: zz333 @ 08/10/2009 11:52:49 AM
cymbaline- I thought Chavez was the fascist one! lol
-
Posted By: codynews @ 07/01/2009 7:49:46 PM
How in the heck is that fascist propaganda? Newsweek is know for its left wing sympathies so for them to actually speak negative towards a 'socialist paradise' is pretty telling.
Cody -
Posted By: Peric_Overde @ 07/01/2009 7:08:11 PM
And, of course, you are going to show us with a well-reasoned and detailed argument why it is "fascist propaganda" instead of simply throwing an unbacked statement. Right?.
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/01/2009 6:40:08 PM
cymbaline, do you read much? Have you read any histories of socialist attempts? If not, spare your dignity and hush.
-
-
Posted By: achigur @ 07/02/2009 10:31:33 AM
Member Comments
Reply Report Abuse Posted By: drewdudemn @ 07/02/2009 10:08:56 AM
For every failed third world socailist state, there are a dozen failed capitalist ones.
___________________________________________________________________________
Please provide the primary source for your assertion above.
Also, which socialist country do you live in?-
Posted By: zz333 @ 08/10/2009 11:50:50 AM
So why don't you move there!
-
Posted By: repeatKentStateU @ 07/02/2009 10:53:37 PM
Really??? Can you name a dozen of those Capitalist ones and the one Socialist?
-
-
Posted By: eegratenol @ 07/02/2009 5:27:18 PM
I really dont like to brag about myself, but I don not consider myself an ignorant Venezuelan, in fact I got a degree in International Business from Liberty University in Virginia, I have traveled quite a bit around the world, I am not anti-American and after all that I decided to come back to Venezuela to my Bolivarian Revolution and I can asure you article readers, that everething this media mercenary wrote is simply not true. Venezuela is graduating more professionals than ever before and I highly doubt that they are all leaving the country for Miami, It is sad to say that Miami is getting the leftovers of our society, a bunch of wannabe American that think that the money grows on trees and that everything is the way "E entertainment television shows"
-
Posted By: zz333 @ 08/10/2009 11:48:26 AM
eegratenol,
SO, exactly why did you come to the US to study??? The most capitalist nation on earth- are you these chardonney socialist (whose parents are so rich ) who the Venezuelans cannot afford! -
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 10:35:48 PM
Well, I'd believe you, but Newsweek is not a right-wing publication. This story--and its author--were vetted before publication. Which means it is a much more reliable source of information that someone purporting to be Venezuelan writing in an anonymous forum. For all we know, you're a prankster. Thanks, but I'll go with Newsweek for my sources, even when I disagree with their slant (which I find I do more times than not).
-
Posted By: MexiBear @ 07/05/2009 7:59:04 PM
Colonia of the USofA? hmm, as i remember PR has had several opportunities to chose to remain or leave! I wish it would become a state !
-
-
-
Posted By: Observerguy @ 08/09/2009 9:10:57 PM
I think the writer may be overvaluing the technically trained group. Didn't we hear this long ago about Germany, China, the Bolshevik takeover in Russia, North Korea, the rise of fundamentalist Islaam in Iran, Sadaam in Iraq, etc.? Yes you may have a few homesick technicians (engineers, applied physicists, medical personell, etc.), but somehow this "great loss" never pans out. Even if it would do so, it seems as if people would rather move back in time to have an indigenous cause than to have no cause but a transplanted valuation of profit and living standards. It seems as if fewer and fewer on this planet see western capitalism as a desirable way to go. Such a view of the world is more a "WWII think" phenomenon that vanished in the face of the Cuban revolution, the Viet Nam scenario, etc. I think we are blessed to live in the great experiment our forefathers designed for us (in no small measure because it is ours), but I'm not yet vain enough to see this life capturing the hearts and minds of all.
-
Posted By: jcmf8000 @ 07/26/2009 10:11:33 AM
Hugo Chavez was included in LatinYork.com as a Anarquist Dictator, just to let everybody know this is a very influential hispanic website in USA.
Jose Manuel
-
Posted By: amazonia @ 07/16/2009 9:21:23 AM
Great article. Finally i feel someone could put into words my reality, my life. I am a venezuelan professional considered to be the best of my field with a bright future but unable to pursue it in venezuela. I'm not living in Venezuela nor the USA at the moment, but i have done so before (both places). My comment goes to the people that have written that Obama's action somehow compare to Chavez's. Please, educate yourselves. Making such a remark just prove how ignorant you all are. I'm not saying you have to agree with Obama but don't say that his political actions in any way share common ground with Chavez's. Saying so only takes away seriousness from your comments.
-
Posted By: Sooriamoorthy @ 07/15/2009 10:58:24 AM
If indeed Chavez is scaring away talent, I'd have thought that such news would have been music to the ears the heirs of Jo Mc Carthy.
-
Posted By: downsteamjim @ 07/14/2009 9:10:21 PM
Perhaps we could set up an exchange program with Venezeula. We could take their best and brightest who crave freedom in exchange for U.S. liberals who yearn to live in such a society.
-
Posted By: greatteddybear @ 07/07/2009 2:26:28 AM
f.... u. great get f... in D.C instead.......
-
Posted By: Al Holmgren @ 07/01/2009 4:04:44 PM
Sounds like what's starting to happen here. Only we should already know better then this.
-
Posted By: CaliforniaDad999 @ 07/01/2009 6:33:49 PM
Brain drain here? Those drawing parallels between Chavez and Obama might want to consult the "brains", who I believe would mostly say that Bush's policies were much less conducive to free scientific and engineering exploration than Obama's. To most of the "brains", Obama is a breath of fresh air.
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/01/2009 6:47:53 PM
Not so, CaDad. More than a few intellectuals of my acquaintance are making sure their passports are in order, perusing overseas fellowships and professorships with more interest than previously, pondering family ties abroad, etc.. My family is doing the same, learning where our specialities (control systems engineering as applied to aerospace, and education) are highly sought after abroad.
It's worth noting that not only the elite but the plain old middle class of Cuba jumped ship quickly. They knew what you don't apparently don't know: the category of those selected to support the masses is a moving target. It moves from the wealthy to the almost wealthy to the not really wealthy to whoever-we-can-find quite quickly. You should be looking to your OWN affairs.-
Posted By: MexiBear @ 07/05/2009 8:04:59 PM
Bush's policies were less conducive? how so? i noted no drop in research under bush. as for the stem cell research hype, the amount of funds spent increased under bush, and i recall several break troughs on adult stem cells taking place. The only ones breathing a fresh air are those who expect to rake in money in Obama's pet projects. But he won fair and square so he gets to direct the money.
-
Posted By: CaliforniaDad999 @ 07/01/2009 9:13:58 PM
Jees - that's certainly not the feeling I get from the several hundred scientists that I've seen weigh in on this. But let me cite an example of something I never understood about the Bush administration, in the area of energy policy. The Bush administration sunk a lot of our money into the hydrogen fuel initiative - one that most experts in the field saw as unlikely to be productive any time soon, as I understand it. And it certainly hasn't panned out. So that's what happens when the government gets in and micromanages, rather than letting the market decide. What baffled me is that this was a REPUBLICAN administration (small government?) trying to set policy that the government knows the answers, not the market. Obama, from what I can tell, would like to put a tax on carbon emission and let the market do its work, which sounds more "republican" than the Bush approach of, apparently, having the government decide for us. I also read the energy policy section of Gingrich's new book, and it was just the same: he advocated government control in a very confused (in my mind) argument that was based solely on avoiding a general change in the tax structure, but led to an increase in government micromanagement. I see Obama's arguments as much more clear and sensible, with the government establishing an incentive structure and then stepping back and letting the market do its magic. Of course, if you don't believe atmospheric CO2 is a problem, then none of this makes any difference!
-
Posted By: tunsis @ 07/03/2009 4:27:33 PM
According to NYT Obama is supporting a gov't study for clean coal (test plant in IL, years of study & billions of $)instead of letting the market go with gassified coal option which would cut emmission by 2/3'rds quickly..
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 3:07:42 PM
Funny, I mentioned your assertion over lunch with a colleague today, that the "brains" were entirely behind this shift to socialistic and "improved scientific" policies. My very left-leaning friend looked sheepish for a moment, then admitted that he'd been pondering what he himself might do should it become apparent that such an event might take place here. Turns out that he's all for socialism and high science as a protest art until he finds that the crosshairs might be trained on him. At least he was man enough to admit it.
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/01/2009 11:13:22 PM
You personally know several hundred scientists? Wow.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: fritton @ 07/02/2009 3:09:04 AM
Do you have any evidence for this at all besides what Limbaugh is being paid to tell you?
-
-
Posted By: rschiwal @ 07/03/2009 12:51:18 PM
I would like to propose a suggestion that the thing that makes an economy fail and the thing that is evil is neither capitalism or socialism but greed. People who demand everything to be free to them are just as greedy as a fatcat corporate raider. I believe Socialism can work in small doses if it is balanced with concern for the rights of others rather than class warfare. A good example is Alaska; the people are all paid for the oil and share the wealth. Isn't that what socialism claims to be? The sad thing is, Venezuela could have this. They are sitting on an ocean of oil. There shold be plenty of money to spread around for all sorts of programs, but they have an economy of corruption, class warfare and socialist greed.
-
Posted By: rschiwal @ 07/03/2009 12:36:18 PM
At what point does a group of people ganging up to take someone's money stop being a mugging and start being socialism?
-
Posted By: drewdudemn @ 07/02/2009 10:08:56 AM
To all you socialism bashers.... ever heard of Sweden? or all of Scandinavia? or how about half of Europe. Democratic Socialism is successful. Sorry to burst your bubble. For every failed third world socailist state, there are a dozen failed capitalist ones. Make sure you're comparing apples to apples. By the way, there was ONE Scandinavian country that turned to the right and captialism in recent history, Iceland. I wonder how that worked out for them....? haha!!!
-
Posted By: younhova @ 07/02/2009 1:42:59 PM
Sounds you like you need to seriously consider moving into one of these socialist countries and see how well you do in them. I live there, right in the center of the revolution, the oil rich country of Venezuela. Im sorry dude, but the books you are reading and the whole concept they are feeding you on those pages might be nice but its far off like light years off from what it really means to be a socialist country.
-
Posted By: repeatKentStateU @ 07/02/2009 10:57:58 PM
Also, remember Russia, Cuba, China (which is making a right turn and will soon own YOU). USA has been capitalist since her creation and so far so good. Can you also mention the one failed socialist country and the dozen capitalist that went with them?
-
Posted By: repeatKentStateU @ 07/02/2009 10:55:30 PM
Actually, Iceland remained socialist when their economy collapse this year.
-
Posted By: talheure @ 07/02/2009 2:36:49 PM
As long as the borders are left open for those of us who prefer to live by the sweat of our own brow to exit, you're welcome to try the grand social experiment here, though it would break my heart. My children, husband, and I will simply shrug and leave you to it. That should make you very happy for those who disagree with you to leave you alone, though I suspect you'll miss our abilities more than we'll miss your need.
-
-
-
Posted By: artistjoe @ 07/02/2009 8:24:37 PM
This piece on Venezuela emigres, and the reasons for it, makes for very compelling reading. Except that it's very one sided in favor of the mostly pale skinned pro-business factions that have always opposed Chavez.
-
Posted By: FactOfTheMatter @ 07/02/2009 11:33:37 AM
It is an absolute tragedy that the pedulum has swung so far in its current "socialist" direction for these "Bolivarian" countries. But realize that it was only able to swing that far because it was pushed so far in the opposite direction for 20+ years by big business (especially oil and construction companies) and the World (read U.S) Bank which pushed and prodded these countries and some corruptible leaders into taking on so much debt that the were "owned" by big business, which then did everything they could to take advantage. Will it take another 20+ years for the pendulum to stop swinging? Or will one side or the other keep pushing it. There has to be a balance. Lets hope they can find it without too much outside interference and without too many losing their lives, families, and livelihoods.
- 1
- 2
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
- I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have to say. Holder on terror trialsREUT
Discuss