I know he is the hate-object du jour on the right these days, but it really is rather ridiculous to speak of Chavez as a "dictator". He has won, what is it, four elections now? Is there any doubt whatsoever that he has the support of the majority of Venezuelans, and has earned that support at the ballot box? There is a passionate opposition, of course, but that doesnt disqualify his democratic cred.

What seems to lie at the heart of the anti-Chavista mentality is his pointed focus on trying to make the economy yield direct benefits to the poor. One may argue about the efficiency of his tactics, but that is not the level at which the debate is engaged. Rather, the very goal of orienting the economy for the benefit of all seems to be problematical on the right. No surprise there, of course.

Any leader of a foreign government that disagrees with the US is a "dictator". Chavez and the mullahs in Iran may be bad leaders...but to deny them some level of democratic support within their nations (especially when standing up to buush) is silly.

Oh yeah...not elect oilmen president 3of last 5 elections. And the current vp has some interesting relationships with big oil, while in and out of office.

The Economist pointed out the concentration of wealth and corruption that occur in natural resource driven economies although Canada, Australia, and New Zealand tend avoid this probably because they are more universalist. At least we don't have to worry about China.

What seems to lie at the heart of the anti-Chavista mentality is his pointed focus on trying to make the economy yield direct benefits to the poor.

That, and things like making lists of the people who voted against him or voted for a recall position, and using that to blackball people from jobs and government services, and other abuses of civil liberties and legality.

A democratically elected ruler who blatantly abuses civil liberties can be attacked as a dictator.

I suppose there is some academic distinction between "democratically elected socialist pig" and "dictator;" but aren't we just splitting hairs?

Well, I'm not sure I'd call Iran a democracy since there isn't freedom to run for office in either a formal or practical basis. I'd also question calling Nigeria a democracy. Especially when Venezuala, for all its problems, is left off.

"I suppose there is some academic distinction between "democratically elected socialist pig" and "dictator;" but aren't we just splitting hairs?"

Not at all. Not if words are to retain any meaning. Or perhaps you are of the type that sees political discouse as one long name-calling exercise. I mean, would you object to Bush being called a dictator merely on the basis of the fact that he is a "democratically elected capitalist pig"?

Thomas Friedman has an article on this subject in the current issue of Foreign Policy (subscribers only):
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3426&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3426

All of these dictatorships are in parts of the world where everybody else is a dictatorship, too. Except Norway, which is a democracy in a democratic neighborhood. Syria, Egypt, and Jordan don't have much in the way of oil, do they?

Observer: "Orienting the economy for the benefit of all", eh? You mean "wrecking the economy so everybody gets screwed equally, except of course for Party officials". I once read a very funny line about how people who advocate brutal regimes always fondly imagine that they'll be one the few fat parasites at the top, merrily deluding themselves about how very steep the odds are against them. You do realize how enormously vicious the competition for privilege is in a state like that, don't you? When there's no honest way to get ahead, when the only way to improve your status is to gain rank in one single hierarchically organized gang of thieves, all the hungriest and meanest sharks zero in on that one path to advancement and fight it out. People like Lavrenti Beria rise a lot nearer to the top in those systems than idle fantasists like you. It's social Darwinism on speed. You'd never even rise high enough to be worth sending to a labor camp.

"Benefit of all", indeed...

Is there necessarily an inconsistency in calling someone a dictator who is elected? Suppose as a thought experiment that Stalin had been well and truly elected (and re-elected) a few times in the Soviet Union (not the sham elections they actually ran, but real ones) but behaved in the exact same way. Does that have made him less a dictator just because 50%+1 thought it was okay? I don't think so.

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

Hmm, universalism? Or is there something else, something that these three countries have in common. Can't seem to put my finger on it, but there just *seems* to be something else besides universalism.

Hitler got elected fair and square, didn't he?

The classic Greek dictators were elected.

Hitler did not get elected fair and square. He did not have a majority at any point in history of the Weimar Republic, and never more than 37% of the national vote. This despite huge intimidation and violence in almost all the voting (to be fair, the communists were no strangers to that either). He became Chancellor as a result of political deals, and because of some mistakes on the part of Hindenburg and von Papen. However, I'm enough of a cynic to believe that Hitler probably could have won elections from 1936 to around 1942/43 at least.

About Iran, Jack Straw called it an emerging democracy in 2003. However, just as in pakistan (where the military holds the real power), in Iran the theocracy holds the real power. And I would not put Putin and Chavez in the dictator column (just yet anyway).

A few years back, Great Britain would have been in the oil list too.

Nuclear power.

erg,

"Political deals" as in coalitioning, or something else? The coalition thing's hardly rare in democracies, if it was that.

Compounding the problem:
These dictators can now forum shop themselves (to tie into the next post), with China all to willing to step in and pay for the oil we're not buying.

So, even if we in the US cut them off, the growing global demand for oil affords these folks the ability to sell to other parties who don't care at all about what happens inside the boundaries of a fellow soveriegn state.

I have some clips of last sunday's Washington Post spread on this issue at www.sis382.blogspot.com

About Iran, Jack Straw called it an emerging democracy in 2003. However, just as in pakistan (where the military holds the real power), in Iran the theocracy holds the real power. And I would not put Putin and Chavez in the dictator column (just yet anyway).

Who has the real power in the USA?

You do realize how enormously vicious the competition for privilege is in a state like that, don't you? When there's no honest way to get ahead, when the only way to improve your status is to gain rank in one single hierarchically organized gang of thieves, all the hungriest and meanest sharks zero in on that one path to advancement and fight it out.

Not being extremely "privileged" here, I wsnt to ask you how vicious is the competition for privilege in the USA? I hear there isn't a whole lot of viciousness involved if you happen to be born into it, but otherwise? Were you born into it or did you work your way up?

What seems to lie at the heart of the anti-Chavista mentality is his pointed focus on trying to make the economy yield direct benefits to the poor.

That, and things like making lists of the people who voted against him or voted for a recall position,

Check.

and using that to blackball people from jobs and government services,

Check.

and other abuses of civil liberties and legality.

Check.

A democratically elected ruler who blatantly abuses civil liberties can be attacked as a dictator.

Check.

I'm on a roll. Who are we applying this to again?

I don't understand Boot's solution. If America reduces its oil consumption, the global price of oil goes down. This means other countries (China, India) will INCREASE their consumption of cheap oil rather than invest in alternative energy sources. Despite all of Boot's suggestions, the Saudis will continue to make a fortune. The only way for this to work is for the US to suddenly and radically reduce consumption faster than other economies can use the excess supply. That'll never happen.

Once you're hooked, you're dealer owns your ass.

Once you're hooked, you're dealer owns your ass.

Just waitin' on the man

Twenty-five dollars in my hand

He's never early

He's always late

My theory on "Max Boot" is that he is a clever caricature of a neoconservative/neoliberal "policy expert." The name is a dead give away, as are the idiotic policy prescriptions "he" proposes. Remember the one about invading Iraq, and being met with flowers? Ha, that was a good one. Or how about the need to shed American blood as some sort of sacrifice which will somehow tear Americans away from The Aprentice and get them to take "the war on terror" seriously. Yeah, there is no way this entity is real. Savage Wars of Peace indeed.

Back to the main topic of "Oil as Dictator Dividend".

Chavez has gotten away with nationalization of oil and my guess is Morales will also. As stated, they will keep the populace happy because, with all those resources, they can afford to.

If I am president of Argentina or Ecuador (lot of natural resources), I will take a hard look at the situation and seriously consider doing the same thing. Dictatorship or not, perhaps this is the beginning of a new trend.

I don't understand Boot's solution. If America reduces its oil consumption, the global price of oil goes down.

Briefly, yes, but only until OPEC cuts production until prices reach the desired level.

It's not a long-term solution.

---

My theory on "Max Boot" is that he is a clever caricature of a neoconservative/neoliberal "policy expert." The name is a dead give away,[...]

I suggest you do some research before forming an opinion- it'll save you some embarassment.

From Wikipedia's entry on the man:

Max Boot (born 1971, Moscow, Soviet Union) is an author and military historian noted for his support of a strong U.S. leadership role in the world. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, a weekly columnist for The Los Angeles Times and a regular contributor to other publications including the Financial Times and The New York Times. [...]

Considering the place of birth, I think it is quite possible that he may have changed his name to something Americans could pronounce more easily when he emigrated.

Chavez has gotten away with nationalization of oil and my guess is Morales will also. As stated, they will keep the populace happy because, with all those resources, they can afford to.

I was under the impression that Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. had been owned by the Venezuelan government for quite some time- longer than Chavez had been in office, in any case. Is that not the case?

If I am president of Argentina or Ecuador (lot of natural resources), I will take a hard look at the situation and seriously consider doing the same thing. Dictatorship or not, perhaps this is the beginning of a new trend.

Government siezure of private assets is hardly a new trend. Ultimately, it is counterproductive, as it undermines property rights and discourages foreign investment.

Yes, PVDSA is and has been state owned for a long time. But Chavez has been unilaterally re-writing oil contracts with the big oil companies thus concentrating more power and revenues into his sphere.

OK, nationalisation of private property is not a new trend but an old trend anew. Talk in Argentina is about how is feels like a return to the '70s, and how that isn't warm and fuzzy.

Today Morales/Bolivia meets with Kirchner/Argentina and Lula/Brasil to talk gas. Vamos a ver.

Yeah, and I don't think that meeting is going to be all smiles either. It would be an understatement to say that Lula is unhappy about the gas nationalization in Bolivia; Petrobras, with whom the Brazilian president is very close, is one of the biggest investors in that project.

I just read that Chavez invited himself to the meeting and will attend.

Interesting.

Somehow, I doubt Lula will be particularly interested in what Chavez is going to offer- it's not like it worked very well the last time around.

Hitler did get elected fair and square. It was a parliamentary system--he won the largest portion of the votes, so the President invited him to form a government, which he did.

That's the fair and square. The Enabling Law and the Machtsergreifung(sp?) were part of the "becoming a dictator" part.

Rosignol, my post about "Max Boot" was tongue-in-cheek, although you just never know, do you. That wiki could have easily been planted ; ). Come to think of it, has anyone every seen our gracious host and "Max Boot" at the same time?

I see now from the BBC that the fallout is already beginning -- Petrobras has suspended investment in Bolivia and apparently both Lula and Kirchner are preparing to read the Bolivians the riot act.

There's still a very significant national interest issue that has to be sorted out, for the Bolivians as well as everyone else; this is a country that has tended to get screwed when it comes to royalties on minerals, and what we're now seeing is the backlash. It's not like, say, Wyoming, where they hold the domain over the resources and get paid very handsomely for them by the private companies that develop them (check out their state budget surplus this year -- it's something like $2,000 for every individual in the state), and in one sense that is simply what the Bolivians want for themselves.

Why is nobody bringing up the issue of futures?

Isn't that a large part of what is driving up prices? We have the supply. It's not supply and demand. It's the legalized gambling over on Wall St. that's driving prices up every time Iran's president sneezes a word that sounds like "Israel."

Eliminate the oil futures, and you'll get a fairer price for oil.

I'm not sure what Boot is getting at here: certainly, it is not good that the enemies of the United States, of the oil cartel countries, Iran comes the closest to being, acquire more wealth, through which they can threaten the U.S. and Europe militarily or other wise. However, if there was a country more prepared to deal with a military threat than the United States, I don't know of one. If they want a real war for oil, we can certainly give them one, I just don't see how that would be a more efficient vehicle than the "open" market for oil already is.

Did anybody notice the blurb yesterday that Iran imports 90% of its refined fossil fuels? Talk about an easily exploited vunerability of the shooting fish in a barrel variety...

@J Thomas:

I'm on a roll. Who are we applying this to again?

Actually I'm not sure. Putin? The Chinese Politburo? The chappie with the unpronouncable name who runs Iran these days?

Why don't you explain a bit more clearly?

@St. James:

Chavez has gotten away with nationalization of oil and my guess is Morales will also. As stated, they will keep the populace happy because, with all those resources, they can afford to.

I don't believe Chavez actually nationalised the oil company as much as diverted the revenues to purposes which fitted his political ends. I could be wrong about that, but I don't recall hearing the characteristic sounds of suddenly emasculated foreigners back when Hugo was going his tricks.

OK, nationalisation of private property is not a new trend but an old trend anew. Talk in Argentina is about how is feels like a return to the '70s, and how that isn't warm and fuzzy.

Yep. Back to the legacy of good old Juan. I can definately understand how that could go down hard. Particularly when it's not Yanquis on the recieving end of the long pointy shaft.

I'd say let Bolivia go to hell it's own way. They will pay for that consfiscation about 10 times over before this is done. The trouble is that every other country in Latin America will bear part of the bill as investor risk premiums go up - not only for Bolivia but everyone else too.

Hate to point it out - but Morales or even Chavez isn't the leader who began this mess this time around. No, Kirchner seems to have been the one. OK by me - the investmetn will simply head for safer places.

How to address the dictators? It's very simple: wait. High oil prices mean high investment in exploration and in conservation. Chinese low-end manufactures are being hurt by the oil prices - they will be investing in conservation just to stay in business. US consumers will buy more hybrids and fewer SUV's. Perhaps a research project or two to see whether there is a way to move to hydrogen fuel would be OK.

Demand will slow and supply will increase, and soon enough the dictators will be asking for loans from the banks to finance the projects they started during the boom. Booms end. They always end.

Why don't you explain a bit more clearly?

Don S, it always seems to spoil a joke to explain it for the guy who just didn't get it, but OK.

John Thacker made a list of things that could get a democratically elected leader labeled a dictator. Things like getting rid of civil liberties etc. And every one of the items on his list applied to George W. Bush.

"I'd say let Bolivia go to hell it's own way. They will pay for that consfiscation about 10 times over before this is done. The trouble is that every other country in Latin America will bear part of the bill as investor risk premiums go up - not only for Bolivia but everyone else too." - Don S

Two things:

1) Investor risk premiums aren't what they used to be back in the days when commn sense reigned. Argentina (the country that screwed the financial world without batting an eye just a few years ago) today issued a second US$500 million five year bond with a yield of 8.09%; a couple months ago the first issue had to pay 8.36% -- and U.S. interest rates have been on the rise during this period. Where's the punishment?

2) The "old trend anew" may have an interesting twist this time around: as oil & gas prices continue to rise, resource-rich countries like Bolivia and Venezuela may well be able to "get away" with nationalizations* because there will always be someone willing to gamble on them given that they need those resources so badly. Which in turn ties into the U.S.'s increasing belligerance as a nation, which Chavez and Morales better factor into their schemes -- but that's another thread.

* in 1999 Venezuela did something similar to what Morales is doing: unilaterally re-writing oil contracts with big multinationals.

However, if there was a country more prepared to deal with a military threat than the United States, I don't know of one.

Ever heard of a place called North Korea?

Those guys have been preparing to be invaded since the 1950s.

Did anybody notice the blurb yesterday that Iran imports 90% of its refined fossil fuels? Talk about an easily exploited vunerability of the shooting fish in a barrel variety...

I'm pretty sure the people in that building with 5 sides have noticed this. I'm much less certain Ahmadnejad has.

Does anyone know why so few oil-producing countries have bothered to develop refineries?

@J Thomas

John Thacker made a list of things that could get a democratically elected leader labeled a dictator. Things like getting rid of civil liberties etc. And every one of the items on his list applied to George W. Bush.

I see. You are joking. Har Har.

@St. James,

Where's the punishment?

I'm not sure when it will happen. I think part of it is that EU investors haven't regarded it as their problem when US investors get shafted. But in Bolivia it wasn't the US getting the shaft - it was the EU. If EU investors decide that risks in Latin America have gone up a lot - which they may do especially if there is more of this kind of thing - then there will be problems. The money can go a lot of places other than South America. But I don't have to tell you that!

the U.S.'s increasing belligerance as a nation, which Chavez and Morales better factor into their schemes

If I were Chavez or Morales I wouldn't sweat the "U.S.'s increasing belligerance as a nation" much if at all. There is a long line ahead of Venezuela, and Bloivia is not readily reachable from the US nor are their neighbors likely to support such action. No, if I were Morales I'd have my eyes pixed firmly on the real threat - Brazil. Morales pissed off Lula in a major way - it's not unthinkable that Lula will do something about it. Or Lula's successor......

You can't defund the dictators unless we are prepared to become a garrison state. By that I mean we do everything possible to produce all our own energy possible, not to mention begin producing all our own goods a la Union of South Africa under apartheid.

On the goods side it is beyond impossible. On energy, it is possible if we go to coal and nuclear power for electricity, reformulate the number of gasoline blends we use and build some more refineries.

What is lacking is a poltical consensus to do so. This harms many interests pocket books.

Does anyone know why so few oil-producing countries have bothered to develop refineries?

Yes. b/c they couldn't seize these facilities from Western companies.

It makes no sense and is more expensive to ship refined products across the world. As a result, western companies never built, or at least never focused on building (I'm sure they built some), refineries for the local foreign populace.

As a result, the foreign populace had to build these facilities either themselves and generally when you are run by a dictator this sort of planning is not the dictator's strong point or even concern