mandag, november 19, 2007

Mere vanvid fra Chavez



Denne video handler om et nyt forslag fra diktatoren Hugo Chavez. Det drejer sig om at han gerne vil indføre en alternativ byttevaluta der angiveligt skal hjælpe de fattigste i Venezuela. Jeg er ret ringe til spansk, men heldigvis har "Venezuela News & Views" (som jeg har videoen fra) også en tilhørende forklaring.


The summary of the video. Chavez proposals are such:

1) Part of the production of anyone should be given to a community center. That is right, given, so as to satisfy the needs of others. How those need are evaluated and met is of course not explained (Milton et al. call this “taxes” and others even called this “taxation without representation”)

2) The rest of the production must be bartered [Trueque]. That is, you go to your local market and you do not get money but coupons that are worth only in your area. Chavez is very explicit here, he even describes the area where he is when he says that the coupons will be only valid “in this mountain, up to such river”.

3) These coupons not only are only valid in your area, but they lose their value over time, with what he calls “oxidation” which is nothing less than negative interest. That is, if you decided to accumulate your coupons (Milton et al. call this savings) they would lose their value and you would lose everything. In other words you are forced to consume on the spot: when you reach the local market with your crop of XYZ you MUST go back home with a load of UVW.

In other words, we are seeing a president of a XXI century country propose to go back to an economical system which had been even overcome long ago, even by the Incas: they might not have had real currency or writing but they had the quipus and efficient central planning with extensive intra regional trading."


Endnu et rystende forslag fra en mand som vist kun kan kaldes for politisk psykopat. Systemet fører direkte til fattigdom for producenterne da det for det første er umuligt at spare op, eftersom kuponerne falder i værdi. Alene dette er et enormt tilbageskridt. Kan man ikke spare op, så kan man heller ikke planlægge langsigtet og skabe endnu mere rigdom. Jeg går ud fra at det er en del af motivationen bag forslaget: at skabe lighed ved at forsøge at holde folk lige fattige.

Endvidere er det selvfølgelig dårligt for arbejdsdelingen og et angreb på den private ejendomsret. Det sidste er dog noget man forventer fra den kant.

Ingen kommentarer:

Send en kommentar