It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Merinda
Does Hugo Chagez have it right by turning the countries natural resources to the benefit of the country, rather than allow to make the proceeds avaiable to mostly foreign investors whom can afford them? Is he good for the country, or is he merely less bad than other leaders with a socialist worldview and the people whom experienced a betterment of their situation under Hugo would be even better off without him, or not have been in a bad spot to begin with?
Originally posted by Merinda
Does Hugo Chagez have it right by turning the countries natural resources to the benefit of the country, rather than allow to make the proceeds avaiable to mostly foreign investors whom can afford them? Is he good for the country, or is he merely less bad than other leaders with a socialist worldview and the people whom experienced a betterment of their situation under Hugo would be even better off without him, or not have been in a bad spot to begin with?
Originally posted by bjax9er
You do Benefit from oil.
How do products end up in your possession?
Did the democrats donkey deliver them to the local store?
If government nationalized oil the price would be triple.
And so would those products.
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
That's not entirely true.
For example, Venezuela itself is among the top 10 places for cheap gas. That's because the oil is nationalized and does not have to go through international oil markets and governing bodies, like OPEC, before it hits market and since the people own the oil.....they get better prices.
It's all about how it is managed and Venezuela does a good job.
And Chavez wants to stay in power by giving people cheap gas. It's all politics.
Originally posted by sconner755
Originally posted by Merinda
Does Hugo Chagez have it right by turning the countries natural resources to the benefit of the country, rather than allow to make the proceeds avaiable to mostly foreign investors whom can afford them? Is he good for the country, or is he merely less bad than other leaders with a socialist worldview and the people whom experienced a betterment of their situation under Hugo would be even better off without him, or not have been in a bad spot to begin with?
What evidence do you have that he's using the natural resources to benefit the country? How do you define "country?"
Originally posted by Merinda
Does Hugo Chagez have it right by turning the countries natural resources to the benefit of the country, rather than allow to make the proceeds avaiable to mostly foreign investors whom can afford them? Is he good for the country, or is he merely less bad than other leaders with a socialist worldview and the people whom experienced a betterment of their situation under Hugo would be even better off without him, or not have been in a bad spot to begin with?