No Venezuelan Candidate Can Top Reina Sequera’s Offering

July 10, 2012

In its never ending quest to offer the voters anything, candidate Reina Sequera, the candidate for the Poder Laboral party has made the ultimate populist promise:

“I promise to eliminate the poverty of all Venezuelans. This promise will materialize itself opening a personal bank account and deposit one million US$, amount which we consider should be sufficient for each poor person to get out of material poverty”

There you have it. Hard (Impossible?) to top this. Poverty killed instantly by distributing US$ 26,000,000,000,000 among all Venezuelans. (Please don’t quibble if the population is 26 or 29, or if she will hand out one third at a time, that is round off error). That is 2.6 x 10^13 dollars which will come from”all of the excess of wealth of the minerals that gives us our noble nature, whether you call it oil, iron or gold, etc.”

There you have it Venezuelans. Don’t miss your chance to become a millionaire come October. Elect Reina your President and why not, your Queen. She has over promised anyone and everyone. Never mind the 13 zeroes. Clearly, Hugo was unable to dream beyond dreams. Or beyond his arithmetic.

Go Reina!

Now, Why didn’t I think of this first?

105 Responses to “No Venezuelan Candidate Can Top Reina Sequera’s Offering”

  1. I am sure this piece of writing has touched all the internet people, its really really good post
    on building up new blog.

  2. firepigette Says:

    I have never seen a greater monster or miracle than myself. ”

    — Michel de Montaigne

    Time for each us to learn about our own financial personalities :

  3. deananash Says:

    Miguel, please come back….

  4. Ira Says:

    The most important issue is, how will these economic policies/philosophies affect VZ’s success in the Miss Universe contest?

    • Ira Says:

      On a related note, how will these economic policies affect the breast implant business?

      If anyone does ANYTHING to affect the success of the breast implant business, as far as I’m concerned, it’s total WAR!

  5. firepigette Says:

    Kepler ,

    I don’t speak from a financial viewpoint.My beef is with what I see could be the cultural consequences of too much possible dependence.Of course we may be looking at a situation where the alternative of an evolved self esteem simply does not exist in the present time in Venezuela, and that Extorres might be correct in his assumptions….anyway….

    In Venezuela the poor are not financially dependent on the government to any SUBSTANCIAL degree.A lot of their dependence is based on PROMISE and on getting jobs according to how much you are willing to kowtow to the government.The reality is that they are not receiving adequate help.It’s a psychological manipulation.A psychological dependence.

    Dependence is created through fear or through promise.In the case of left wing dictators motivations come when people are convinced they are victims and have a right to dependence on the government.In LA they have to have a fig leaf of democracy and of helping the poor in order to satisfy their authoritarian goals.

    The right wing dictatorships of the past were more straight forward in creating a psychological and judicial dependence.If you crossed the line of political activity against the government, you would be punished.Such were the cases of Chile, and Argentina.

    There are different ways of skinning the cat.But where there is some sort of authoritarianism, there is abnormal dependence…not necessarily the reverse( at least percentage wise).The reverse being that where there is abnormal dependency there is always authoritarianism.Thus I concede that Extorres could possibly have a point.My tendency however is to believe that abnormal dependence will usually emphasize authoritarianism as a logical consequence.

    • Ira Says:

      “My tendency however is to believe that abnormal dependence will usually emphasize authoritarianism as a logical consequence.”

      Of course–and that’s exactly what’s been going on in VZ the past 13 years.

      My sister-in-law got a new roof, so why the hell should she give a crap that free speech, free thought, and the very tenets of democracy have been murdered by Hugo?

      She might care in five years when she’s STARVING to death, but for now, she’s just a dumb broad who got a new roof. And if you saw the shack she lives in, that roof couldn’t have cost more than $500 U.S. to fix.

  6. Kepler Says:


    Take the “freeloading stuff” and the stuff about Western societies and discuss them in a forum on the USA or Germany.
    I don’t deny there is a lot of the free-load attitude in Venezuela – at every level, by every group and class -. In fact, I have mentioned it indirectly in my comments here and much else where. But that is not the main, the second or the third point.

    People everywhere, including here, always say “yes, yes, yes, yes, education, yes basic this and that” but they just utter those things as an automatic reflex. When it comes to what it takes to actually implement that, they do nothing and when they see their interests touched, they go bonkers.

    Because the money for education, for very basic education, for very basic health and some other stuff will have to come from most of the people who say “yes, that is necessary” but who no, don’t want to give what it takes (either petrol going up dramatically or currency getting adjusted to market level or
    opening up of markets to others than their amigos or else).

    I know a couple of persons my age who couldn’t finish basic school in Venezuela…teachers just stopped going to their schools, schools were very bad and so on. That was before Chávez. Somehow when we decided to send our rocket to the moon some people decided to take away some fuel from it and some little parts and even if it started and flew through the skies it went down. It was not sustainable. Chávez did not come from out of the blue.
    He is the golem of a whole generation or two.

  7. firepigette Says:


    It is a basic requisite for people to have a decent education and a minimum level of equal opportunities.I doubt too many people will disagree here.

    However the freeloading attitude ( getting something for nothing) is growing in many Western countries in spite of having of better education.The same people who teach often have the immature attitude of entitlement because of their own political motivations.

    Extorres has been very patient and well educated in his argument.His view is different from mine, not based on different levels of education so much as it is about different psychological make ups( at least on this level)

    I keep insisting on this point only because I think it is essential.No given country can improve until it addresses its principle ideological, psychological, and cultural, defects and or attitudes.Blaming external reasons will not nip the problem in the bud.People need to feel a healthy pride in creating their own destinies and in becoming self sufficient or they will embark on endless downward spirals of dependence, something which wins votes for corrupt politicians.

    We are seeing an unhealthy cycle in Venezuela where poverty and ignorance are exploited by the government, which in turn magnifies the helpless feeling which in turn reinforces people’s search for more dependence etc.; when what is needed is for people to break free, and take the reigns in their own hands.They need to believe in themselves not in government which is the opposite of an authoritarian situation.

    It is acceptable that people seek gov help as a temporary situation to see themselves through a rough patch or to get training to better compete in the job market but it is quite different from the attitude of almost permanent dependence with a sense of helpless and entitlement….of course there are exceptions which I am not discussing here.

    Authoritarianism is fed by dependence.

    • syd Says:

      “No given country can improve until it addresses its principle ideological, psychological, and cultural, defects and or attitudes.”

      Agree, FP. However, when pervasive myths have fed long-term delusions (“we are a rich country”, “Caracas is the subsidiary of Heaven”, and a host of other crutches to bolster self-esteem), when the entire moral structure prizes ‘viveza’ over personal accountability, it is doubtful that that society can address its defects and correct its attitudes.

      I hate to be pessimistic, but with the current educational and social structure, I don’t see a way out of the miasma. It all seems to be part of the Vzlan DNA. That said, I think Capriles is going in the right direction — and I cheer his emphasis on education, besides security, etc. But there will be limits as to what he can accomplish, if he gets voted in.

      As for the element of an authoritarian government making matters worse, you might want to know that Pinochet, the God of commercial bankers, personally turned Chile into the economic tiger that it is, today. Reason? He cut dependence at the root, elminating business subsidies overnight. Large and small businesses scrambled to rethink their strategies, to create fully documented business plans (as required by lenders), and to implement these in order to ensure returns and reinvestments.

      I have not lived in Chile. Though in 1990, I analyzed (from the intl division of a major Cdn bank) the proposal from a major Chilean shipper; the loan was granted. I have also met Chileans,over the years. And outside the poets and comeflores that grew up during the years of state dependence, I believe that their indeces of personal accountability and education is at a higher level than those in Venezuela.

      • syd Says:

        In other words, one has to be careful when equating authoritarianism with dependence in a given population. One does not always preclude the other.

    • extorres Says:

      firepigette, I had to reread your comment just to appreciate it; loved it.

      I imagine a field of plants on which rain and sunlight falls throughout. The plants that make best use of the water and sun will tend to fare better and take over. In Venezuela, letting it rain on all gives all the opportunity to experiment how to fare better with the resources at hand. The ethics of those who do succeed, which includes work and study ethics, as well as other things such as civility, will thus spread into the culture, taking over the field of Venezuela.

      Is there no way that you see cash in hand, a guaranteed amount daily, as a positive form of empowerment to a person?

  8. Kepler Says:

    “Consider that each person will buy what he considers the best good or service for himself. That means that the providers of those goods and services will work long and hard to be the chosen provider. If they don’t, other citizens who want to move up will compete.”
    Most of those who would move to fill in the gap will be the same as usual:
    the Chinese or other people with a strong foreign background who will
    see the opportunity, have the planning skills and so on. And we will
    have just the same thing we have had in the last few decades.
    And you will have the vast majority of the people who will say
    what kind of “leeches” and piece of shit these foreigners are…been there, seen that…it has happened all the time. And they won’t move a finger as long
    as they have enough to eat and drink and a house and perhaps an iPad.

    That unless they get first-class primary and secondary school education, first class health and a government that provides for some cultural and entrepreneurial incentives…just as any single government has done in absolutely every single country that is now a developed country, including the USA (with Texas in it) and Canada and Britain and Japan and China and Germany.

    • syd Says:

      Finally, some common sense from someone with the ability to think in practical social terms — endogenously, historically and globally.

    • extorres Says:

      Kepler, assuming that you’re right about foreigners filling in the gap, let’s follow the flow of money through its cycle.

      The foreign providers will sell their goods and services, but will in turn use goods and services such as phones, banks, roads, cars, raw material, food, entertainment, internet, etc.. All those other providers in turn use goods and services of others, some foreign some not. In the end, all providers in the nation get an influx of that money in proportion to the demand for them and their ability to supply it.

      Also, consider that the foreign providers do not have the daily stipend. So the national entrepeneurs will have an automatic advantage in taking the risk of new small ventures.

      Also, consider that if the foreign providers sell enough to expand, they will hire locally, with those who receive a daily stipend being willing to work for less, but also willing to demand proper treatment at work because they are guaranteed survival if left without a job.

      Regarding education, I have told you several times in the past, I agree. Just make sure it gets paid progressively by taxes, and not regressively by taking money from the poorest at 100% tax rate and money from the richest at 0% tax rate, which is what oil money is. Why is it you never delve into this last point?

      • Kepler Says:

        It is not quite “foreigners”. It is the fact that if someone who doesn’t have a good basic education gets cash, she is more likely to consume it without building something up…and that happens to be those who are more “local”. And resentment will very quickly appear and it is not against what are actually foreigners but against people who look foreign – who do happen to have parents who grew up in places where some basic financial planning was better known than in Venezuela – at least comparatively speaking…Spaniards and Italians are not precisely financial geniuses. Cash always tends to evaporate very easily, always, everywhere and the good effects it may have in a few won’t last enough because of the whole dynamics that will be set free by the others – what others mentioned here already: inflation, inflation..

        • extorres Says:

          Kepler, I agree that lower education *tends* to consume cash less strategically. But do you agree that the tendency is not 100%? What do you respond to studies demonstrating how much better than expected by anyone the poor and uneducated spent cash given to them in cash distribution programs. One such study even had as its purpose the determining of whether the condition of a CCT was what achieved the benefit, and they found that the condition was actually unjustifiable.

          What you describe regarding envy is worsened by inequality and hardship. Both of those issues improve with fixed, daily incomes.

          As to cash, you’re wrong; it does not evaporate. It changes hands, while something else is exchanged in the opposite direction. By distributing the oil cash so that everyone gets to spend it gets it to flow towards those who provide the best return. That is not happening at the moment, nor will it happen so long as the government spends it centrally.

          As to inflation, again, it does not cause inflation. Reread what I countered to those who claimed inflation. If you don’t agree with my counters, please, point to where they are flawed.

          • extorres Says:

            By the way, I bring up banking interest rates as an example. By having all that cash going into the consumer market via bank accounts, they would necessarily have to lower interest rates, which helps expand businesses and construction, which provides jobs which provide new learning and income of the kind you claim we want people to get. Well, distributed spending helps get all that, and more. Remember, it wins elections, too.

  9. The Lone Ranger Says:

    UCT guy:

    I am going to try to bring some perspective here and debunk your UCT mantra once and for all. Your manic insistence on this “theory” shows clearly that you are no economist, for if you were you would have already published your “theory” and thus submitted it to peer review or at least publicized it because your academic and professional credentials would have afforded it due credibility. But, alas, we have no such luck. There is simply no article by any Venezuelan written in a prestigious peer review journal about this “concept” that I could find. Of course, if you have written it, I will be happy to read it.

    If you were to distribute oil income to the entire population of the country, you would produce an immediate, spectacular, and humongous surge in the amount of circulating money. That, clearly, would result in an almost immediate, spectacular and humongous DEMAND for goods and services, something for which the Venezuelan economy is NOT prepared – to say the least. Therefore, the increase in the inflation rate would be truly terrifying, not to mention the social unrest that would result from the ensuing rapid shortages as people with more buying power would have more access for those goods and services and would do away with them more rapidly. In sum, a total nightmare! It is not the same thing to have a huge amount of money in the hands of the government, as compared to that same amount in the hands of the people. The rate and amount of spending cannot ever be the same for very obvious reasons to anyone who has some idea of economics. Governments never are nearly as efficient at spending, as are the people. Those in the Venezuelan government know very well that increased public spending coupled with the decline in industrial production is the root cause of inflation. They simply don’t care because the order from the dictator is to favor all things political. They are moving swiftly to create a system of pure state capitalism in which everyone depends on the government for their subsistence. That is their main goal, because with that power they ensure political power for themselves.

    Our problem with inflation is not so much that the government prints money that is not backed by dollars. Of course, they do that. The main problem is that the government – the richest entity in Venezuela by far – spends money at a rate far beyond of what the economy can absorb, because there is simply not enough providers of goods and services to satisfy the expected demand. However, the fact that the government budget is calculated with an oil price well below its market price, the government’s brutal corruption at every single level, the disappearance of the Fonden money, and the arms deals with the Russians and the Chinese, (and, I am probably leaving out hundreds of more reasons) simply preclude the level of spending at which the economy would be subjected if the government were to distribute the oil money to the entire population. So, no, your “theory” would not produce the effects that you state. Quite the contrary, because the economy could not stand such a massive and immediate influx of money. Thus, the rate of inflation would shoot up like a space rocket.

    Of course, there are other problems that you don’t even care to address.

    First, the brutal reinforcement of the beggar mentality. Since the oil boom of the 70’s, Venezuelans in general are convinced that they live in a rich country. This has been criminally hammered to the people since then. But the fact is that Venezuela is a very poor country. Just imagine, if it weren’t for the income derived from oil, our exporting capacity would be reduced to a very laughable $150/year per capita! We produce almost nothing, so if it weren’t for oil, we would be by far the poorest country in the continent and one of the poorest of the world! And, you want to reinforce the beggar mentality? (“El gobielno me tiene que resolvel”) Please!

    Second, just imagine the social unrest that would be generated with the fluctuation in oil prices. How do you explain to the approximately 70% of functionally illiterate Venezuelans a reduction in their “UCT share” because of cyclic decline in oil prices? How do you explain that to a people utterly convinced that they live in a rich country?

    Third, do you really think that giving monthly handouts to people is the best way to generate a behavior consistent with a work ethic that is desperately needed in Venezuela and probably in most of Latin America? And, please, don’t tell me that Venezuelans are hard working people because that is simply not true. The evidence is out in plain sight.

    In conclusion, I am quite sure that your “theory” does not work at all. I do not wish to have an exchange with you on this matter, and I promise I will not do so. However, if you are able to provide me with a published article about it in a prestigious peer review journal, I will read it and give it some more consideration. Otherwise, please abstain from submitting links about what others have written about this theory, because my take is that it wouldn’t work in Venezuela at all.

    • syd Says:

      Thank you, thank you, thank you, LR, for spelling out so ‘contundentemente’ what has long needed to be said.

      For over a year, many commenters have pointed out that the UCT guy’s theory is unworkable. Doesn’t stop him. He stuffs the channel with his copper-headed defenses, before waiting a spell, then trying again to gain adherents.

      When any commenter gets even mildly testy with this behaviour, UCT guy labels that person as a bully. Reinforcements come from a little Greek chorus of anonymous ‘comeflores’ that hover, but never contribute any substance.

      UCT guy says he teaches, but never discloses what subject. I hope it’s something like Verbal boxing, where he can truly shine.

      In the meantime, I look forward to the day I can read UCT guy’s theory in a prestigious economics journal. Because these boards have long been exhausted.

      Sincere thanks.

      • extorres Says:


        Were I like you I would ask for you credentials in judging whether Lone Ranger’s response is contundente, at all. Instead, I look for your basis either in knowledge or reasoning for the position you hold, but find that you never provide either.

        Your bullying is about you getting personal against many, and not regarding UCT.

        I’ve never told you that I teach, at least not as a profession. Thank you for the compliment on verbal boxing.

        If you care to read my response to Lone Ranger, you will conclude that I am far from ending the topic as a result of his comment. In fact, I hope I turned him around and make him wish to consider continuing the exchange.

        • Johnny Walking Says:

          A class act …

        • syd Says:

          ET: “I’ve never told you that I teach, at least not as a profession”.

          Which part of that sentence applies, ET?

          A few months ago, you went on a diatribe on how elitist I was (oh, but you never get personal, oh no…) for describing entrepreneurial procedures (in which I’ve had direct experience for a number of years, not theoretical) at a more advanced level than managing a lemonade stand.
          After your little put-down of me, you used as an example one of your students who you were helping to set up a little business (and there’s nothing wrong with that) to sell plastic chairs.

          I asked you, “you teach?”

          You never responded.

          Give it a rest, ET. You’re getting ridiculous in your defenses. Either pee (write your damned theory for publication to the appropriate journal) or get off the pot.

          • extorres Says:

            syd, I have told you from our first exchanges that I would not go into personal information with you. As you put it, I never responded to whether I teach or not, and won’t. As to the girl involved with T-shirts and PVC furniture, I never said she was my student, nor why I was helping her, and, again, I won’t.

            Your trying to get personal to put me down is precisely the reason I will not share personal info with you. For the record, I may get personal if someone else does. I will also point to bullying wherever I see it.

            I’m not getting off the pot. Maybe you should.

        • syd Says:

          When someone promotes a theory with significant impact to a country’s political, economic, financial and social systems, you can bet your bottom dollar that that person’s qualification will enter into consideration.

          That you prefer to be coy about your qualifications, while repeatedly using us and these boards as your feedback mechanism for your theory, is not a good sign.

          Under the circumstances, and unlike you, I would have absolutely no problem providing my crendentials. I have nothing to be coy about.

          As for your inability to accept responsibility for your personal diatribes, here’s one as a reminder:

          Unlike you, I didn’t do a “boo-hoo” and pull the “bullying card”. But I remembered it, when you repeatedly try to smell like a rose.

          All these “you said-I said’s” remind me of a catfight among women. Also not a good sign.

          • extorres Says:

            syd, you seem to live by the words “if an idea does not come from a qualified person then there is no hope for it”. I live by Albert Einstein’s “If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”, nothing to do with who presents it.

            Your choice to disqualify proposals, not by their own merits, but by previously accumulated merits by their proposer seems to me like judging books by their covers. But don’t take it from me:

            “Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry on Wednesday for a discovery that faced skepticism and mockery, even prompting his expulsion from his research team, before it won widespread acceptance as a fundamental breakthrough.

            While doing research in the U.S. in 1982, Shechtman discovered a new chemical structure — quasicrystals — that researchers previously thought was impossible.”


            As to your example of a diatribe of mine, “a bit shocked by your high horse position deciding who is or isn’t entrepeneur material”, is that what you call a diatribe, “a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism” ? Your comments to which I made reference *were* from a high horse postion, “In an arrogant or condescending manner. For example, When they started talking about music, David got on his high horse and said that classical music was only fit for museums and archives .”'s+high+horse . You were saying who was or wasn’t fit to be an entrepreneur. Read the whole thread and revisit how wrong all your assumptions were about the young lady in question.

            Not only do I accept responsibility for that phrase, I stand by it. If that was the phrase to which you are referring, then this acceptance also disproves your statement about my inability to do so.

          • syd Says:

            Look ms. ex of torres, UCT gal, hiding behind anonymity, coy about her qualifications.
            This discussion is absurd.
            Over and over again, you use us and these commentary boards on two Venezuelan political blogs to flesh out and change,your theory on cash distribution. Then you equate the poor receptivity you’ve had to a chemist who came across early skepticism by the scientific community.
            Let me pop your delusional bubble.
            Daniel Schechtman did not hide under anonymous cover when he presented his findings, in 1984, to the scientific community in “Physical Review”.
            That is the way serious people function, when they have a worthy and well-tested idea. They don’t do a tee-hee-guess-who-I-am-while-I-test-the-waters-for-over-a-year-on-the-commentaries-of-blogs.

            Your behaviour and your attempts to force your still-not-worked-out cash transfer ideas have lost total credibility with me.
            This discussion is over.

            • extorres Says:

              syd, “Your behaviour and your attempts to force your still-not-worked-out cash transfer ideas have lost total credibility with me. This discussion is over.”

              Note, syd that, to the end, it was my behaviour and my attempts that lost credibility, not my proposal. There was never any discussion with you. sidestepped all the questions regarding the content.

              Johnny Walking dismisses a medical doctor for the mere use of a phrase that JW claims does not exist, but turns out to be a valid medical phrase, and you jump on board with him!

              You can dismiss me, syd, for all your JW-type reason, but the fact is that I’m not the only one proposing distributed spending, and the number who are is growing in number and conviction as results keep coming in. You’re just missing the train. And thanks to people like you, so is Venezuela.

            • extorres Says:

              By the way, syd, and only because it seems so important to you, I’ll tell you why I will continue with my anonymity. I want it to stand and grow on its own. I want people to buy it for how well it holds water and not for who is holding the cup. It’s a taoist thing, mostly, but also because I’m not a spotlight person nor wish to be. I’ve stated before and reiterate now, anyone is welcome to claim the proposal and I will supportive. I would not be coming later to claim any credit for it. I’m not important in this matter, syd, only the proposal is.

              If you can get past your dislike for my behaviour and attempts, please, consider the proposal for what it is: the best alternative at hand to get Venezuela out of its seemingly eternal rut. Leave me out of it.

            • Johnny Walking Says:

              It should be clear by now that this person is an amateur with no valid qualifications who just happened to read about those limited experiences regarding cash transfer and assumed it would be a panacea for solving Venezuela’s problems. For if she considers it a valid and workable proposal from the standpoint of economic theory, this person would not only have embarked personally in serious studies to try to prove its feasibility, but would have written about it and would have no problem publicizing and discussing it in the appropriate academic and professional environment. She doesn’t do this because obviously she doesn’t have any qualifications to back her proposal, so she tries to use these political forums to push her outlandishness down out throats, and sticks to an “unselfish anonymity” because she is only concerned about the good of the people claiming it is a Taoist thing. Of course, this is hardly the behavior of an academic.

              She then tries to dismiss other’s opinions, albeit in a manner that appears to be civilized. And when someone finds her attitude regarding requests for her personal qualifications to back up such a grand theory very strange, her response is that whoever makes such a request has flaws in logic and engages in faulty assumptions. For instance, I have not dismissed Marquina because of his “ducto sanguíneo” but because there were too many holes in his story. Although I can’t prove that the dictator doesn’t have a malignancy, every day that passes it becomes obvious that he is not suffering from the malignancy that Marquina et al have said he has. Gaining knowledge in medicine or in any other discipline implies infinitely much more than searching for a term in a dictionary (a fact that becomes all to obvious for people who have gone to college) or reading about medicine in the internet, something that this woman cannot comprehend, hence her unending diatribe about this. I told her long ago that even though “ducto sanguíneo” is a term conceptually correct, NOBODY in the medical community uses it because it doesn’t describe anything.

              In medicine, accurate description is paramount so you talk about blood vessels (vasos sanguíneos), vasculature (vasculatura), circulation, etc., but never use such a term as ducto sanguíneo. You won’t find it used in medical books or in medical journals, period. But my 20+ years of experience do not matter to this woman, because she has a dictionary. In spite of all this, she continues with the diatribe. She is always right and everyone else is wrong. She may disguise this fact in what are apparently “good manners,” but the fact is that she has made very clear that whoever disagrees with her is wrong. For instance: “You’re just missing the train. And thanks to people like you, so is Venezuela.” See? She is the Messiah and whoever does not agree with her is a Roman.

              You don’t have to be a psychiatrist to suspect that this person has a very pathological fixation on diatribe and a very deep inferiority complex, so she needs and craves lots of attention. She wants and needs to occupy as much space in the comments section of this blog, regardless of the fact that even though OTs are allowed, you need to be moderate about them. It is really high time to stop this nonsense, and use the only and final cure that will allow this: ignore her completely.

            • syd Says:

              Agree, JW, on all points raised.

              Fina Comeflor should seek for her moving goalpost theory those readers, who like her, consider their ideas to be the salvation of Venezuela, or who applaud those with a Messiah complex. Among this group, she’ll find many who are convinced that they are creating a new order, where proven protocols and well-established standards are unimportant. There are tons of these in the lefty world, tons who can provide FC with all the adulation that she craves. Given FC’s persistence on these boards, in spite of the poor receptivity to her impractical ideas, and the hyper-defensiveness that she exhibits, I conclude that she prefers to stuff these channels, using us for her veiled proselytism.

            • extorres Says:

              Johnny Walking, As to being OT, I suppose you didn’t mean On Topic, but really my main comment here regarding Distributed Spending is very ON Topic: that Reina Sequera’s concept was not bad, only her math.

              As to what you said back then:

              “I had a big laugh about the “invasión progresiva del ducto sanguíneo.” There is no such thing in the human body. ”

              “It is not what you think or believe. This is not subject to opinion. There is no “ducto sanguíneo,” period. And, NO, that term is NOT a synonym for blood vessels.”

              “Look pal, this exchange is futile because you keep “interpreting” what does not bear an interpretation or an opinion. This is science. For the last time, there in NO “ducto sanguíneo.” ”


              “No physician talks about a ducto sanguíneo, ever, because such thing does not exist.”

              Now you say:

              “I have not dismissed Marquina because of his “ducto sanguíneo””

              And you backpedal saying that term is invalid but just because it’s not specific enough.

              As for the rest of the analysis, is that your medical opinion? Oh, wait, you said one doesn’t need to be qualified to determine what you did about me. Does that make you qualified to determine for what opinions qualifications are needed? And hadn’t you said you were going to ignore me? Seems to me you’ve been reading my comments…

            • extorres Says:

              syd, Can you not decide for yourself if the amount of cash from oil in the hands of people would likely force banks to lower interest rates or not? If I gave you the name of a a reknown economist that suggested this to be true, would it make it any more reasonable to you? If I told you it came from a homeless guy, or a carpenter, or even from an Ouija board, would it be any less reasonable?

              When you talk about the importance of education, do you not include the idea of teaching people to think for themselves? And do you not include the idea that those who are the most educated should act the most humble?

              Is it also possible that I have reasons other than your negative assumptions or the ones I’ve mentioned for my continued plight along these channels rather than more public ones? Do you think any less of An Interested Observer’s intelligence and logic because of his privacy?

              By the way, I am not always sure what people mean by “leftist” so I’ll just state that I am 100% supporter of a free, competitive consumer market capitalism with zero poverty. Distributed spending just being a stepping stone in that direction.

    • extorres Says:

      The Lone Ranger,

      Thank you for considering this. I won’t go into the first paragraph’s flaws of logic and faulty assumptions so that we focus on the true matter at hand.

      I agree that a sudden distribution of all the oil income to the entire population would cause what you describe, a nightmare. The difference is that I don’t assume the distribution would be implemented so suddenly. In fact, I’ve always suggested it all goes into an account from which it gets distributed according to a shock absorbing formula similar to that of the FIEM that would prevent sudden upswings as well as sudden downturns.

      “Governments never are nearly as efficient at spending, as are the people.” Agreed. In fact, truer words cannot be spoken and are on which the whole proposal is based, maximizing efficiency. I also agree that the government is spending faster than the economy can absorb, all the while it is dictating policy that reduces the capability of the economy to absorb even further. I also agree that this is the main cause of inflation currently. I disagree that the government is not printing money, but there is no need to quibble on this since we already agree on the main factor, the spending.

      But this brings us back to the shock absorbing account. If you agree that a more controlled spending of government would have limited the inflation because the economy would have been able to absorb it, then it follows that a similar limit on spending by limiting the distribution to the population, would also work in limiting the inflation caused by the more efficient distributed spending by the population, so would you agree that we would see the effects that I state, given a limitation of distribution such as that provided by a shock absorbing account?

      Don’t assume I don’t care to address any problem; I’d love nothing more than to address every single related issue. Please, as far as I’m concerned, continue to bring them on. Following, I’ll address the ones you did bring up.

      First, regarding the beggar mentality. There are several ways to respond to this. For one, I don’t see this money as a handout. This is money that belongs to the citizens. They shouldn’t have to beg for it, they should be demanding it. It’s a matter of principle that the money belongs to the people *already*. Perhaps it’s you who’ll shy away from this issue. but this ownership implies that spending from it is equivalent to a taxation of equal amount to every citizen. That means the poorest Venezuelan is putting up a barrel of oil for every barrel of oil that the richest Venezuelan puts up. That is regressive to an extreme. Are you supporting such a taxation to pay for government spending on anything?

      Also, I believe the lack of money and inequality creates more beggars than the opposite. Much as you described the economy not being able to absorb too much money, neither can it provide money for too many people, at least not suddenly. So, in an economy such as Venezuela’s, people who have such a difficult time getting an income can hardly be blamed for begging from those who have so much of such a centralized huge amount of it. Distributing the oil money for citizen spending is not only an extremely efficient way of getting the economy to kick into high gear, it’s also a way of eliminating the mismanagement and misappropriation that is currently getting us almost no bang for the buck, while getting those in most need the minimum income to survive.

      Second, this goes back to the shock absorbing account. With it, the fluctuations would be significantly diminished, both up as down. But, also, you underestimate the Venezuelan understanding of the fluctuations in price of oil and their willingness live with those fluctuations rather than to live with no benefit at all. I’ve spoken to many of the poorest and they have no problems in either getting it nor accepting it. They see it as a plus, regardless of the amount.

      Third, no, not monthly. Daily. The reason for daily again has to do with preventing sudden changes in income over time, including day to day. As to whether it generates behavior consistent with work ethic, I believe so strongly. Not only is this what is seen as a result of cash distribution programs that have been implemented and studied, it also makes sense at the market economy level. Consider that each person will buy what he considers the best good or service for himself. That means that the providers of those goods and services will work long and hard to be the chosen provider. If they don’t, other citizens who want to move up will compete. Because the money is small amounts at the person level, it would be easy for small entrepeneurs to start providing local needs of cheap goods and services that are not being offered or offered at a competitive price. Also there is little risk in someone attempting new little ventures, since he would be assured never to fall below a minimum level of income provided by his daily income.

      Conclusion? Following are two links to published, though still working papers on the matter. It’s disheartening that see you reach a conclusion before you have even seen the other side simply because apparently I am not worthy by your faulty logic about my economic background, but I hope you take the time to read the work of these and others and open your mind to the possibility that you may be wrong about this. Venezuela depends on people like you rethinking the matter.

      Oil to Cash: Fighting the Resource Curse through Cash Transfers – Working Paper 237
      Todd Moss
      Education: PhD and MSc University of London, BA Tufts University
      -World Bank where he served as a consultant and advisor to the Chief Economist in the Africa Region
      -Lecturer at the London School of Economics (LSE) in the postgraduate Development Studies Institute
      -Analyst for the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)

      Direct Redistribution, Taxation, and Accountability in Oil-Rich Economies: A Proposal – Working Paper 281
      Shantayanan Devarajan, Hélène Ehrhart, Tuan Minh Le, and Gaël Raballand
      Shantayanan Devarajan: chief economist, Africa Region, World Bank;
      Hélène Ehrhart: Center for Studies and Research on International Development (CERDI), University of Auvergne, France;
      Tuan Minh Le: senior economist, Africa Region, World Bank;
      Gaël Raballand: senior economist, Africa Region, World Bank.

  10. moctavio Says:

    Thait isnot correct, the quote is from her program and is very clear open a personal bank account for each venezuelan and deposit one milllion. It is in her program, no room for interpretation : “depositar a cada uno un millon de dolare”

  11. alvaro Says:

    From my point of view after reading Reina’s comment, she offered 1 million dollars to be distribuited among all venezuelans. therefore, each of us would receive 3 pennies.
    This reminds me the following scene from Austin Powers:

  12. Ira Says:

    Since they closed the consulate in Miami, we didn’t plan to shlep to Louisiana so my wife could vote. But for this kind of money, it’s worth the trip!

    Do I have the option of taking that in cash or Polar beer?

    • firepigette Says:


      I recall that Woody Allen adored the scene in ” Death Knocks ” – the Grim Reaper reappears for a game of gin rummy with a schlepper…that would be quite a beer shlep.Lol

  13. firepigette Says:


    “Decent top primary and secondary education is a right!”?

    I was never referring to public education I am only talking about wealth re-distribution.

    You and I both know there are loads of people all over the world who would like to see it,both educated and non educated.

    There is a difference between someone who sees the world as owing him, and someone who see himself as owing the world.This is a psychological difference, not an educational one.This is self evident.

  14. firepigette Says:


    I agree that the poor get very little for free in Venezuela( they get a great deal more here in the US), but the politicians promise it and they vote for it ….which is the problem.

    The point should not be about getting anything for free, it should be about more equal opportunities, that of course cannot be guaranteed completely but that can greatly improved.One thing is to have some safety nets, and the other is having a goal of distributing wealth.

    The whole attitude of anger over perceived entitlements keeps people from developing their full potential.

    • Kepler Says:

      Firepigette, they vote for it because they don’t have the education. And don’t come with “but others didn’t have the education and didn’t vote for it”.
      Sure, and I know left-handed ecologists and there will always be left-handed ecologists.
      “perceived entitlement”? Perceived entitlement? Decent top primary and secondary education is a right! It is for everyone and it is in our best interest to have it.
      Geez…pero ¿por qué estamos hablando con una persona que vota en Carolina del Norte, en EUA, para las elecciones estadounidenses? Es futil estar hablando sobre el temido concepto de “entitlement” con una gringa blanca del Sur de EUA que obtuvo una buena educación de pequeña.

      • Firepigette Says:

        Kepler , please disagree without trying to disqualify people.i do not vote in the USA by the way, and never Venezuelan credentials are in tact, and the fact that i am white should not disqualify my opinion.

        I think I know the poor Venezuelan people as much or more than many here,and can speak from real experience.

        Bad politics have more to do with this problem than formal education.i know too may people with a good formal education who feel automatically entitled.Its a personality problem that politicians exploit.

        • Firepigette Says:

          Would add that I know many well educated people who believe in wealth distribution.

          • syd Says:

            A good education is just part of the picture, firepigette. More important, still, is a tighter focus on specific areas of knowledge and the ability to back up one’s statements.

            It does no good to spout opinions and theories on economic and financial matters, without having a good background in those specific areas.

            Haven’t we seen enough of that nonsense, from young PSFers straight out of university, still sophomoric as they spout opinions on that in which they sport insufficient knowledge?

            Delusional behaviour starts when one thinks that a good general education and the ability to stuff a channel with verbiage will cover up one’s ignorance in specifics.

            As my mom used to say, ‘a little bit of knowledge is a bad thing.’

            Please let us know who these well-educated people are who believe in wealth distribution. Specifics, firepigette, and examples. They go a long way to establish credibility.

            • extorres Says:

              syd, results from many worldwide studies by people with all the credentials you require back wealth distribution. If you wish, I’ll provide you with the links I’ve provided several times before


            • syd Says:

              ET, Around last year, I suggested that you write up your idea, back it up, and submit it to those who might find it useful thinking. Instead, you keep recurring to these comments in order to test the waters.

              Don’t bother. We’re small fry and few of us are really qualified to opine with the backup that you need.

              This year, I’m again suggesting that you produce for an alternative audience.
              For I don’t know why you’re wasting your valuable insights on us. Unless you’re insecure. That being the case, have some courage, use some elbow grease, and submit your article, properly documented, along with your credentials, to the appropriate journal.

              In the meantime, enough with the UCT theory here. Can’t you see we’re tired of reading about it and providing you with feedback?

            • extorres Says:

              Syd: “Please let us know who these well-educated people are who believe in wealth distribution”

              You asked nicely, and I offered nicely to provide you with links to these people and their work. Instead of accepting the offer, you demonstrate the insincerity of your request by ignoring it.

              You also seem to hypocritically request credentials of others for holding positions in favor of UCT, but not of yourself for holding your position against it.

              You also seem to relinquish your position to what others with supposed credentials decide on the mater, rather than you trying to discuss and reason yourself which side of the issue makes most sense.

              Finally, your suggestions regarding what’s supposedly best for me and my proposal therefore seem like veiled attempts at just getting me to go away from you with them. So forgive me if I don’t believe you have my best interests at heart, after all, there is the element of lack of credibility coming from someone who not only bullies often, but who bullies proudly.

              By the way, I’ve decided to stop referring to it as Unconditional Cash Transfers. I think a better term will be Distributed Spending, in the sense that Centralized Spending represents the oil money spent by the central government, while Decentralized Spending represents a less centralized version along the same specturm with spending by the local governments. This new term, Distributed Spending, would be on the same spectrum but at the opposite end with spending by the citizens. If you use your reasoning, you’ll see it’s the same money, so no new inflation, and it’s as local as possible, so it can even be deflationary.

            • Johnny Walking Says:


            • extorres Says:

              Johnny Walking, yes deflationary:

              Economics . a fall in the general price level or a contraction of credit and available money ( opposed to inflation).


            • syd Says:

              ET: “By the way, I’ve decided to stop referring to it as Unconditional Cash Transfers. I think a better term will be Distributed Spending,”

              I suggest you team up with a Vzlan economist (if not others in related discplines) so that you can think this theory through in endogenous and practical terms, before you write it up for publication.

              These political boards are not a good mechanism for proper feedback, moreover for the thin-skinned, or for those using them as a way to bolster their self-esteem.

            • extorres Says:

              syd, thank you for your comment, which I must say is very constructive and courteous and I will take into consideration. Sadly, the bed you’ve made forces me to weigh in an opposing context.

              For your information, several economists were involved from the beginning, decades ago, in the analysis of this proposal. You will note that the only economic opinions in Lone Ranger’s comments are ones I agree with, so there is no dispute with them, and that I countered them with economic opinions, too, so I doubt there will be dispute with them, either.

  15. Douglas Novo Says:

    Venezuela is a poor country indeed. I never got tired of hearing it from Arturo Uslar Pietri who said it every chance he got. Even when it had 3- 5 million inhabitants it was not rich for its day. I have always wondered why people, (everybody, poor, rich, educated or not), have such a hard time doing the math. It sometimes looks like a way of unconsciously not wanting to face the reality of an underdeveloped economy….. What Venezuela was, probably between the early to mid-fifties and until the late-seventies, was a country of great opportunity where upward mobility was possible with some education and hard work…….

    • Johnny Walking Says:

      “… What Venezuela was, probably between the early to mid-fifties and until the late-seventies, was a country of great opportunity where upward mobility was possible with some education and hard work…”

      Excellent analysis. Since the 80’s until present day, that country of great opportunity and upward mobility has mostly disappeared, courtesy of the damned petrostate.

  16. Albionboy Says:

    Venezuela will always be poor because, the middle class and rich ensure their children go to university for virtually Venezuela

    About 80%of the middle class go to university in Venezuela, in the UK only 10% But all children in the UK get good quality primary and secondary education for free

    In Venezuela the middle class pay for good quality private schools then ensure their children get virtual free university education

    The Venezuelan state spends the majority of education funds on Universities and nothing on primary and secondary.

    Then people talk about upward mobility and the poor shouldn’t look for handouts.
    Who gets the good jobs in Venezuela? the same University grads talking all their BS on this blog about freebies for the poor, the middle class is the biggest recipient of state larges in Venezuela. for decades they paid no taxes on their business and got free university education

    The poor are poor in Venezuela because they get nothing from the state, free gas? most don’t have a car? state hospitals and schools are a joke, the middle class go to private schools and hospitals.

    This is why Chavez keeps wining and the predominantly white middle class Venezuelans can’t seem to understand.

    • Kepler Says:

      Firepigette is a gringa, not a Venezuelan…at least not by birth. But yes, you are right…only that the white thing is more a historical thing: the “white” people are, the more they cluster among the rich and vice versa, but this is more fluid than elsewhere.

      But yes: it is a tragedy people haven’t learnt the importance of top primary and secondary education and what kind of enormous advantage anyone has if he gets that right.

      The tragedy: in Venezuela parents from class C-, D and E would have to spend a couple of salaries to pay for the children’s books. In Germany or the USA they have to pay nothing or next to nothing. Venezuela is supposed to be going through the year 13 of a “socialist revolution”…people would riot of the price of petrol be raised as it should but they think it’s OK to spend so much money on textbooks.

  17. firepigette Says:

    In Venezuela 52 murders daily just on the first semester of 2012 !! That’s 1,248 murders in 6 months.

    If the Venezuela’s poor population is shrinking according to the usual incomplete statistics, perhaps the above is one of the good reasons why.

  18. firepigette Says:

    There are different levels of seeing things, but distributing wealth, which wins votes all over the world – in my opinion, is an attempt to defy what we all know to be true: that nothing is for free.

    People simply don’t see the price that will ultimately be paid.

    A child is properly taught when he learns to be responsible for himself and stops whining about what he gets or doesn’t get from others.

    Here in the US, more and more everyday, these immature personality types are being molded by politicians for their dreams of power.

    Meanwhile the more lazy, whiny, and uncreative I get, the stronger and more authoritarian the government gets.

    Venezuela has a large poor population that, with a good system of justice, lowered crime rates and fair employment regulations,is quite capable of doing for itself.They are not idiots.It will take some time for poverty to go away, but the growth will be real and a choice.Corruption is Venezuela is responsible for more than its fair share of the inequality in Venezuela.

    Unfortunately the herd mentality keeps people following political trends and the new trend is ” wealth distribution “.

  19. G.W.E.H. Says:

    OT: follow-up president’s health leaks. Dan Rather is a fool and Roger Noriega always was. Fuck we got played.

    • Kepler Says:

      G.W.E.H., you seem like a parody of Maxwell Smart, aka Agent 86.
      Who is “who”? You and your closest relatives?

      I have said this many times: Chávez is dead when he is dead.
      We should not waste time with rumblings about his health.
      Remember Castro? US Americans should remember Castro.

    • ErneX Says:

      How are things there on Fringe Division? or was it the X-Files?

    • tony Says:

      Hold it there, GWEH!!! A few weeks ago you claimed to have very good contacts. Now I see that all you were doing is parrotting what you read on the news. You see now why we always make fun of you???

      • syd Says:

        Actually, GWEH’s extra-terrestial contacts allowed him to warn us, back in March, if memory serves, of Chavez’ death in “4 to 5 weeks”. That timeline preceded the claims from Rather and Noriega — by far.

        We didn’t get played, but we sure know who did.

    • Johnny Walking Says:

  20. VJ Says:

    The redistribution of oil wealth is a deep rooted idea that most venezuelans have in our minds, because all politicians since the middle of the XX century have been telling us that Venezuela is a very rich country, so they make you believe that if you are born here you are entitle to a piece of the cake. And not only politicians spread this concept, I still remember my early years in primary school when my teachers taugh me about the legend of El Dorado…

    If you are interested in this topic, please check the following 2 links:

  21. /\ /\.......{} Says:

    Just found you. Thank you for being brave. I applaud your integrity and introspect. I’ll be reading let me know how I can help!

  22. tony Says:

    If she is going to help the poor, at least she should start by learning how to spell “humildes”.

  23. albionboy Says:

    Great I idea! if you privatize PDVSA and make it a joint stock company
    with 200 billion plus in oil reserves at say $40 a barrel, that’s close to a trillion dollars in stock to be divided by each Venezuelan family to use as they please, not counting gold mines, bauxite iron etc, and all state enterprises
    that would surely give each person, or family at least a million dollars.

    • moctavio Says:

      Please, use your calculator. If you sold PDVSA for a trillion dollars, that would only be US$ 30,000 per Venezuelan (dividing by 30 million people for simplicity). If PDVSA had 200 billion barrels at $40, it would not worth that in the market, you have to get the oil out, invest and spend money. Exxon has one third of Venezuela’s reserves (72 billion barrels last I looked) and it is worth in the market 392 billion dollars. Multiple that by 3, you get 1.2 trillion dollars, again, barely $32,000 per Venezuelan.

      I repeat: WE ARE A POOR COUNTRY.

      • extorres Says:

        Yes, but if we give each Venezuelan 10USD per day, it costs 30millionUSD/day which is about 11billionUSD/year, which is very doable, especially if we take into account all the spending on which we can save if this were implemented. Maybe her math is off, but the concept is sound.

        • extorres Says:

          sorry, start with 1USD per day.

        • Kepler Says:

          Venezuela is a poor country.
          Your Rich Dad Poor Dad concept is not good enough by far.

          Do you know what “inflation” means?

          • extorres Says:

            Kepler, how are you measuring good enough? I certainly have not mentioned that it’s the only thing, so why would it have to be good enough on its own?

            As for inflation, yes, I do know what it means. And as far as I know distributing cash would lower inflation, and even lower market prices, again, not on its own.

            • The Lone Ranger Says:

              La la land. This guy is a gonner. Distributing a ton of cash in such an unproductive economy would lower inflation, he says. I guess he hasn’t taken a course such as Economy 101, where they teach SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Not to mention the reinforcement of the beggar mentality, as if on top of all its problems, the country also needed that. As I said, la la land.

            • extorres Says:

              Lone Ranger, you imply that supply and demand would explain an increase in inflation. Perhaps you are confusing cash distribution with printing money. Printing money devalues currency and increases inflation. But simply distributing it does not. Looking at the two simplistic options, government spending or people spending of the oil money, you’ll see that it’s the same amount of money. The government however spends it differently than the people would. People, especially the poor people, would be more likely to spend locally, not just nationally, but very locally. The government, however, is more likely to purchase imported goods and services, and in Venezuela that implies at a jacked up price. Of those two options, the former causes less inflation, and because of the local market activation and increased competitivity in the market has the possibility of even lowering it.

              Please, which part of Econ 101 goes against what I’ve laid out above?

            • marzolian Says:

              extorres, Lone Ranger is in fact talking about supply and demand. A proposed mega-increase in the supply of fresh Bs. would exceed demand and drive down the price. Just another way to describe what happens when too much money is printed.

            • extorres Says:

              marzolian, if you read my reply to Lone Ranger you’ll see that I agreed with your point. I pointed out the distinction between printing money as you bring up, versus simply distributing cash that already is out there. With cash distribution there is no increase in the supply of fresh Bs., which I agree would cause inflation. Cash distribution as I describe it simply means having it flow upward, versus trickling downward. No new cash, so no new inflation. But because of the more thorough distribution at the consumer level, supply and demand would actually cause greater market competition, especially for local goods and services, so it would be an alternative of lower inflation, versus centralized spending.

  24. Canadian Says:

    Please help. How can i immigrate to Venezuela?

    It is much better to be a poor Venezuelan than a poor Canadian if she became the president after October.

    Don’t get me wrong, i have been working very hard but still can not be a millionaire in Canada.

  25. Alex Says:

    Thing is, if she takes away three zeros, that would make it $100,000 per person for a grand affordable total of 26 billion. 100k is still very reasonable!

  26. Alberto Says:

    Inflation will shoot to 1000%….. A month.

  27. Mike Says:

    You got it wrong. She meant Bs. not imperialistic $$.
    So by presidential decree, she will order Trillion Bs. notes to be printed (and Billion, Million etc. notes for “change”) and hand out 26 of the Trillion notes to every Venezuelan, and voilá, problem solved!
    After all, when I was about 4 years old, I asked my father “why doesn’t the government just give money to the people and then there would be no more poor people…”. And no I didn’t understand that crap about too much money chasing too few goods that, in proper child language, he tried to explain to me. He also told me money didn’t grow on trees, but I didn’t believe him. And I am actually right, because circulating money is mostly paper which comes from trees. Ha!

    • island canuck Says:

      No, it’s dollars

      • Mike Says:

        Not only is my math very fuzzy, i.e.wrong: it’s 26 trillion TOTAL of whatever we want to make it, not 26 Trillion for every Venezuelan (that would be a million).
        Yes, I know she said $$, but I made it Bs. on purpose, because she can’t print $$, but could Bs. I would however have expected that it was going to be clear to anybody that this was a sarcastic comment pointing out the stupidity of such an impossible and economic disaster creating promise.

  28. deananash Says:

    I would vote for her.

  29. guest Says:

    Not particularly hard to guess that at least half this “other candidates” were put there and paid by the Chaverment to try and siphon votes from Capriles, and so they could be blamed when Capriles propaganda gets destroyed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: