From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Tue Dec 30 2003 - 14:06:43 EST
--On Tuesday, December 30, 2003 10:45 AM -0800 Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU> wrote: > I'm sure that not all the people fired by Lt. Col. Hugo Chavez were > labourers. But you said 18,000 "workers". > I think Michael L. suggested that most however were > technicians. Despite the good fortune of strong oil prices for this > rentier state, even the official unemployment rate had increased > under the Lt.Col's rule--electorally maintained, to be sure, but then > so was the rule of Fujimori and Menem. Now, why would anyone refer to "Lt. Col." and not "President", his twice-elected position? And why would anyone claim that President Chavez is responsible for the rise in the unemployment rate in the circumstances of a massive bourgeois campaign against his government reminding one of nothing other than the experience of Allende in Chile in the early 1970s? One doesn't have to claim Allende and Chavez make all the right moves to know where the principal problem lies. For a commentary such as we are seeing, either the writer doesn't know what he is talking about and writes anyway, or ... Enough said, Paul *********************************************************************** RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 00:00:01 EST