Bank Tries to Allay Fears of Instability in Venezuela

[Zorro]

Source: New York Times

The central bank sought on Friday to calm fears of faltering banks a day after President Hugo Chávez unexpectedly announced the nationalization of a large Spanish-owned bank, his latest effort to intensify state control over the economy through takeovers of private companies.

The nationalization of the bank would extend to the financial sector a series of takeovers, which Mr. Chávez initiated last year, in industries including oil, telecommunications, electricity and steel-making.

Mr. Chávez further shook the political establishment and financial markets on Friday when he disclosed that he had used his decree powers to issue 26 laws on Thursday. They included a banking reform, although the government did not provide details on any of the laws the president decreed.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/world/americas/02venez.html?em

[daleo]

1. There are a lot of unstable U.S. banks too

And the U.S. government recently backstopped some in a big way.

[bemildred]

2. Oh bullshit. nt

[Peace Patriot]

3. Chavez was smart to re-nationalize the Bank of Venezuela--which had been

nationalized before his administration, and had been privatized--before the U.S. financial meltdown hits the fan.

The fuckwads at the NYT would like to make it look otherwise--that their fuckwad global corporate predator pals are not on a rampage of wild speculation and profiteering, at the expense of the basic stability of the U.S. of A. and the EU--and somehow blame this on Chavez.

Nice try.

Reminder: The decree powers granted to Chavez by the National Assembly--both of whom were elected in an election system that puts our own to shame for its transparency--have been given to, and exercised by, previous presidents, and are a common practice in South America. (They also resemble powers granted to FDR by Congress, to deal with the crisis of the Great Depression.) The Venezuelan economy has enjoyed a nearly 10% growth rate, with Chavez as president, with the most growth in the private sector (not including oil), and social programs have greatly benefited from Chavez's re-negotiation of oil contracts to give Venezuela a 60/40 share of their own oil profits (as opposed to 10/90 favoring multinationals, before Chavez). If Chavez can now insulate Venezuela's economy from Bush-Shock, and continue his leadership--and that of others--toward creation of the South American "Common Market" (UNASUR)--it will, as I have predicted, be South America's century, not ours (as the Bushfucks planned with their "Project for a New American Century"). Peace, democracy, social justice and release of the vast creative energies of the majority, in South America--through bootstrapping policies like universal health care, education and full literacy, help for small businesses and worker co-ops, land reform, infrastructure development, regional cooperation and other measures--will win the day, while the Bushites and collusive Democrats turn the U.S. into the biggest "banana republic" on earth.

It didn't need to be this way. We could have cooperated with democracy and social justice in Latin America, to everyone's benefit. Instead, we poured $6 BILLION in military aid into fascist Colombia--a country with one of the worst human rights records on earth--and millions more into rightwing groups all over the continent, trying to topple democratic governments, foment coups, slander the left, assassinate elected leaders, and conspire to create civil war with secessionist movements (in the provinces with the oil). The Bush junta has thus alienated much of Latin America, and if they or Democratic colluders carry through with on-going secessionist plots, the alienation will become permanent.

This is what the NYT doesn't want us to know--because it might give us ideas for a badly needed, peaceful leftist revolution here. When capitalist predators get this out of control, the least that should be done is to nationalize the critical institutions that they are looting and destroying, to restore PUBLIC control of vital resources and financial stability.

Would that we had a president and congress that defended our sovereignty as a people and acted to protect us from global corporate predators and war profiteers, and cooperated with other nations and leaders toward those ends!

It's sad, sad, sad, what we have come to--what our journalism has come to, what our democratic ideals have come to, what our constitution has come to, and what has been done to our once strong middle class and its many benefits as to strong communities, reliable infrastructure and public services and progressive values.

[robcon]

4. Democratic ideals??? Nationalization is anything but democratization.

It's a power grab by Chavez: his attempt for raw power by having banks have to fear him.

He's on his way to a Cuban model - with oil - so he'll be able to have a larger-than the $19-a-month discretionary income per capita that Cuba has.

[Peace Patriot]

6. You are confusing democracy with capitalism. And the capitalism that is rampaging

the world right now is nothing less than looting and piracy. Better to have an elected government (ahem, that's democracy) in charge of the Bank of Venezuela than the kind of assholes we have running our banks and financial institutions here--thieves and brigands, utter madmen who are killing the "golden goose" and then hanging its dead carcass on a flagpole and beating it to a pulp.

Both Venezuela's oil, and its bank, were nationalized before Chavez. He's not "on his way to a Cuban model." He is using Venezuela's own precedents to the advantage of ordinary people. There is no reason why a democratic government--elected in transparent elections, and enjoying great popularity as well--shouldn't protect the country's sovereignty, wealth and productivity by controlling essential resources. With the murderous thieves who are out to get Venezuela and Chavez, measures like these are likely essential to the security of the country and the region. And they are not at all unusual.

I think that banks, financial institutions, corporations--especially global corporations--and the super-rich should fear the public and its elected representatives in a democratic country. That's the right order of things. As FDR said, "Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred." And if "organized money" was an irresponsible, power hungry, greedy force then, it has grown more so by orders of magnitude over the last 20 years, with the worst of it occurring now, under the thieving, murdering fuckwads of the Bush Junta.

We, the people, need presidents and other government officials who are looking out for the common good and for the interests and welfare of the majority. That is what Chavez is doing, in my view, with legitimate powers granted to him by an elected legislature. Democracy is not about protecting capitalistic exploitation. If it is working right, it is about protecting the people from capitalist exploitation--from monopolies, from market speculators, for gas gouging, from credit card gouging, from union-busting, from looting of the public treasuries, from no-bid contracts, from trillion dollar deficits, from the massive outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing, from fascist wars of choice, and all the other evils that predatory capitalists are inflicting upon us. There must be a BALANCE of power within a society, for the society to function properly, for everyone's welfare (including capitalists), and for democracy to be able to flourish. We don't have democracy here. We have corporate rule. And the western world has gotten very out of balance, on this matter, here in the U.S. recently, and in South America for many decades, resulting in vast poverty on that continent. We're next. We have insufficient protection from "organized money" and its inherent tendency to loot and plunder. It is out of control

You also mistake strength for "power grabbing." There is a difference. A leftist leader needs to be strong, and should be strong, in the defense of his country and his people. FDR was strong in that same way--and was also called a "tyrant" by the rightwing of his era--the greedbags who couldn't care less that people were starving, homeless and unemployed. According to the rightwing, when a leader is strong on behalf of the poor, he is "tyrant"--but when a true tyrant comes along, like Bush, who has hijacked the U.S. military for an oil war and shredded the Constitution, and encouraged massive looting by the rich, and tortured prisoners, and has literally destroyed our country, in so many ways, no one on the right objects. Where is real conservatism? Where are the "strict constructionists of the Constitution"? Nowhere to be found--because of this orgy of oil profiteering, and mortgage profiteering, and every other kind of piracy.

Bush and his corporate puppetmasters are the tyrants. Not Chavez. Bush is the "power-grabber." Not Chavez. Chavez is merely doing his job. And Bush never held a job in his life. He is a worthless tool of global corporate predators.

[Judi Lynn]

9. Perfect post! I had so many silent "amens" & "hallelujahs" going off reading it, it was like an

invisible camp meeting around my chair!




Wonderful imagery, battered pulp of a golden goose, and so fitting.

You've made the points some people appear to have never known in the first place about democracy. It's a pity they have such a fuzzy idea of what it's all about.

Thank you for each time you've given some serious thought to these issues and patiently, and courageously addressed them.

[Judi Lynn]

5. From an opposition paper: Nationalization should not make an impact on account holders

Caracas, viernes 01 de agosto, 2008
Economía

Nationalization should not make an impact on account holders

Following the announcement made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on his intention of nationalizing Banco de Venezuela, the speaker of the National Alliance of Users and Consumers (Anauco), Roberto León Parilli, said that such decision should not directly affect domestic stakeholders.

He commented that the measure will not be effective all of a sudden. Instead, multiple agreements should be first reached by the government and the owners of Santander Group.

"This should not affect or make a direct impact on customers; let alone because some weeks ago, it was known that Santander Group was interested in selling its Venezuelan subsidiary," said León Parilli.

In his opinion, once the Venezuelan state takes control of Banco de Venezuela, users are empowered to query about the final use of their money; bank-customers relations concerning financial products; interest rates, and quality of service.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/08/01/en_eco_art_nationalization-shou_01A1868721.shtml
(Opposition newspaper)

[struggle4progress]

7. Spain's Santander talks to Venezuela on bank sale

Fri Aug 1, 2008 11:01pm BST

By Sarah Morris

MADRID (Reuters) - Banco Santander (SAN.MC: Quote, Profile, Research), Europe's second-largest lender, is in talks to sell the bank it owns in Venezuela to the South American country's government, a day after President Hugo Chavez said he wanted to nationalise it.

Spain's Banco Santander said on Friday it had previously talked to a group of Venezuelan private investors about selling Banco de Venezuela but had not reached an agreement.

Asdrubal Oliveros of Caracas-based analysts Ecoanalitica values Banco de Venezuela at $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion ...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/bankingFinancial/idUKL149586220080801

[Judi Lynn]

10. Isn't it sad these clowns haven't taken the time to know Santander was selling the bank, anyway,

and that the bank USED TO BE OWNED BY VENEZUELA, in the first place?

Jesus H. Christ.

Thanks for your posts on the bank.

[struggle4progress]

8. Santander confirms talks with Caracas over bank nationalisation

MADRID (AFP) — Spain's Banco Santander said Friday it was in talks over the sale of its Venezuelan affiliate to the Caracas government, which has announced plans to nationalise the unit.

"We have noted the interest of the Venezuelan government in the Banco de Venezuela, and are in talks at this time to that effect," Santander said in a statement.

"Santander had planned to sell this bank to a group of private Venezuelan investors, an operation for which certain commitments had been made although no no final agreement had been reached."

Venezuela's lefist President Hugo Chavez said on television Thursday he had decided to buy Banco de Venezuela, which he said Santander was in the process of selling to a local bank ...

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUnoK3vJz24rPjWN9UPcCG-f-Wkg