Reply #1: As in 2003-2008, the most growth was in the PRIVATE sector...

[Peace Patriot]

"The public sector grew 3.3 percent, while the private sector grew 4.6 percent, Merentes said." --from the OP

----

It surprises me to see an Associated Pukes article, published in the Washington Pest, about Venezuela, that does NOT include snark. Though the article does not take the usual, anonymous pot shots at Chavez ("His critics say...".), it nevertheless contains black holes where information should be, for instance...

---Venezuela was recently designated "THE most equal country in Latin America" on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean; the Chavez government has cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by over 70%;

---the Chavez government maintained low unemployment throughout this worldwide, Bush Junta/Wall Street-induced depression;

---the Chavez government continued to maintain and even expand social programs--education, health care, grants/loans to small business and coops, land reform, et al--throughout this worldwide depression;

---the Chavez government has been taking measures such as nationalizing the Bank of Venezuela to provide easy, low cost credit to the poor, in a safe (non-bankster) institution, and helped to create the Bank of the South (a Venezuelan inspiration) so that no member country is forced to take usurious, ruinous loans from the World Bank/IMF;

---the Chavez government oversaw sizzling (10%) economic growth during the 2003 to 2008 period (a period of maximum hostility and destabilization efforts by the U.S. government and its rightwing trainees in Venezuela) with the most growth in the PRIVATE sector (not including oil)--an astonishing feat in itself and one that also left Venezuela with large cash reserves for the Bushwhacks' "rainy day";

---Like Brazil, Venezuela rejected the advice of "the blue-eyed wonders of Wall Street" (Lula da Silva's phrase)--maintained tight regulation of the banksters; refused to inflict "austerity" measures on the poor; refused to sell off public services and assets to private corporate interests, and, in short, went the opposite way from U.S. "neo-liberalism" and instead has attended to the interests of the poor majority.

As a consequence of all of the above, the Bushwhack financial calamity--which has enriched the rich and devastated the poor in the U.S. and Europe--was NOT inflicted on the poor majority in Venezuela, not even during Venezuela's slow growth period (2008-2010). The Chavez government instead followed the "New Deal" policy of putting money in the hands of the poor, as the most logical and humane measure when the rich fuck things up for everybody else.

That is WHY Venezuela is bouncing back, while the U.S. and Europe (including England) are languishing, trapped in the downward "neo-liberal" spiral whereby the rich suck all the wealth out of the country and the poor suffer.

What is missing from articles by the Associated Pukes, et al, is CONTEXT, cuz--in this case--they don't want you to know that the best way out of fuckups by the rich is cushioning the poor.

The other issue that is never mentioned--and is one of the reasons that Venezuela and other Latin American countries with leftist governments have landed on their feet--is multi-lateral trade, both south-south trade (trade amongst themselves and with other "global south" regions such as Africa) and trade with China, Russia, Italy, Spain, Japan and other more developed countries, on a level playing field--a field not tilted toward the U.S. Trade with the U.S. is heavily weighted with bullying conditions that favor U.S.-based transglobal corporations, U.S. banksters and U.S. war profiteers. Venezuela was the pioneer in South America away from U.S. control of Latin American economies--for instance, by the Chavez government staring down Exxon Mobil and insisting on a better deal for Venezuela (and getting it--a deal that Exxon Mobil walked away from, with other corps stepping into the breach) and rejecting the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs" and its attendant U.S. boots on the ground in the dominated country (i.e., Colombia and Honduras).

This new, independent Latin America is largely due to the Venezuelan peoples' election of the Chavez government and defense of the Chavez government, when the inevitable U.S.-backed coup was attempted, in 2002--the first major victory against U.S. domination of Latin America. What has followed is the election of leftist government after leftist government across Latin America, and formation of political/economic institutions such as UNASUR (South America) and CELAC (all Latin American countries) which specifically and pointedly exclude the U.S. and its lackey Canada. CELAC is even called "the anti-OAS."

The advantages of Latin American independence--of Latin American control of its own trade and economic policy, and of autonomous democracies as opposed to U.S. puppet governments--have become plain to see--not only in economic growth and quick bounce-back from the Bushwhack depredations--but in sharing of the wealth, bootstrapping of the poor and Latin Americans' sense of optimism. Venezuelans are the happiest people in Latin America, according to objective measures. They rate their democracy as one of the best in the region (Uruguay is first--also a leftist government, followed by Venezuela). They rate their own satisfaction with life and future prospects fifth in the world (ahead of the U.S. and the U.K.).

Dry GDP and growth statistics tell only part of the story. Who is benefiting? How is wealth distributed? And what policies are producing growth, employment, elimination of poverty, increased educational levels, access to health care and general prosperity and happiness?

And I can only think--as this is a corpo-fascist 'news' article about Venezuela--that that black hole is deliberate.

I do find the lack of snark intriguing, though. Does this portend some kind of deeper change, say, in CIA objectives in Latin America? Or is it a mistake--an oversight?

There is other evidence of shifting ground in U.S. policy in Latin America--possibly an Obama/Clinton/Panetta move away from military objectives (perhaps due to Latin American solidarity on U.S. aggression) toward economic objectives (getting U.S. corporations back in the game in this new, more level playing field, especially in South America). The corpo-fascist 'news' is worth watching, in this respect--their level of nastiness toward the leftist leader of the region, Venezuela; what they DON'T say, what they have been saying and are not saying NOW, etc.