Venezuela 'seizes' British ranch

[emad]

BBC


Venezuela has declared a huge British-owned cattle ranch to be state property and handed out permits for local farmers to take over the land.

The agriculture minister held a ceremony at El Charcote ranch, saying it was officially under state control.

The state governor said 140 permits had been handed out so poor families could start work on the 32,000-acre estate.

Agroflora, the local subsidiary of British owner Vestey Group, said it would appeal against the seizure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4375817.stm

[peacetalksforall]

1. My first reaction was horror at taking something away from anyone...

But there is more....

"The group has operated the ranch, in central Cojedes state, for decades.

But officials said as property documents did not prove the land belonged to the group, it therefore belonged to the state.

No compensation

The government is taking action against what it calls latifundios, or large rural estates, which it says are lying idle.

Vestey denies the land is idle, and says it has complied fully with Venezuelan law.

The firm has been given two months to appeal. "

[hector459]

22. This country does it all the time for corporate agri businesses and devel

I am happy to see a nation doing this for PEOPLE!!

[jdj]

83. Not only openly, but invisibly, by poisoning the land and water under your

feet, like what P.G. & E. did in the famous Erin Brockovich suit. Just because they don't own title to the land doesn't mean they can't render it useless to you, with you paying for it all the while.

[Vladimir]

2. *Applause and cheers*

[wheresthemind]

3. I thought the headline read "Venezuela 'seizes' Bush ranch"

Talk about seeing only what you want to see!

[emad]

6. Maybe they'll be inspired to check out Crawford.....

?

[thecrow]

4. Smirk will use this as a way of declaring Venezuela

a terra nation.

[reprobate]

5. Oh, horrors! Soon they'll resemble Switzerland.

In Switzerland unless you are a citizen, you can't own any land or business. At least that's how it was when I was there.

Could that be Bush's next move?

[NNN0LHI]

7. Smart move

Don't want to wait until the Poodle transforms that "ranch" into a military installation. Chavez must be taking Putin's advice to heart.

Don

[Ironpost]

8. Go Hugo

[chlamor]

9. Taking back what is rightfully yours

WHACK New World Corporate Imperialism aka Old World Colonialism upside its ugly head.

Viva Chavez

[hughee99]

10. Rightfully Yours?

If the government is able to arbitrarily seize one person's land (without compensation), what is to prevent them from doing this to anyone, or everyone?

If the government feels that a piece of land isn't being used (or is being under-used), do they have the right to seize the land and give it to someone who will do what THEY want with it?

[chlamor]

11. The British Have Zero Rights in Venezuela

Go back to Britain, Brits. It's that simple. Corporate predators who are sucking the blood out of the children must be sent packing. The British owe the Venezuelans billions in compensation. All the pretty lies of Corp. ownership is just a way to camouflage the reality of colonial theft.

And by the way "The Gov't" here in the US="THE CORPORATION" and it owns everything and has more rights than you or I. That's unacceptable.

Take note Chavez is redistributing the land and thusly REAL POWER back to the people in need.

[hughee99]

16. So no one should be allowed to own land in

another country? Is that the argument here, or is it just that CORPORATIONS shouldn't be able to own land in another country?

BTW, Chavez isn't redistributing the land. "The state governor said 140 permits had been handed out so poor families could start work on the 32,000-acre estate." That's a permit to work land that the government still owns (sort of like feudalism). As such, the government retains the power since they have the ability to revoke those permits at any time.

[AP]

35. One reason they don't transfer title immediately is because in the past,

when that has been done, the new owners turn around and sell it back to the big corporations at a huge markdown, which is possible because of the huge disparities in wealth.

So, what they do to prevent that from happening is only transfer title to the poor farmers once they're no longer poor.

[hughee99]

51. So after the farmers work the land for a few years

There will not be a huge disparity between the wealth of the farmers and that of the big corporations? The government will NEVER turn over title of that land to the farmers, because the farmers will never be sufficiently wealthy enough to guarantee that they won't sell out. And if they were to become sufficiently wealthy, and it is because the government has provided them with "free land", hasn't government given them an unfair advantage over other citizens who do not have this opportunity?

[AP]

60. My impression is that Venezuela has already said that they want to avoid..

..the methods other countries have used for land reform whereby the title has been transferred and imediately purchased back by the wealthy land owners for pennies on the dollar.

I really don't think there's any evidence that justifies the alarmist position that they'll "never" transfer title to the farmers. If you look at all the other things they're doing in Venezuela, it's clear that they're pretty enthusiastic about growing indigenous capitalist enterprises.

They have some program that's like a national MBA school where the train local entrepreneurs. They buy failing companies and sell them to the workers (I think they did this with a paper factory recently).

So, I'm not sure why they'd embrace a democratic, indigenous, grass roots version of captialism in every respect but not for land reform, especially after they've said that they're doing what they're doing to make sure that land reform works (and it's not going to work if the government owns the land in perpetuity, which they must realize since they're whole point is transfer the titles in a way that doesn't immediately reconcentrate ownership back in the hands of the super-wealthy).

As for the rest of what you've written: I don't understand your "free land" argument.

Most of the land is owned by a few companies and wealthy individuals who got it for free (through imperialism) or buying at a cut-rate price due to the fact that the previous owner got it at the cut-rate imperialist price (and due to the fact that they're buying it in a marketplace where 90% of the population -- ie, potential competitors -- are impoverished by the very system which allows the cut rate pricing.

So, the competition isn't really between a venezuelan who got the land for free and another entrepreneurial working class venezuelan who didn't get the land for free. The competition is between a super-rich (often) corporate entity and the 90% of the population who are poor, and, applying your logic, you have to ask, isn't it unfair to perpetuate that system? Isn't it unfair to force 90% of the population to remain in bad economic circumstances due to an extremely unjust distribution of land? And I'm sure that for the few middle class venezuelans who do own land now, they're not going to be bitter that other venezuelans got free land on which they run small farming enterprizes so much as that they'll be relieved that economic, political and cultural power will now shift down to people who have the same class interests they have.

[hughee99]

69. My point on the "free land" issue was this...

Granted, the government has taken the land from the super-rich corporate entity. Now it's going to allow some people to have permits to work that land. It's going to issue 140 permits, and those people can work the land and eventually will be given the land, and lets say there 14,000 people applying for permits? Many will not get them. How do they determine who the 140 permits go to? Is it a random lottery? If so, will it truly be random or will it be rigged. Will friends of people in power get the permits? Will local thugs get the permits? After the last 25 years of observing the corruption in governments around the world, especially our own, I'm just a little surprised that no one else seems to think that this policy is something that could be seriously abused, and that everyone seems to have complete faith in the integrity of all members of the Venezuelan government.

[AP]

71. With any policy, it's easy to spin-out seemingly unfair hypotheticals.

It's like me saying, I'm not sure that national health care is a good idea because people with munchausen syndrome are going to take up all the resources, and they're going to move here from Canada and Mexico, and it's just not going to be fair to Americans with real problems. I've seen this happen.

In your hypothetical and in mine, it's obvious that we can both spin out our grave concerns. But the fact is, we're just spinning out grave concerns, and unless you got something more concrete than your 25 years of observing corrupt government, I'm not sure you're making a good argument for preserving an obvioulsy dysfunctional status quo.

[hughee99]

72. I don't believe that your comparison is fair

There are many examples of national health care where munchausen has not had the effect that you predicting. In fact, I'm not aware of any country that has tried to implement national healthcare and had that effort thwarted by people with munchausen syndrome. In my hypothetical, I can point to several examples where corruption has been a significant cause of the failure of a land reform effort, and not that many examples (at least in the last 100 years or so) where this type of land reform has been successful, lasting, and to the benefit of the people.

[AP]

74. Go for it. Support your argument. Give your examples.

And explain why they're likely to happen in Venezuela as well.

You have to admit that the status quo isn't working for Venezuela, so you're going to have to do something, right? How do your other observations justify the status quo in Venezuela?

[hughee99]

85. I will admit that the status quo isn't working,

but I will stop short of hailing this effort as something that I have confidence in...

Here's a few examples of countries that tried similar land reform efforts...

Zimbabwe
"It is instructive that in Zimbabwe, a country which has seen increasing state withdrawal from the provision of social services over the last 10 years, high levels of indebtedness and poor levels of political governance, the Land Reform programme embarked upon by the government has resulted in corruption and violence and in a breakdown in the production of food and export crops "

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/livelihoods/landrights/downloads/reforming_land_rights_wb_agric.rtf
In case the RTF doesn't work...
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/livelihoods/landrights/africa_south.htm

Uganda
"In Uganda, the new Land Act (1998) combines objectives of agricultural productivity and equity by promoting democratization and good governance with some redistribution of land rights. Implementation of the Land Act (1998) has been hindered by lack of an overall land policy, and by insufficient strategic planning, limited resources and capacity, and widespread corruption (DFID 1999).

http://www.grida.no/aeo/185.htm

South Africa - based on the book "The Great South African Land Scandal"
"What is more surprising is the reaction from other members of society to the book. Despite the fact that the contents of the book are irrefutable, and that all sectors of government in South Africa are rife with incompetence, corruption and fraud, some refuse to admit that there is something drastically wrong with the Department of Land Affairs. "

http://southafrica.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/6416.php

These are just a few quick examples that I was able to find in the last few minutes, but they are examples that I can point to where this has gone bad before, or at the very least, has not achieved the expected goals due (at least in part) to corruption.

[NNN0LHI]

73. The British hierarchy still think they own America too. Fuck them n/t

[bemildred]

13. Two points:

1.) How do you think the "ranch" came into being in the first place?
You don't think it was paid for, do you? It was seized by force,
and maintained by force.

2.) All property is created by the state and manifest by instruments
of law which are defined and defended by state power. The state, so
long as it's rule is legitimate, can do what it likes with property.
It is a legal fiction created for the common good, nothing more.

[hughee99]

15. While it's more than possible that the ranch was taken

and not paid for, is there any evidence that this is the case. Isn't that the issue? The claim for the ranch goes back for more than 100 years, but they do not have the documentation to show how it was acquired. Venezuela has recognized this ownership in the past, to the extent that they have taxed it. In any case, my point is not how the ranch came to be, my concern is that the government is taking land that, at least until recently, has been privately owned. It bothers me when it happens in the US, and it bothers me when it happens in other countries.

As to your second point, I guess you have now convinced me that it's okay to drill in ANWR. "All property is created by the state and manifest by instruments of law which are defined and defended by state power. The state, so long as it's rule is legitimate, can do what it likes with property."

[bemildred]

18. If you read the piece, it says

that the ownership of the ranch was not properly documented.
That is the contention of the government, and it is why no
compensation will be paid.

The government is not "taking" the land, it is changing who owns it.
Instead of a British corporation, it will now be owned by Venezuelan
farmers. That sounds like an improvement to me, but that is only my
opinion.

WRT your second point, the government can and will drill ANWR if it
so chooses, the government CREATED ANWR in the first place. To
admit that as fact is an entirely different thing from saying that
to do so is a good idea.

[hughee99]

47. Point taken on the ANWR issue...

And I agree with you on this, (Though I have seen a few who have tried to make a legal justification as to why it may be illegal to drill in ANWR). I was just trying to be a smart ass on that.

As for the government taking the land, it is. It is not giving the land to the farmers. It is issuing permits to allow them to USE the land. The government will own it, and those working the land will, for better or worse, be at the mercy of the government.

If the government were to GIVE the land to someone, wouldn't that be unfair as well. How many people would be happy to have a free piece of land? I'll bet it is more than 140 people/families. Some will get free land, some will not. Will there be a lottery? Will it be fair? Will those who will make best use of the land win?

[bemildred]

53. Point taken on ownership then, if you like.

The point I was making before was that all property is property
of the state, all ownership is a permit from the state, provided
by the state, defended (or not) by the state. Your illusion that
one can "own land" independent of the state is wrong, as a matter
of law, as a matter of practice. And if the state follows its own
laws in the matter there is not theft, as theft is also a crime
defined by the state. Without the state one is merely a "squatter".

[hughee99]

75. Looking at it this way, I guess you are correct.

Perhaps it's just the libertarian in me but I see something clearly wrong with a situation where someone can pay for something, and believe that they own it, only to have it taken away at any time (for any reason). But the fact that I see something wrong with it, doesn't mean that's how it is.

[bemildred]

78. Thank you.

I am quite libertarian in my tastes on social issues too.
My conclusion is that we need to take control of the state and
make damn sure it is run for the good of all of us, not
just the self-annointed few.

[hughee99]

86. Agreed. n/t

[Vladimir]

17. Compensation schmompensation

Lord Spam refuses to use the land, or let anyone else use it - which makes this an emminent domain issue, same as if it had happened in any European country or for that matter the US. In Britain, if you own a house but never live in it, squatters can move in and claim it as their own after a period of time, and no-one has to pay you compensation for it. Since:

1) Chavez has done everything possible to get Vestey to start using the land

2) They refuse and have given no indication of wanting to use it in the future

the democratically elected government of Venezuela is well within its rights. Had the land being seized been used, then compensation *might* be in order (if it really was legally obtained, which I seriously doubt), but since it wasn't no one has to pay his Lordship one penny.

The only thing special about this case is that its a third-world government doing it, and people can't bring themselves to trust third-world governments for shit, because we get brought up to think that only the Western bourgeoisie is remotely capable of acting in an ethical manner.

[hughee99]

63. So,

someone who owns a piece of land to preserve the environment, for example, would fight against using the land themselves, and have no plan to use it in the future. Therefore, a democratically elected government has every right to seize the land and offer the owner no compensation. When this happens in the our country, we protest. Some protest because they disagree with what the government plans to do with the land, but others protest because they feel that this is a violation of someones rights. I understand what Chavez is doing, and why he is doing it, but am I crazy in thinking that somewhere down the line, less than scrupulous politicians will use this same situation to personally profit and screw the very people they claim to be helping?

[oneighty]

81. Following the United States Civil War

Land in South Carolina was 're-distributed' to freedmen. As a result property rights in some areas of South Carolina is still a can of worms.

My wife's family has claim to valuable lands in South Carolina by something called 'Heirs Rights'.

Land re-distribution was at one time alive and well in the United States.

One might also consider the properties of Native Americans when this debate is joined.

180

[Bo]

65. Not land reform again!!!!

I work and travel extensively in South America...land redistribution is just a govt. ploy to take away your land.

[biftonnorton]

12. Oh, This Doesn't Bode Well

for them. Somehow issues in Venezuela keep reminding me of how things started going for Grenada and led up to Op Urgent Fury. Maybe it's the Castro connection that does that.

[Overseas]

14. Resist anti-Chavez propaganda

Any bit of disturbing news on Venezuela is trumpeted far and wide-- while much worse news about our own criminal administration is allowed to languish or get minimal coverage... Be sure to look behind all the headlines on Venezuela. Even in this late stage of corporate dominance of international trade, leaders like Chavez who dare to give more to the poor are subject to crushing propaganda, engineered coups and many other attempts to undermine and destroy their courageous regimes.

[Judi Lynn]

77. Excellent advice. He is going to get slammed by England hard on this one

since Vestey chooses to continue to live there. It feels like England's business, apparently.

I just discovered a bit of info. I have never read before. It's very serious, concerning appropriation of land in general in Venezuela:

Reforming the highly unequal ownership and control of farmland in Venezuela’s countryside is moving to the centre stage of the Bolivarian revolution in the country. In a country where 80% live in poverty, rural poverty is endemic. A census carried out following Chavez’s victory in the presidential elections in 1998 revealed that 60% of the land was owned by just 1% of the population.

In order to counter this, the government has embarked on an program of redistribution. This has consisted mainly of allocating land titles from idel state-owned land. However, the government’s December 2001 land reform law gives it the right to seize idle land holdings of more than 5000 hectares from large landowners and redistribute it peasants with little or no land.

Despite the law guaranteeing compensation at market value for expropriated land, the law has been violently opposed by large capitalist landowners. Dozens of peasant activists have been assassinated since the law was passed.
(snip/...)

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/612/612p19.htm

Welcome to D.U., Overseas. :hi: :hi: :hi:

[da_chimperor]

19. Wow, sounds just like what Mugabe did in Zimbabwe.

Unfortunately, the 'war veterans' often didn't know shit about farming, thus making Zimbabwe reliant on food aid rather when before it was the breadbasket of Africa. I think he's a Dumbass for doing this.

[Vladimir]

20. Its nothing of the sort

the land is unused, and Vestey Group have no desire to use it - in Zimbabwe, the seized land was very much being used.

[da_chimperor]

21. Well, the article states that the farm has/had 300 employees

and that at least some of the employees were still working at the farm. I don't know how they define 'idle', and I have no idea how much of the land was actually being used, but this still smacks too much of something Mugabe would do for my taste.

[bemildred]

23. Chavez is way smarter than Robert.

Expropriation of land is common as dirt (no pun intended) anywhere
you go. This is an issue only because the former owner is a big shot.

[da_chimperor]

25. It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

property seizure isn't something I like, period. Especially when the company in question says it can prove ownership for over 170 years. It sets a bad precedent for business, and Venezuela needs foreign investment as much as other South American countries.

[bemildred]

27. Well, there is the Jackson trial, or the Schiavo case I guess.

Last I heard China and India and Russia were lining up to
invest in Venezuela.

[da_chimperor]

29. Yes, in the Oil sector. I'm well aware of that and have been for some time

Despite both Jackson, who I don't really give a fuck about, and Schiavo. That doesn't matter, the principal is the same. A country with a lack of property rights does not make for good investment. In this case, all three countries are investing in the oil industry, and since Chavez wants to remain on good terms with all of them, their investment is safe. You can't say that for anyone else if the government keeps on seizing land.

[bemildred]

30. Investment for who? That's the question.

This seems like a great investment for the peasants.
And the Chinese are no fools.
On the other hand, Vesey seems to have been handed his ass.

[da_chimperor]

34. Damn, arguing with you people is rough.

3-on-1. :P Anyhow, investment for whom doesn't really matter. I'm not talking specifics, I'm talking in general. Venezuela will needs money for economic growth, and the government can't do all of the investing. I'm concerned about Venezuela reverting to some sort of command economy. Those haven't worked well in the past, and I don't think they will now.

[bemildred]

38. Well, that's more coherent,

It is an issue, but there is no apparent problem there now, and Chavez'
plans for agrarian reform have been public knowledge for some time;
so there is no reason, presently, to think there will be a problem
with foreign investors boycotting Venezuela because Vesey and his
ilk are getting kicked out.

Like I said, he is much smarter and more moderate than Mugabe, a
pragmatist from what I can see, and I don't think he is attempting
anything like state ownership of everything, just a healthy dose of
socialism along the European line, and the development of a diverse
and integrated local economic system with the aim of autonomy. He
also seems to be making a sincere effort to educate and empower his
citizenry: literacy, health care, voting rights, etc. which I take
to be a good sign as far as his democratic intentions.

[da_chimperor]

42. Yes, I can say the same.

I never doubted his democratic intentions, I doubted his commitment to capitalism. I'm still concerned about the land seizures: when it's done without compensation when the land is legally owned is still theft, but we'll see how it turns out in a few months. I agree that he'll undoubtedly be better than Mugabe. For now I'm going to wait and see.

[bemildred]

43. I don't think he is committed to Capitalism.

Certainly not the dominant form of monopoly capitalism so popular
here, or represented by absentee corporate landlords there. It's
much too inefficient.

He doesn't seem to have a beef with a bit of free-enterprise
however. Even Cuba allows a bit of free enterprise nowadays,
people often work better when they work for their own interests,
like, say, peasants that have been given their own little piece
of the pie.

Nice talking with you.

[da_chimperor]

45. Free-enterprise/capitalism/whatever.

Yes, nice talking with you as well.

[chlamor]

24. "Employee"=Working for Someone Else

Who will then, to varying degrees be profiting off your labor.

Maybe if they had access to land they would be autonomous and not need to be "employed" by a UK transnational who stole the land to begin with. Without land there is no freedom, all else is political obfuscation.

Time for us all to get off the Boss-Company-Employee-Wage Slave Train.

[da_chimperor]

26. Sorry, anti-capitalism arguments don't work on business students.

:hi:

I like the poster though. Do you where I can buy a copy? Anyway, the point is is that this is a company with what seems to be legitimate ownership of the land (nothing suggests that they stole it and I don't believe everything the Venezuelan government says) producing food for Venezuela, and employing 300 people while they're at it. Just giving 140 families permission to work the land and telling them to 'go for it!' is stupid. It takes more than just land to raise cattle. One of the problems you see with land seizures in Zimbabwe, for example, is that the people now farming the land that used to produce huge amounts of food can produce barely enough to feed themselves. They don't have the money to repair machinery, to buy fuel for the equipment, etc. The things you need to run a large-scale farm. That's why Zimbabwe would starve if it wasn't for food aid. The Venezuelan government has already seized 1.48 MILLION acres of land this year alone. How much land is enough?

[Vladimir]

28. They may not use it to grow cattle

and I don't think they are being left to go at it alone. All the succesfull land redistributions in history involved a large measure of state spending on training and equipment after the fact, and I imagine that is what will happen in Venezuela too.

[da_chimperor]

31. It may indeed.

Venezuela does have quite a bit of money to throw around thanks to oil prices, but frankly I don't know enough to say more about how it will go. But if they don't compensate the company (assuming their ownership is valid, which is very possible as Chavez has been doing this for a while now and they would have time to get things in order) it's theft. Plain and simple.

[Vladimir]

36. It depends on who you believe

if the land is either unlawfully owned or unused it is not theft - anyhow they will appeal and the truth will, I am sure, come out. But because of his track record, I will tend to err on the side of Hugo Chavez and not the Western corporation in these kind of cases...

[da_chimperor]

37. As of yet, I believe neither.

I'm sure the BBC will continue to cover this, so we'll find out eventually. His track record concerns me a bit. I think he should be talking to Sweden rather than Cuba on how to improve life for his people.

[Vladimir]

40. With respect you make an absolutely classic error

of neglecting context. Sweden, were it in Venezuela's geo-socio-political situation, would not be talking to itself about how to make things better for their people, they would be talking to countries in the region who have been in similar situations and made progress (and Cuba has progressed since Batista: whatever your objections about its state today when compared to Europe, Cubans are better off now than they ever were under their pre-Castro regimes. Indeed Cubans are better off than most of their closest neighbours now, despite sanctions!). Most of developed Europe, hell most of the world, can't get to where Sweden is at, so to expect Venezuela to go straight from being a third-world country to being Sweden is fanciful IMO. And besides, he is talking to Brazil too, and Uruguay, and Argentina... Chavez has indeed been criticised by Castro as too soft on any number of occasions. Sweden would have few useful lessons to teach Venezuela, precisely because it has been prosperous for so long that its politics is irrelevant to the Venezuelan context. You wouldn't wash your hands with toilet bleach any more than Venezuela would fix its ills with Swedish policies...

[da_chimperor]

44. You kind of took the comment farther than I meant it.

But I agree with you on all of your points. I never intended to imply that Sweden could miraculously help transform Venezuela into a first-world country. I should have suggested Brazil instead. Though the two countries get along very well (Uruguay as well), I'd prefer it if Chavez was best buddies with Lula Da Silva instead of Castro. You now see the risks of posting while sleepy.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

41. What exactly about his "track record" is so concerning?

As a head of state elected over and over again it is his prerogative to talk to as many heads of state as he wishes. Like it was for Clinton, Carter and others when it came to The Shah, Suharto, Somoza, The House of Saud, Carlos Andres Perez, Hosni Mubarak, etc etc.

I find it more concerning that people like James Carville, who has been so close to our very own president. Would work with the same opposition that overthrew this 3 time democratically elected leader in a military coup.

[da_chimperor]

46. Economic track record, not democratic track record.

He's been fairly elected, of that I have no doubt.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

49. I meant "track record" in whatever context. What about it? n/t

[da_chimperor]

52. OK, let's sum it up like this:

I do kinda like the guy. I don't think Castro is a bad guy, but being chummy with him in addition to land-seizures of what I view as questionable legality (as of now, we'll see what happens in 2 months after the appeal) concerns me that he is not really committed to free-enterprise/capitalism/whatever.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

55. Not only has the economy improven after the unsuccessful oil

strike. It has actually grown. Even Bloomberg's reported on this. That seems like quite a decent record to me. The community markets are flourishing all over the "ghettos". That doesn't seem like anything bad either. If leaders in the US can talk to whomever they want I don't see what business is it of ours who he hangs out with. His commitment should be to find solutions for his people's problems not any economic ideology in particular. It seems to me he's doing that. If the Venezuelans decide they don't want him. They'll deal with him. It seems to me that every time the US "worries" too much about its southern neighbors bad shit happens (to them).

[da_chimperor]

57. Yeah, I agree as well.

As I said, I have concerns. That's it. The thing is I've gotten so far off the original topic with this that I'm just going to shut up now. Have a nice day, I'm having a beer. :hi:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

58. Hell, have two. ; - ) n/t

[AP]

54. IMO, it depends on whether you believe the logic of adverse possession...

....as many American states believe, and countries like England & Wales, and Scotland don't.

Adverse possession is founded on the logic that land should go to the people who are willing to make the best, most productive use because that creates more social wealth and it creates a society which delivers wealth to people who are willing to work for it rather than to people who are able to recreate it without working for it by virtue of having a great deal of wealth already.

Obviously, there are a few difference between most adverse possession laws and the kind of land ownership reform they use in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Adverse possession generaly requires that individuals use land openly and notoriously (so that the owner would have notice if they bothered to stop by and see what's going on) and it requires that the owners do nothing to stop the use. Also, adverse possession transfers titles between two private parties, and not between a private party and the government.

However, the philosophy is basically the same. The Venezuelan government is arguing that this company owns a great deal of land which they got at an unreasonably low cost, and that they're not putting it to its best economic use (which is depriving society of wealth-producing, fair economy). So the government steps it and facilitates the transfer of the beneficial title (if not the legal title) in the short term (and probably the legal title in the long term once they're confindent that huge disparities in wealth won't mean that the corporation will just buy the land back at unfairly low prices).

If you want to see the difference between a country which believes in adverse possession and one that doesn't, compare the America west to Scotland. In Scotland, there are huge disparities in wealth, and something like 50 or fewer families own 90% of the land. Much of that land is not used at all, so it is not delivering wealth to the people. It makes Scoltand as a whole poorer, but there's little incentive for those rich families to sell the land (because there are few people richer than they are to buy it). Not surprisingly, Scotland is thinking about introducing adverse possession laws to remedy this problem. However, I bet the press will be kinder to them if they do it than they are to Venezuela and Zimbabe.

[da_chimperor]

59. IMO, the idea of legally purchased land just being taken away

doesn't sit well with me. Rule of law and all. I don't know enough about the matter to make the judgment whether or not the seizure was legal. Thanks for the response, this has given me a different perspective on the matter.

[AP]

61. Do you have a problem with adverse possession?

[da_chimperor]

62. Not at all.

My concern was the legality of it. If Venezuelan law allows under-utilized land to be seized, then so be it. The company says it's using the land, the government says it isn't. The company says it can prove the ownership of the land back to 1830, the government says it can't. I frankly don't know if the seizure is legal or isn't.

[AP]

66. How can you not like the legality of the law? They are a democracy,

you know. They've passed the law. They've given the company a chance to appeal. The court will make a decision. Ie, they're applying the law.

Adverse possession is the law too. But before there was a law saying you could do it, you couldn't do it.

Back in 18-whatever, there was a da_chimperor down at the local saloon who was probably saying, "I just don't know about the legality of adverse possession."

What would you have told him?

[da_chimperor]

67. It's not an issue of the law itself, it's whether it the seizure

actually followed the law, i.e. it was conducted according to Venezuelan law. That's it.

[AP]

70. So, what you're saying is that you're happy that a court of law will hear

their appeal and that, ultimately, this is following a just route through the courts?

[da_chimperor]

84. I think you can say that.

:shrug:

[Judi Lynn]

76. If the company can prove it has legal ownership of the land

going back to 1830, this would be the appropriate time to produce the proof.

It would also seem logical that there would be confirmation of ownership with the local government, just as ownership is documented anywhere.

[AP]

64. Another point, and, I think this is the crux of it too:

An economy does not work unless things are priced and valued fairly in that economy.

Look at land ownership historically in Venezuela. The people owned the land. Very rich people from somewhere else came in and took the land at an unfair, low price due to an extreme difference in bargaining power (ie, one side might have had lots of guns, an army, and the avariciousness of a foreign legislature giving them a lot of extra bargaining power).

So what happens? They take land from people without paying a fair price. Where does that leave the "sellers"?

Well, in a fair transaction, say you have a lot of land and someone pays a fair price for it? You don't become poorer. You become land poor, but capital rich, and you can go take that capital and put it into some enterprise that still leaves you on a competitive political, cultural and economic footing.

That's not what happened in the third world. The sellers became land and capital poor. Ie, they became totally poor. How in the world are they ever going to be able to remedy that? When you have unfair land distribution, you relegate the former land owners to perpetual poverty. You compound the wealth of the land owners further because now they have guaranted (due to desperation) cheap labor, and the poor will never be able to convert their labor into any kind of economic power that would allow them to buy back their land or start businesses or improve their economic situation in any way at all.

This is why when Chavez came to power 90% of Venezuelans lived on something like a dollar a week. It's not some accident. It was a result of an economic system where the people had their assets taken away at valuations far below what a fair marketplace would have put on them.

How can a country perpetuate that? That just creates growing disparities in wealth that keep growing until the bubble pops (eg, The Great Depression) or until people say they're mad as hell and they're not taking it any more (eg, the Russian and French Revolutions).

The sad thing is, everybody wins more when wealth is distributed fairly. Land Reform will make the wealthy wealthier too (just as FDR showed us). The problem is that the economy that results doesn't guarantee wealth for the wealthy. You actually have to work to earn the wealth: your piece of the pie may be a smaller percentage of the whole pie, and you may have to work harder for your piece of the pie, but that slice is going to a much bigger portion in an absolute sense than your slice of that much smaller pie.

This is where Venezuela is headed: a bigger pie with no huge slices (percentage-wise) for the already wealthy, but a lot of big slices (in an absolute sense) for whomever wants to work hard to get them.

[da_chimperor]

68. Yes, I see exactly what you're saying.

Somehow, my comments have been construed to mean a number of things I never meant them to say. I don't know whether this was due to misinterpretation or due to the fact I'm pretty sleepy and should have been more clear from the start. Suffice to say I'm quite impressed with your knowledge of economics, and I value your replies. I'm having yet another beer and going back to the lounge. Have a good day. :hi:

[Judi Lynn]

80. It would seem some propagandists pray for continued indifference

and apathy to guide readers to the point they will always imagine everyone is just like them, facing the same kinds of problems, and bitching about virtually nothing. It almost takes a catastrophe to shake them enough to start looking for more information, wondering if maybe they don't know nearly enough!

I'm stashing this thread, for general future reference. Your comments have been measured and solid. Really appreciate the attention and time you invested here.

Oh, you really have to wonder what the crisis is in Venezuela, don't you? I wonder why these "poor" think they've got it so bad?

As long as the 1% of the population owns most of the land are happy, what could be wrong? :silly: :crazy:

[AP]

87. You always make me laugh...

(at least until the pictures completely download and appear on my screen).

Thanks.

[fedsron2us]

82. Interestingly, Scotland is also targetting the Vestey's

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=694&id=1072452004

Given that this family has spent most of their time avoiding UK income tax I doubt whether anyone is Britain is going to shed too may tears for them.

[AP]

88. But will the press call Scottish MPs a bunch of Marxists the way the do

Chavez's party?

[chlamor]

39. Cattle use too much land and water-but oh that heart disease

I'm not a veggie but cattle are energy intensive and we need to power down. If you are going to deny British colonial conquest aka corporate takeover, in todays lingo, you might consider switching majors to history. Sorry about that business degree. Money is a perverse abstraction used as a means of control. Food does grow on trees.

Not believing everything the Ven. Gov't says is wise. So read many other outside accounts of what is happening in Venezuela, eyewitness accounts from independent folks. You'll see the Ven. Gov't is doing all it can for the less fortunate. Beware US propaganda on Chavez. Know your history.

[da_chimperor]

50. I know my history. It's been interesting. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

79. Some of the few at the top of the land grabbing chain did get carried away

From an article I just found:

The Land Reform law provides for expropriation with compensation of idle farmlands, as well as arable lands exceeding 12,350 acres in areas of poor soil (350 acres in areas of rich soil), to be redistributed to landless workers. It is also important to note (though Hadden doesn't) that in the 1960's big landowners and ranchers expanded their fences to expropriate most of the state-owned marshlands the government intended for redistribution. Current stats on land concentration are appalling: One percent of farms account for 46% of farmland, one percent of the population owns 60% of arable lands, and 40% of all Venezuelan farmlands lie fallow. As a result, Venezuela is agronomically undiversified and chronically dependent on oil and imports, while the urban population has exploded, causing crime, unemployment, and pollution rates to soar. Even the middle-class Chavez foes I spoke to said the need for land reform is a no-brainer. Does this make them Castro-communists? The mere suggestion is ludicrous.
(snip/...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/carlton01112003.html

Your pryamid illustration is just wonderful. Couldn't be better.

[Blue_Tires]

32. wow...can they do that?

i guess so

[Bridget Burke]

33. That's a risk that Absentee Landlords face.

They'll get over it.

[chlamor]

48. Headline-Venezuelan Gov't Returns Land to the People-British Corp. Upset

:think:

[ConcernedCanuk]

56. Imagine if Junior took back land from the robber barons of the 1800's

.
.
.

and redistributed it to the poor

Heck

He might have to give up the pig-farm!

imagine all the land in the US acquired by "illegitimate" means, broken treaties and so on . . .

makes one's head spin!

Hugo's program has instilled a chilled fear in the hearts of PNACer's I'll bet

I read about Venezuela's program of land redistribution some time back -

If operated as intended, I see nothing sinister in the program -

and it's a damm good way to get non-nationals land/money-grabbing paws out of the country.

I wish we could do that here - most Canadians would be alarmed if they knew how much of our land/resources and businesses are owned by the United States

yeah - we've had a few governments that whored out some of our future

what would ever happen if we reneged on the agreements made decades ago regarding supplying the US with a specified amount of our electricity and petroleum products . . .

I hope our PM, Paul Martin doesn't sell too much of Canada today

- Yeah

Today's the day he has a chit-chat with the BoyKing,

AND a lunch at the "ranch"

- (whoopdefeckingdoo)

[pescao]

89. Venezuelanalysis: Venezuelan Land Commission "Recovers" Two Landed Estates

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1557

Venezuelan Land Commission "Recovers" Two Landed Estates
Wednesday, Mar 23, 2005

By: Sarah Wagner – Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas, Venezuela, March 23, 2005—Yesterday, in the most significant step yet since Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez declared "death to idle crop lands," the Venezuelan National Land Institute (INTI) officially re-appropriated parts of landed estates: El Charcote and Hato Piñero, due to a lack of documentation for proving their alleged ownership. A ceremony presided over by the Minister of Agriculture and Land, Antonio Albarrán, was held at the El Charcote ranch, during which the Venezuelan Land Institute distributed 140 land permits to poor farmers. The ceremony was attended by the entire Land Institute, as well as the governors of the states of Cojedes, Monagas, and Apure.

Passed in November, 2001, the Land Reform produced an uproar, both nationally and internationally, as to whether the Venezuelan government was infringing on property rights. This controversial issue was largely left on the back burner due to the fact that between its ratification and early January, 2005, only public lands were redistributed.

...

El Charote is a 32,000 acre cattle ranch in the state of Cojedes. It is managed by Agroflora, the local subsidiary of the British-owned Vestey Group. El Charote is one of Venezuela's top beef producers. According to Vestey, the firm has documents dating back to 1830, proving they are the rightful owners. Additionally, the firm contends that the ranch is far from idle; it produces meat exclusively for Venezuelan markets and has always respected Venezuelan law.

Yet, according to INTI, the land titles offered by Vestey officials only prove their ownership as of 1850. "This is no expropriation," explained Rafael Alemán, an aid in the Cojedes state governor's office, explaining, "We are recovering lands that were proven not to be private, but state property." Otaiza went on to explain that almost half of the ranch was deemed to be "unproductive" and thus a "latifundia," adding that the ranch will be distributed among 230 families who have worked the land for years.

...