Low oil prices, OPEC cuts and Rafael Correa's energy policy are causing havoc in the Ecuadorian economy

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Unfortunately things have changed for the oil-producing countries, given that the price of a barrel of oil has lost more than one hundred U.S. dollars in less than a year. This has drastically reduced the income of oil producers and is particularly affecting countries with the weakest economies.

However, things are worse for the oil-rich countries that are OPEC members, as they face not only lower oil prices, but also production cuts ordered by the organization to defend prices.

Although OPEC cuts may eventually impact the market favorably, their effects are not immediate. So this waiting period can cause serious damage to member countries that have problems with their finances.

This can be seen especially in a country like Ecuador, which is struggling to pay its foreign debt due to the weakness of their public finances. But now, if OPEC wants a cut of 40.000 barrels a day from the Ecuador's production -this country currently produce 500.000 barrels a day- this will cause a daily loss of $1.600.000, or $48.000.000 per month, to the Ecuadorian finances.

Perhaps this does not seem very big, but we must take into account that Ecuador is a small economy, whose GDP barely exceeds 50 billion dollars and that depends on 60% of oil exports. Consequently, if OPEC cuts leave a country like Ecuador with a yearly loss of 576 million dollars, they represent a major problem.

Paradoxically, it was Rafael Correa who reintegrated Ecuador into the OPEC last year, so he cannot blame previous governments for these commitments.

Until now, the Correa government has invented to fulfill its OPEC quota by imposing the cuts to private oil companies operating in Ecuador. However, this measure does not improve the government's fiscal balances and has the potential to scare off investments of foreign oil companies interested in Ecuadorian energy projects, which necessarily will require private capital to be completed. Especially if we consider that Correa's political godfather, Hugo Chavez, is also running out of money.

Related articles:

- Analysis of the OPEC meeting Oct. 24, 2008

- U.S. 2008 financial crisis: Origin & ideological implications

- Barack Obama’s economic background is his Achilles' Heel

A Marxist theology. First criticism of Liberation Theology

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

The Liberation Theology is a political theory born in Latin America, linked to part of the Catholic and evangelical hierarchy that seek to address poverty mixing Christian and Socialists concepts.

For the theologians of liberation, capitalism is a "social sin" guilty for the poverty that afflicts the world. For them, this economic system is the cornerstone of poverty, so we can't solve inequality until we replace capitalism.

In the Liberation Theology, capitalism's classes -bourgeois and proletarian- prevent the realization of a world of equals. Furthermore, "imperialism" of the developed world on the developing world destroy any chance of escaping poverty in the exploited regions.

For that reason, according to the Liberation Theologians, Christians must take the "class struggle" and fight on the side of the oppressed to dismantle capitalism -even using violence if necessary- However, this message is closer to Marx than to Christ, because Jesus never spoke of "capitalism", "class struggle"or "imperialism", and much less to carry out violent revolutions, as Marx did.

We can highlight in the Liberation Theology its concern about poverty and its desire for a more equal world, but this can also be recognized in Marxism -theoretically- The problem is that both ideologies fail in the proposed solutions. For example, fomenting the class struggle is as sponsoring racism, because these ideas have incited hate and violence in the societies where they have been promoted.

Another problem with the theology of liberation is that, in practice, it has encouraged the active participation of Catholic priests and evangelical pastors in anti-democratic governments. Such was the case during the communist regime in Nicaragua -Sandinism- and the current Venezuelan government.

Under the socialist administration of Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua, several pastors and priests, followers of this theology, manipulated dozens of religious communities making them believe that the Jesus' teachings can be achieved in Marxist revolutions. Thus were born groups such as "Christians for the Revolution," "The People's Church" and "Revolutionary Parishes”. Movements that for one side spoke of Christ and the poor, but that on the other justified the establishment of a Communist dictatorship that violates human rights.

With regard to Venezuela, we have the issue of the Reformist Catholic Church, a Venezuelan religious sect born under the auspices of the Hugo Chavez's government and linked to the liberation theology movement. This congregation professes socialism, chavism and Christianity as complementary concepts.

For these reasons we argue that the theology of liberation is a Marxist theology, inconvenient to the true Church, because in theory and in practice its slogan of "opting for the poor" really means "choosing the radical left".

Related articles:

- Obama's victory will give a blow to the Latin leftism

- The invasion of Georgia and the leftists' double standards

- Is Barack Obama a socialist?

Alfredo Keller's survey on Chavez's proposal for indefinite re-election. Venezuela, December 2008

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

The following is an excerpt from the latest Alfredo Keller's survey, where this organization measured the popularity of President Chavez and compared it with the popular support of the indefinite re-election proposal in Venezuela.

According to the results of this study, Keller estimates the popularity of President Chavez at 52%, however, their measurements indicate that only 26% of the electorate agrees with the establishment of president's indefinite re-election in the Venezuelan Constitution.

This implies that chavism is very divided and that the sympathy of the Venezuelans for democracy is stronger than his affinity for President Chavez. That is, chavists and opponents make up a majority who understands that, in democracy, a person cannot remain indefinitely in the Presidency because of the risk that its mandate can become a dictatorship.

However, it should be noted that Chavez is not a man who accepts no for an answer. Attempting to counteract the unpopularity of his proposal, he will try to impose through fear, the purchase of consciences and the mobilization of their political machinery.

Click on the image to enlarge it

Related articles:

- Constitutional amendment for indefinite re-election in Venezuela

- Is indefinite reelection the best option for Venezuela?

- Analysis of the results of the Venezuela 2008 regional elections

Proposed constitutional amendment for indefinite re-election in Venezuela

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Click here to download the full text –in Spanish- of the draft constitutional amendment amending Article 230. Hugo Chavez is proposing this change to be reelected indefinitely as President of the Republic of Venezuela.

The current Venezuelan Constitution states:

"Article 230: The presidential term is six years. The President of the Republic may be re-elected, immediately and one-time, for a further term."

But with the amendment it would assert:

"Article 230: The presidential term is six years. The President of the Republic may be re-elected."

The National Assembly will begin to discuss this amendment on December 18, 2008, where Chavism plans to approve it as soon as possible. In theory the project should be approved in two discussions and sent to the CNE. Then, the National Electoral Council set a deadline for a referendum.

This project violates the democratic principle of alternation in power and seek to privatize the Presidency of the Republic in the hands of Hugo Chávez.

If this amendment to the Venezuelan Constitution is approved, we will be going the way of Cuba and North Korea, where dictators come to power, remain there for decades, and abandon it only when they are so old that they can no longer oppress others.

We must remember what Simón Bolívar warned in 1819, at the Congress of Angostura:

“The continuation of authority in the same person has frequently proved the undoing of democratic governments. Repeated elections are essential to the system of popular government, because there is nothing so dangerous as to suffer Power to be vested for a long time in one citizen. The people become accustomed to obeying him, and he becomes accustomed to commanding, hence the origin of usurpation and tyranny. A proper zeal is the guarantee of republican liberty, and our citizens must very justly fear that the same Magistrate who has governed them for a long time, may continue to rule them forever.”

Related articles:

- Is indefinite reelection the best option for Venezuela?

- Analysis of the results of the Venezuela 2008 regional elections

- Obama's victory will give a blow to the Latin leftism

Is indefinite reelection the best option to solve Venezuela’s problems?

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Due to the bad governments of the past, and the disastrous administration that Chavez has been running for ten years, Venezuela has become plagued by serious problems, including hyperinflation and exponential crime rates.

In our country most people are poor and face multiple forms of deprivation and social exclusion.

However, the bizarre of this is the solution proposed by the current government. President Hugo Chavez is convinced that the best way to solve the problems of Venezuela, and Latin America, is to establish a presidency that has the potential to continue indefinitely, conducted under the totalitarian tenets of socialism.

This idea of life presidency is generally proposed in third world countries where institutions are weak. The indefinite reelection has been tried before in Latin America and has always had sad ends. Fidel Castro, Fujimori, Noriega and Pinochet were in their time defenders of this outlandish proposal to justify their tyrannical claims, and there we have the consequences.

Venezuela does not need presidents for life, and even less if the proponent is a degenerated and inefficient government.

Life presidency will not end poverty, or reduce inflation or avoid capital flight, nor improve the country’s health. The only purpose of indefinite reelection is to incubate autocracies eager to oppress the people.

Hugo Chavez has concentrated in his hands most of the power in Venezuela, from weapons to laws, but he is incapable of using it to benefit the needy.

Only a selfish and indolent leader will seek indefinite reelection as president, regardless of the real needs of the population.

Related articles:

- Obama's victory will give a blow to the Latin leftism

- The invasion of Georgia and the leftists' double standards

- Analysis of the results of the Venezuela 2008 regional elections

Why Barack Obama nominated Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State? Is he preparing a hard-line diplomacy?

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Barack Obama came to the presidency as a critic of the current U.S. administration external operations, particularly the war in Iraq and the excessive military spending.

This has raised many expectations around the world because people assumed that the present American hard-line, represented by George W. Bush, is going to be discarded by the Obama government. In an administration that will use dialogue and non-intervention abroad.

But the Hillary Clinton nomination as Obama’s Secretary of State means that: 1. She will advise the new President on foreign policy, and 2. She will lead the U.S. international affairs after Obama.

Mrs Clinton is highly qualified for the position, however, in many ways she fits very well into the hard line of the U.S. foreign policy. We must remember that Clinton voted in 2002, from the Senate, in favor of giving President Bush the authority to intervene militarily in Iraq. At the same time she supports the maintenance of the embargo on Cuba, the war against terrorism and the U.S. humanitarian intervention anywhere in the world. In addition, Clinton supports the use of diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments to enforce U.S. policy against Iran.

Moreover, Hillary Clinton refused to sign the "American Freedom Agenda" to stop the torture of war prisoners and telephone espionage. Without forgetting, that she was in favor of interventions in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Therefore, Barack Obama’s appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is an indication of a hard-line foreign policy. A position that contradicts the "change" and "no war" promises that the newly elected U.S. President made during his campaign.

Related articles:

- Is Barack Obama a socialist?

- Barack Obama’s economic background is his Achilles' Heel

- Punishment vote and anti-Bush sentiment in favor of Obama