Venezuela Retail Sales Will Grow over the Next Four Years

Good news for the people of Venezuela. It should also be good news for the US and other Western nations as Venezuela is a democracy and looking more and more like a country the US can do business with as its economy grows, its people are better educated and it stabalizes after decades of bad leadership.

Well, unless WE decide to de-stabalize it, which I would hope the Obama administration would only not even comtemplate, but outright condemn should anyone even suggest it. Another reason to be happy that the Dems are in power and not the war-mongering Republicans, I hope.

But, back to the good news about Venezuela:

http://www.marketresearch.com/product/display.asp?productid=2404176

The BMI Venezuela Retail report predicts that the country’s retail sales will grow from around US$145bn in 2008 to US$176bn by 2013. Generally positive trends in underlying economic growth, an expanding population, the rise in disposable income and easier access to consumer credit are key factors behind the forecast growth in Venezuela’s retail sales.

> snip


Positive economic indicators include increasing urbanisation, with more than 88% of the population classified by the UN as urban in 2005. By 2015, the urban population is forecast to have exceeded 95%.In 2005, 63.8% of the Venezuelan population was described by the UN as active, with 37.7% in the crucial 20-44 age range. By 2015, the proportion in the 20-44 age band is predicted to be 38.6%, when 65.5% of the population is expected to be active.

BMI forecasts that organised retail sales will grow at more than three-times the rate of underlying retailsales over the period, with the organised retail sector likely to be worth US$75.95bn by 2013. This would take its share of the total retail market to 43.2%.

In terms of retail sub-sectors, consumer electronic sales are expected to show particularly strong growthover the forecast period, from US$3.22bn in 2008 to US$4.42bn by 2013 (+37.0%).

These are the reasons for Chavez' huge approval numbers in Venezuela and he re-election in every election so far:



The streets were lined with people after the vote, giving voice to their love for Chavez

The country still has a long way to go to overcome the many challenges it faces. But the growth in just ten years and the improvement in the lives of so many of the people, are signs of an excellent start to a bright future for the Venezuelan people.

The only set back it could suffer now would be outside interference, a fear that would not exist if it was not one of the biggest oil producing countries in the world.

And that has been the reason for Washington DC's war on Venezuela. It's all about oil. Helping to promote fear and distrust in the American people against Venezuela are the same propagandists used to incite anger and fear against Iraq before the invasion.

Americans fell for the fear mongering about Iraq, the Judith Millers, the Rupert Murdochs et al. I wonder will they fall for it again, as we are already seeing it now regarding Venezuela even as people like Tom Ridge confirm what the 'left' claimed all along regarding the false propaganda about Iraq. I really hope not, for the sake of the people of Venezuela a majority of whom are so hopeful right now.

John Pilger spent some time in Venezuela in 2006 (and more recently I think as he has made a documentary which I read about recently). In this long article, Pilger describes his visit there and the people he met, in 2006. He also outlines the history of Venezuela over the past 95 years and the reasons for Chavez' successes. But towards the end of the article, never a dreamer and having witnessed so much of S. A.'s history in relatin to the US, he says:

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=269

Chávez is, of course, a threat, especially to the United States. Like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who based their revolution on the English co-operative moment, and the moderate Allende in Chile, he offers the threat of an alternative way of developing a decent society: in other words, the threat of a good example in a continent where the majority of humanity has long suffered a Washington-designed peonage. In the US media in the 1980s, the "threat" of tiny Nicaragua was seriously debated until it was crushed. Venezuela is clearly being "softened up" for something similar. A US army publication, Doctrine for Asymmetric War against Venezuela, describes Chávez and the Bolivarian revolution as the "largest threat since the Soviet Union and Communism". When I said to Chávez that the US historically had had its way in Latin America, he replied: "Yes, and my assassination would come as no surprise. But the empire is in trouble, and the people of Venezuela will resist an attack. We ask only for the support of all true democrats."

Sad as I feel when I read about the history of so many of these countries in Latin America, it's hard not to be optimistic about what has been happening over the past few years. But John Pilger's reminder that US policy has not changed, is depressing. Otoh, this was written while Bush was still president.

As Chavez said to Obama when he met him recently 'I want to be your friend'. I see no reason to believe that cannot happen. Unless, as they did with Iraq, the American people allow it.

i share your joy for the people of venezuela and your concerns about how american foreign policy might be used to change the direction of venezuela's recent social and economic progress.
the us government and media have stepped up their propaganda efforts to discredit chavez and sadly this has already made many in the us view the venezuelan situation negatively. it surprises me how vitriolic some anti-chavez posters on du get over chavez and his impact on latin american politics and society.
the fact that the obama administration has continued to treat with uribe of columbia and is in the process of gaining assess to 7 new military bases in that country is distressing to say the least but it becomes more alarming when those on progressive sites like du are ready to go oust chavez over media misinformation.

Yes, I've noticed that and it is really disappointing. I thought that with Bush and his gang of criminal war-mongering oil barons gone, we could look forward to a change in US policy, especially towards emerging South American democracies. But as you point out, Obama's recent agreement regarding the bases in Colombia is not a good sign.

Mostly I feel sorry for the people of Venezuela who were so thrilled with the end of the Bush regime, some reports saying that Obama was as popular there as Chavez.

How frightening for them to see the build-up of military bases almost surrounding their beautiful country now just as it is beginning to rise up as a nation.

Coming from you I take it as a great compliment as I try not to miss your excellent reporting on South America.

The one good thing about the Bush administration was that he was so focused on the ME he was unable to stop the democratization of South America.

:)

venezuela surely falls in one of these three categories:

socialist

communist

fascist

just like Obama, and I think the devolution for both followed in the same fashion....

during the election Obama was a socialist. towards the end of that process, he became a communist

now, he's all three

same with Chavez, si?

Or, is that Hugo Chavez?

The Republicans seem to have only 1 writer in their stable.

:rofl:

on the history of our (meaning the west, including his own country) foreign policy around the world. Too bad we never his work here.

I don't know if you have seen some of his documentaries but this one is excellent if you haven't seen it already:

http://freedocumentaries.org/index.php?ct=25

'The War on Democracy' ~ sad to learn how often the US has prevented Democracy from spreading while claiming that is their goal. I feel so stupid sometimes for being ignorant about the history of the US in South America and sad that so many still are making it all the easier to spread hatred for those struggling so hard merely for the right to live their lives in peace, and to benefit from their own natural resources.

I can hear heads exploding as the conjoined concepts of 'expanding economy' and 'democratic socialism' collide.

and other nongovernmental organizations to support civic activists in repressive societies.''

who said that?

either Bush or Obama, or both?

For anyone who isn't familiar with the NED, it was a creation of the Reagan Administration as far as I now and the name is misleading, since the organization, while funded by US tax dollars, uses subsidiary groups who are not responsible for reporting their activities to Congress.

They interfere in elections by putting money behind candidates friendly to US interests although not necessarily good for the interests of the countries they operate in.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democracy

NED regularly provides funding to opposition candidates in elections in countries other than the USA. According to Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of NED, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA" (Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, 2000, p. 180).

NED has principally supported candidates with strong ties to the military and who support the rights of U.S. corporations to invest in those countries with minimal restriction. The NED has not supported candidates who oppose investments by U.S. corporations or who promise restrictions on investment rights of U.S. corporations. <\i><\blockquote>

If Chavez is smart, which I think he is, he should throw all these foreign 'do-gooders' out of the country. Maybe he has already and if so, good for him.

that the LatAm guy for Human Rights Watch, Jose Miguel Vivanco, has been silent on Honduras. If anything betrays the fix is in, that does.

From 1994 to 1996, NED awarded 15 grants, totaling more than $2,500,000, to the American Institute for Free Labor Development, an organization used by the CIA for decades to subvert progressive labor unions. AlFLD's work within Third World unions typically involved a considerable educational effort very similar to the basic NED philosophy described above. The description of one of the 1996 NED grants to AIFLD includes as one its objectives: "build union-management cooperation". Like many things that NED says, this sounds innocuous, if not positive, but these in fact are ideological code words meaning "keep the labor agitation down...don't rock the status quo boat". The relationship between NED and AIFLD very well captures the CIA origins of NED.

The Endowment has funded centrist and rightist labor organizations to help them oppose those unions which were too militantly proworker. This has taken place in France, Portugal and Spain amongst many other places. In France, during the 1983-4 period, NED supported a "trade union-like organization for professors and students" to counter "left-wing organizations of professors". To this end it funded a series of seminars and the publication of posters, books and pamphlets such as "Subversion and the Theology of Revolution" and "Neutralism or Liberty". ("Neutralism" here refers to being unaligned in the Cold War.)


NED describes one of its 1997-98 programs thusly: "To identify barriers to private sector development at the local and federal levels in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to push for legislative change... to develop strategies for private sector growth." Critics of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have been supported by NED grants for years.

In short, NED's programs are in sync with the basic needs and objectives of the New World Order's economic globalization, just as the programs have for years been on the same wavelength as US foreign policy.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/National%20EndowmentDemo.html

And now Obama ~

I was going to ask if Obama knew what this organization does ....

if he doesn't his statement was unforgivable.

if he does, it's disgusting

take your pick

http://www.google.com/search?q=robert+parry+national+endowment+for+democracy++&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

Robert Parry is another of my favorite reporters and another we do not see on our excuse for a news media.

But I have a serious question. Even if you accept the excuse that we were fighting Communism during that period when Communism was a threat, why would it not have benefited the US to support democratic governments? Why eg, did they feel the need to instigate violence to overthrow leaders like Allende?

I saw a doc. recently called 'The Secret Government' I think, (Bill Moyers) and one of those interviewed was a former CIA operative. Airc, he regretted what was done to Allende although, as he said, at the time he thought he was doing the right thing by supporting those policies.

Why can the US not benefit from trading with these countries, buying the resources we need and setting up businesses there if they want to, but respecting the people's choice of leadership? I'm talking about now since the Soviet threat is no longer an excuse.

I really am puzzled by the thinking that we have to control these countries rather than follow our own supposed principles of 'letting the market decide'. Is it just greed or something more than that?

immediately after WWII, brought us the Cold War, and started spreading commie hysteria (to be fair, they weren't exactly willing to live and let live at the time, but they had their reasons for such feelings)

while you're reading that google stuff, check out the Dulles brothers, with particular attention to how one of them was hoodwinked into providing most of the impetus for ousting Mossadegh in 1953, simply by convincing them that the Rooskis were going to take all their precious BP oil away

think McCarthy-ite tactics applied to health care, or any program that doesn't benefit those that already have way more than they need. it's been going on for a long time, and that's never going to change

the same idiots who'd rather have been "dead than red" over fifty years ago, would rather be just dead now, than have a communist nazi taking the health care decisions that are today made for them by lying, profit-motivated crooks, and put in them in the hands of communist bureaucrats, like they do in Medicare

have you seen "Idiocracy"?

that pretty much explains why things are the way they are today

I'll look for it ~

Thanks for the info re the Dulles Bros eg. And I have read about the ousting of Mossadegh in the fifties and how we backed brutal dictators like the Shah and at the same time, Saddam Hussein. And when I read this history I wonder how we ever were thought of as a democracy.

And because of that history, I think that Chavez has a lot to worry about, and from his conversation with John Pilger, he is aware of it.

But the real question is, how can so few people take over a country like this? And I wonder if there is a way to change things.

I guess I thought electing Dems would do it, but now I'm not so sure ...

as for the rest, it's really pretty simple:

whenever a politician or public figure attains massive support, and poses a REAL threat to said PTB, they get killed

so far Obama poses no threat

dunno if passing real health care reform is enough of a threat, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen, so he doesn't have to worry. AFA any other kind of meaningful change, I'd say it isn't going to happen


cheers

but unlike the rabble the powerful individuals and groups in the united states who have undermined and continue to undermine foreign democracies don't care much for democracy here either.
democracies require participation and input from their members.
it was great to see how both parties, in the last several election cycles, worked hard to insure that we all voted and that our votes were counted.
oh, and good thing we "leave no child behind" (was this title taken from the "left behind" series?).
when people have good information and a say in their own destinies they will create a world that works to meet their needs.
humans are naturally social and nurturing.
american capitalism and american protestantism justify the grossest inequities.
the uber-rich could make fine profits by doing honest business in america and with our foreign neighbors and still respect individuals and groups wherever they did business. but the profit margin would not be as large.

I think you explain it very clearly here:

... the powerful individuals and groups in the united states who have undermined and continue to undermine foreign democracies don't care much for democracy here either.

Exactly and the people are not given enough information, mainly because they, those same powerful individuals, have gained control of the media.

'The grossest inequities' ~ so true and so heart-breaking that they were done in the name of the American people and with their tax dollars.

I am hoping that the internet will help to inform people and let them make up their own minds.

Right now, as John Pilger and others have said, the US media is 'softening up' Chavez to make it easier to get rid of him, by gaining the support of an indoctrinated population in the US. I feel obligated to do whatever little I can to undermine that effort if it is true.

Welcome to DU :hi:

I wondered how long it would take. I also wonder why those who smear democracies like Venezuela, never answer questions as to why.

Maybe because there is no logical reason to want to destroy something that is good for millions of people and they are too ashamed of whatever their real reasons are.

We do need a balance in the reporting on Venezuela in this country as the propaganda machine is definitely up and running.

So, I for one will be posting positive news when I find it, wherever I can, in emails and on all the forums I am a member of.

The media was unchallenged when they cheered on the war in Iraq. That should never happen again. Those unrecs are a great reminder of how important it is not to allow the lies to spread without being countered so I thank them whoever they are because it's easy to get lazy about these things.

Nader was right, about almost everything including the two party system. I never got the anger against him or the ridiculous claim that he lost Gore the election. Gore didn't lose the election, but that subject was shut down pretty quickly by both parties for some reason.

My beef with Nader was why he didn't run for Congress long ago, and then the Senate where he could have had some influence. Running for president never made sense to me since there never was a chance he could win.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+revolution+will+not+be&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

Lies and propaganda was force fed to the doughey, distracted masses.

Thanks for your service!
:patriot:

when the coup against Chavez took place. People were live-blogging the events as they were happening. That was when I first began to pay attention to Venezuela and Chavez. Airc, it was revealed during that few days that the CIA may have been involved and Condi Rice made a statement which led people to believe that they were expecting it.

I heard about that documentary but was unable to find it. Tried to get it at the local video store. They didn't have it but tried to order it but were unable to do so. The more I felt the news was being censored, the more effort I put into getting news from independent sources.

I finally saw the documentary when someone played it on our public access station. And when I was in Europe found out it had been given all kinds of awards, especially the two Irish videographers who were there as it all happened.

Thanks for the link, I would like to see it again as public access doesn't have the best sound effects and I missed the beginning.

at an event in Vancouver, B.C. because they were AFRAID for their safety after receiving theats from the Venezuelan oligarchy.

This STILL burns me so badly I could scream. What on earth does Amnesty stand for, if it buckles under pressure, and they don't broadcast far and wide who threatened them and why!

Published on Saturday, November 22, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
Chavez Film Puts Staff at Risk, Says Amnesty
Recriminations after documentary on Venezuelan coup attempt is dropped from a Vancouver festival

by Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles

An award-winning documentary about the coup last year that briefly ousted the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, has become the subject of a bitter dispute. Last week, it was withdrawn from an Amnesty International (AI) film festival because Amnesty staff in Caracas said they feared for their safety if it were shown.

The film, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, was made by two Irish film makers, Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain. They were preparing a documentary about Mr Chavez, with his cooperation, before the coup and were inside the presidential palace in April 2002 when the events unfolded.

The film has since been shown on television by the BBC, by RTE in Ireland, and elsewhere in Europe. This week it won two prizes at the Grierson documentary awards in Britain.

Mr Chavez was briefly removed from office by a military coup but returned to power after 48 hours. The political situation was then, and remains, highly polarized. The president as portrayed by his opponents is a dangerous, anti-US communist, while Chavez supporters see the opposition as the privileged seeking to preserve their powers from the underprivileged.

The film portrays Mr Chavez in a sympathetic light. It was shown on the public television channel in Venezuela earlier this year. The private television channels are all opposed to Mr Chavez.

Last week, the film was due to be shown at the AI film festival in Vancouver. The organizing committee came under pressure from Chavez opponents in Venezuela and eventually decided not to show it.

John Tackaberry of AI said yesterday that the decision had been taken only after Amnesty staff in Venezuela had said that, if it were shown, it would present "some degree of threat to their physical safety".

They told colleagues that, even if Amnesty ran a standard disclaimer, the organization would be associated with the film, thus endangering its staff.

More:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1122-10.htm

Of course retail sales will go up when their currency along with the US dollar crashes. What sold last year for $1 will sell next year for $3 equals an increase in retail sales does it not lol.

Lower oil prices and higher costs for some products have caused inflation to rise in Venezuela, but Chavez doesn't seem to be worried. He has shown himself to be pretty resilient in the past. If the IMF is correct, but then who believes anything they have to say, the rise in inflation is also due to no foreign investments. So, is the US sanctioning Venezuela and if so, why?

I think it will be foolish of the US to try to destroy Venezuela's economy. Chavez will turn to other sources.

Again, why would anyone be gleeful about the Venezuelan people suffering a financial collapse? I can see why greedy corporations might, but ordinary people who have nothing to gain from other people's suffering, that makes no sense.

I hope Obama sees the value of overturning the policies of the Bush administration and the left over dinosaurs from the Cold War and follows his own advice about 'not concentrating on the past, but looking forward'. He's been able to do that when it comes to our own war criminals, I would hope for the benefit of millions of innocent people, he can do it for them. Not that Chavez ever did anything to the US other than not hand over its oil.

By Matthew Walter and Drew Benson

Aug. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuela’s bolivar rose to a three- month high in unregulated trading on speculation the government will announce a plan to reduce the gap between the parallel and official exchange rates.

The currency gained 1.9 percent to 6.48 per dollar at 5:08 p.m. New York time, traders said. Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez said Aug. 17 he’s presented a plan to President Hugo Chavez to reduce the “imbalance” in the parallel rate, which trades 66 percent weaker than the government-set official rate of 2.15 per dollar.

“There’s a lot of expectation,” said Miguel Octavio, head of research at BBO Financial Services Inc. “Words can have a greater impact on the market than reality.”

The government may be considering the creation of a dual exchange rate or the implementation of regular government auctions of dollars for local investors to help meet demand for foreign currency, Octavio said. Venezuela is struggling to maintain its official rate after revenue from oil exports plunged earlier this year.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aHUFjJO.suMA

And oil is back above $60. Woe is Venezuela. :)

I would never bet against them. Even those who for whatever reason, hate the guy, they have to grudgingly admire his intelligence and spirit.

Someone didn't like your good news either as the unrecs keep coming :rofl:

I love a challenge though, one of my biggest faults .... lol!

had surrounded himself with leaders -- as seen in the film about the coup.

He didn't pack his cabinet with yes men. He chose leaders. They didn't sit there and cry or hide or try to escape. None of them folded like a cheap suit. They took it on.

That says a great deal about him. :)