Connect with us

Politics

Venezuela State Close To Total Collapse, Merchants Demanding Payments

Published

on

(Via Reuters)

By Eyanir Chinea and Maria Ramirez

CARACAS/CIUDAD GUAYANA, Venezuela (Reuters) – There was no way Jose Ramon Garcia, a food transporter in Venezuela, could afford new tires for his van at $350 each.

Whether he opted to pay in U.S. currency or in the devalued local bolivar currency at the equivalent black market price, Garcia would have had to save up for years.

Though used to expensive repairs, this one was too much and put him out of business. “Repairs cost an arm and a leg in Venezuela,” said the now-unemployed 42-year-old Garcia, who has a wife and two children to support in the southern city of Guayana.

“There’s no point keeping bolivars.”

For a decade and a half, strict exchange controls have severely limited access to dollars. A black market in hard currency has spread in response, and as once-sky-high oil revenue runs dry, Venezuela’s economy is in free-fall.

The practice adopted by gourmet and design stores in Caracas over the last couple of years to charge in dollars to a select group of expatriates or Venezuelans with access to greenbacks is fast spreading.

Food sellers, dental and medical clinics, and others are starting to charge in dollars or their black market equivalent – putting many basic goods and services out of reach for a large number of Venezuelans.

According to the opposition-led National Assembly, November’s rise in prices topped academics’ traditional benchmark for hyperinflation of more than 50 percent a month – and could end the year at 2,000 percent. The government has not published inflation data for more than a year.

“I can’t think in bolivars anymore, because you have to give a different price every hour,” said Yoselin Aguirre, 27, who makes and sells jewelry in the Paraguana peninsula and has recently pegged prices to the dollar. “To survive, you have to dollarize.”

The socialist government of the late president Hugo Chavez in 2003 brought in the strict controls in order to curb capital flight, as the wealthy sought to move money out of Venezuela after a coup attempt and major oil strike the previous year.

Oil revenue was initially able to bolster artificial exchange rates, though the black market grew and now is becoming unmanageable for the government.

TRIM THE TREE WITH BOLIVARS

President Nicolas Maduro has maintained his predecessor’s policies on capital controls. Yet, the spread between the strongest official rate, of some 10 bolivars per dollar, and the black market rate, of around 110,000 per dollar, is now huge.

While sellers see a shift to hard currency as necessary, buyers sometimes blame them for speculating.

Rafael Vetencourt, 55, a steel worker in Ciudad Guayana, needed a prostate operation priced at $250.

“We don’t earn in dollars. It’s abusive to charge in dollars!” said Vetencourt, who had to decimate his savings to pay for the surgery.

In just one year, Venezuela’s currency has weakened 97.5 per cent against the greenback, meaning $1,000 of local currency purchased then would be worth just $25 now.

Maduro blames black market rate-publishing websites such as DolarToday for inflating the numbers, part of an “economic war” he says is designed by the opposition and Washington to topple him.

On Venezuela’s borders with Brazil and Colombia, the prices of imported oil, eggs and wheat flour vary daily in line with the black market price for bolivars.

In an upscale Caracas market, cheese-filled arepas, the traditional breakfast made with corn flour, increased 65 percent in price in just two weeks, according to tracking by Reuters reporters. In the same period, a kilogram of ham jumped a whopping 171 percent.

The runaway prices have dampened Christmas celebrations, which this season were characterized by shortages of pine trees and toys, as well as meat, chicken and cornmeal for the preparation of typical dishes.

In one grim festive joke, a Christmas tree in Maracaibo, the country’s oil capital and second city, was decorated with virtually worthless low-denomination bolivar bills.

Most Venezuelans, earning just $5 a month at the black market rate, are nowhere near being able to save hard currency.

“How do I do it? I earn in bolivars and have no way to buy foreign currency,” said Cristina Centeno, a 31-year-old teacher who, like many, was seeking remote work online before Christmas in order to bring in some hard currency.

(Additional reporting by Andreina Aponte and Leon Wietfeld in Caracas, Mircely Guanipa in Maracay, Anggy Polanco in San Cristobal, Lenin Danieri in Maracaibo; Writing by Girish Gupta; Editing by Leslie Adler)

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

President Trump Returns to Butler to FIGHT for America First

Published

on

Trump’s Return to Butler, PA: A Symbol of Tenacity and Defiance

Today, former President Donald Trump makes a symbolically charged return to Butler, Pennsylvania, the site where his resilience was tested in an unprecedented manner. This visit, on October 5, 2024, is not just another campaign stop but a poignant reminder of his enduring “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra, which has become emblematic of his political persona.

A Historical Backdrop

On July 13, 2024, Butler was thrust into the national spotlight when an assassination attempt was made on Trump during a rally. Surviving with a mere graze to his ear, Trump’s immediate response was to raise his fist, a moment captured in what has now become an iconic image, symbolizing his defiance against adversity. This incident didn’t just scar him physically but also galvanized his supporters, turning Butler into a shrine of sorts for Trump’s resilience.

The Symbolism of the Return

Trump’s decision to return to Butler is laden with symbolism. Here’s why this visit resonates deeply with his campaign ethos:

  1. Defiance in the Face of Danger: Returning to the site where his life was threatened underscores Trump’s narrative of not backing down. It’s a physical manifestation of his “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” ethos, showcasing his refusal to be intimidated by violence or political opposition.
  2. Political Theatre and Momentum: This rally serves as a masterstroke in political theatre, aiming to convert the attempt on his life into a rallying cry for his supporters. It’s an attempt to reignite the fervor seen in the immediate aftermath of the incident, where his campaign saw a surge in support, portraying him as a fighter against all odds.
  3. Uniting the Base: By revisiting Butler, Trump not only honors the victims of the incident but also uses the location to unify his base. The rally is expected to be a blend of remembrance and a call to action, emphasizing themes of perseverance, security, and defiance against the establishment’s perceived failures.
  4. A Message of Strength: For Trump, every appearance since the assassination attempt has been an opportunity to project strength. Returning to Butler amplifies this message, suggesting that neither personal attacks nor political challenges will deter his campaign or his message.

The Broader Impact

The “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra has transcended its initial context, becoming a broader call against what Trump describes as systemic failures, from immigration policies to disaster response, as seen in his critiques of the current administration’s handling of events in North Carolina, echoed in his and his allies’ posts on X.

This return to Butler isn’t just about revisiting the site of a traumatic event; it’s a strategic move to encapsulate his campaign’s spirit in one location, making it a pilgrimage of sorts for his supporters. It represents Trump not just as a politician but as a symbol of resistance and persistence, key themes in his narrative of reclaiming America.

In sum, Trump’s rally in Butler today is more than a campaign event; it’s a testament to his campaign’s core message: a relentless fight against adversaries, be they political opponents, critics, or even those who threaten his life. This event is poised to be a significant moment in the 2024 presidential race, leveraging trauma, resilience, and defiance into political capital.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Clash of Titans: X’s Shutdown in Brazil

Published

on

In an unprecedented move, Brazil’s Supreme Court has ordered the nationwide suspension of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing feud between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and Brazilian authorities. This decision stems from Musk’s refusal to comply with court orders to appoint a legal representative in Brazil and to suspend certain accounts accused of spreading misinformation and hate speech.

The tension reached a boiling point when Justice Alexandre de Moraes gave X a 24-hour ultimatum to name a representative or face a complete operational shutdown in Brazil. Musk’s response was to close X’s office in Brazil, citing threats of arrest against his staff for non-compliance with what he described as “secret censoring orders.” This move has left millions of Brazilian users in the dark, with the platform going offline across the nation.

The implications of this standoff are manifold. Firstly, it pits the concept of free speech, as championed by Musk, against Brazil’s judicial efforts to curb what it sees as the spread of dangerous misinformation. Critics argue that this is a test case for how far nations can go in regulating global digital platforms. Secondly, the economic impact on X cannot be understated, with Brazil being one of its significant markets.

The situation has also sparked a debate on digital sovereignty versus global internet freedom. While some see Justice de Moraes’s actions as necessary to protect Brazilian democracy, others view it as an overreach, potentially stifling free expression. As X users in Brazil scramble to find alternatives or use VPNs to bypass the ban, the world watches closely to see if this could set a precedent for other nations grappling with similar issues.

Continue Reading

Crime

President Trump: Military Tribunals For Traitors

Published

on

In an era where national security is paramount, the discussion around military tribunals has resurfaced, not as a relic of past conflicts, but as a necessary tool for contemporary justice. The advocacy for military tribunals, especially in the context of recent political and security challenges, underscores a fundamental truth: sometimes, conventional judicial systems are not equipped to handle threats that undermine the very fabric of national security.

The case for military tribunals hinges on several key arguments. Traditional courts, bound by extensive legal procedures, can often delay justice, particularly in cases involving national security. Military tribunals, by design, expedite the process, ensuring that threats are neutralized swiftly, which is crucial in preventing further harm or espionage. Military law, with its focus on discipline, order, and security, provides a framework uniquely suited for cases where the accused are involved in acts against the state or military. This specialization ensures that the complexities of military strategy, intelligence, and security are not lost in translation to civilian courts.

From the Civil War to World War II, military tribunals have been utilized when the nation’s security was at stake. These precedents show that in times of war or national emergency, such tribunals are not only justified but necessary for maintaining order and security. Contrary to common misconceptions, military tribunals can be transparent and accountable, especially when conducted under the scrutiny of both military and civilian oversight. The structure ensures that while justice is swift, it is also fair, adhering to the principles of law that respect due process.

Addressing criticisms, the argument for military tribunals isn’t about subverting justice but ensuring it. Critics argue that military tribunals bypass constitutional rights, particularly the right to a jury trial. However, in scenarios where individuals are accused of acts that directly threaten national security, the argument for exceptional measures holds. The Constitution itself allows for exceptions during times of war or public danger, as seen in cases like Ex parte Quirin, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of military tribunals for unlawful combatants. Moreover, the fear of authoritarianism is mitigated by the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system. The President, Congress, and the judiciary each play roles in ensuring that military tribunals do not overstep their bounds. The judiciary, in particular, has the power to review and intervene if rights are egregiously violated.

From a broader perspective, the call for military tribunals isn’t just about addressing immediate threats but also about sending a message. It reaffirms the nation’s commitment to protecting its sovereignty and the rule of law. By using military tribunals, the U.S. demonstrates its resolve to handle threats in a manner that conventional courts might not be designed for, thereby potentially deterring future acts against the state.

In conclusion, the advocacy for military tribunals in the current climate is not about subverting justice but about ensuring it. These tribunals represent a robust response to unique challenges that threaten national security, offering a blend of efficiency, expertise, and justice that civilian courts might not always provide. While the debate will continue, the necessity of military tribunals in certain scenarios is clear, reflecting a pragmatic approach to safeguarding the nation while upholding the principles of justice.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.