In Venezuela we have both world class wealth and world class poverty
<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 By: Elio Cequea
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:44:44 -0500 From: Elio Cequea feico57@aol.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Mr. Rivero, first of all I apologize
Dear Editor: to Mr. Rivero, first of all I apologize for bringing up his father on this...
Anyway, does this sound contradictory to him "...right on the surging of urban slums and shanty towns ... wrong to disprove robust economic growth."
It does to me ... I thought economic growth reduces the other one.
About the "excellent" UN reports he refers to, he should read them again and remember the surging of urban slums and shanty towns he agreed with.
With regard to the future of a humble (I know he meant poor...) Venezuelan couple in the early 60s, does surging slums and shanty towns in the 70s, 80s and 90s rings a bell?
At this moment, the future remains to be seen...
About taking stoke to my theory, none of the economic reports available to the general public consider how the wealth of a nation is distributed among its population. This fact makes these reports irrelevant when it comes to developing countries ... they do not indicate the advancement and improvement of the entire country.
Venezuela's GNP mostly grew from the 50s to the 70s ... but, the benefit of it was seen only by a few.
That explains the growth of "slums and shanty towns" in the same period ... the few that benefit from it became fewer and fewer as time went by, thanks to cultural abominations like "meritocracy."
Amazing how similar is the sound of this word to democracy ... the truth is that they imply very different things. The first one EXcludes and the other one INcludes.
In Venezuela we have both "world class wealth and world class poverty" ... one is getting wealthier and wealthier the other one, poorer and poorer.
That is what we need to stop.
Elio Cequea feico57@aol.com
PS: Gustavo Coronel also called 'Gente de Petroleo' heroes in his article "Why rebels rebel." We cannot call hero the one that rebels because he thinks victory is a sure and easy thing. They thought they had nothing to lose. Heroes go to war with the risks in mind. They don't find that out later. A hero lives with the consequences. A hero chooses to be hung or shot after being defeated. A hero doesn't cry out for mercy pleading for his job back, for example. It is not a hero who goes on a strike and still gets paid his salary ... a hero sacrifices himself. What was their sacrifice while they were being "heroes"? The people Gustavo Coronel calls heroes are a mockery of what a real hero is...