Aquí está, este es…

USA in this case, apparently = Ubicación Sur Americana

Y’all didn’t think Chávez would do anything so crass as to actually announce his paquetazo, did you?

Of course not, that would be neoliberal.

He’s just gone ahead and implemented it, instead:

October primary spending of the central government declined 12.9% year-on-year in nominal terms and 26.1% in real terms. The decline is even more marked if we center on the four weeks after the election (22.3% in nominal terms, 34.1% in real terms). This pattern contrasts heavily with the increase observed in the first nine months of the year (47.3% nominal, 20.5% real). Though some week to week volatility is common in the spending data, the pattern is clearly indicative of a break in trend, as this is the first time in the year in which we see a yoy decline in real spending sustained over four straight weeks.

That’s from Bank of America’s daily report to investors. (Sorry, I got no link.)

19 thoughts on “Aquí está, este es…

  1. Yes, because any decrease in state spending is a “paquetazo.” Amazing how you can keep getting things wrong for over a decade.

    Like

    • Get a clue, you can’t have it both ways. Either his spending has been the cause of the social development that you claim has happened, making this a paquetazo, or his spending has not been the cause of the social development, making this independent to the social perception of their situation.

      Like

      • It’s really quite astounding how much of the very basic stuff must be explained to you idiots before one can even engage in a conversation.

        A “paquetazo” refers to a neoliberal policy package, characterized by a whole slew of macroeconomic policies designed to increase private-sector control over the economy, including trade liberalization, tax reform, privatization, deregulation, market exchange rates, etc. etc.

        It literally takes a complete idiot to claim that a ONE-MONTH slow-down in spending could be considered a neoliberal policy package. It is so moronic I can’t believe I even have to explain it. Not to mention that your own source indicates that for the majority of the year spending was actually 20 percent higher than the year before!! In other words, overall government spending has increased, not decreased.

        This is the kind of utterly stupid commentary that makes people not take you guys seriously, even when you do have valid things to say.

        Like

        • “…for the majority of the year spending was actually 20 percent higher than the year before”

          Yeah, what an odd coincidence that the Chaverment increased fiscal spending before the election and shut it down as soon as Chavez got reelected. Oh, the mysteries of
          socialism…

          I guess that you can explain to the millions of Spaniards that are suffering the cuts made by the PP why Rajoy´s policies are not a paquetazo, given that they do not fit your definition… That should be fun.

          And please, do not forget the hints made by Giordani about the upcoming tax reform, or the devaluation that everybody knows is just around the corner…

          Like

          • Rajoy’s measures are much closer to a paquetazo because altogether they represent the LARGEST ADJUSTMENT IN SPENDING IN SPANISH HISTORY. Did you hear that? Do you think that compares to a 12 percent cut over a one month period? It also includes a number of measures, including tax reform, cuts to social programs, hiring freezes, salary freezes, etc.

            Seriously guys. Get a clue.

            Like

        • just saying but beginning a conversation with “you idiots …yes probably would be a very good debate… con vinagre no se cogen avispas

          Like

        • Who said you had the monopoly on the word “paquetazo”? Of course Chavez is no neoliberal, he is too much of an imbecile for that.

          Like

        • Get a clue, first you incorrectly define paquetazo, to then define an IQ test based on your incorrect definition, to then insult over and over based on your incorrect definitions. I think readers are getting more about you from what your write than about what you write.

          Like

          • If any of you can point to a definition of a neoliberal policy package that is defined as a 12% reduction in spending during one month then I will admit total defeat and never comment here again. Good luck geniuses. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, your completely inability to grasp reality.

            Like

            • Get a clue, you’re doing it again, this time at a meta level. You took your personal definition of paquetazo and are now asking us to prove that it is defined by the definition of paquetazo that was used in the post. Para colmo, you then go and try to relate that to either IQ or ability to grasp reality.

              We are lately seeing much more of how low you will go.

              Like

    • Which is scary. It is a sign that they will impose some type of power distribution in which municipalities and governorships will be irrelevant.

      For Chavismo it will just a morale booster if they win, but in practice it will be completely irrelevant to them. If the oppo wins in several places, will be completely demoralized if those representations are taken away via an imposed new form of power distribution.

      Like

    • Told ya. Communal power will come no matter what. It will crash and burn anyway but he’s too stubborn to insist, on that, given the “support” of the 55% that re-elected him.

      Like

    • Asi, asi, asi es que se paquetea!

      (I know the verb probably doesn’t exist, but it works for the occasion)

      Like

Comments are closed.