I've done business with Venezuela since the early 80's by opening up a subsidiary there. Our company never managed to realize a profit there as the government changed the rules on imports and taxes in mid-stream and therefore difficult to implement any business plan. With Chavez in office, he is making it more complicated and will scare off foreign investment for good.

Right on the stick with this one - Nationalism.
Personally, I think Hugo's intentions are pure, but he is walking down a precarious path. This country has a lot of resources but has been mis-managed over a long time, resulting in a lot of poverty and a lot of wealth, not equally distributed. Mexico is similar.
Hugo has been on a nationalism binge which has enjoyed a lot of popularity but he is also moving more and more to becoming a dictator. A benevolent dictatorship may well be the most efficient form of government but it requires a super intelligent dictator to do it. The last good try was Napoleon I but his constant warfare did him in. The only person in history that has ever managed was Augustus, as in Roman Empire. He never called himself Caesar, but chose princeps instead. Means first citizen and he died in bed.
Hugo just ain't Augustus. His policies are very likely to mirror Robert Mugabwe and have a similar outcome. Extremist policy. Ian Smith had about the same situation when Zimbabwe was So. Rhodesia of having the whole world fed up with you.

I'm failing to see what the similarity is between Chavez and Mugabe. Chavez doesn't nationalize ignorantly nor arrogantly. Every industry nationalized has been done so for strategic development purposes. Its not to retaliate against "white" people. The nationalizations are in fact smart from an national economic standpoint, since they've chosen the type of economy that they want (a socialistic one). If that scares away people who only care about THEIR bottom-line, then Venezuela will now have the means to invest in themselves.

Rodrigo,

Thanks for your comments.

1) When Mugabe came to power he transferred successful productive farms from primarily white to black owners (often his friends) in a political move under the smoke screen of fairness and a redistribution of wealth, the latter he accomplished. Over time these resources were squandered by ineptitude and ignorance. A loss to all the people.

2. Choosing a socialist model or path is not the complaint, certainly many countries in Scandinavia have at least partially done this. It is the taking (that you call nationalizing) that is abhorrent, without any equitable consideration. ITS STEALING THE WORK OF OTHERS!

3) I agree that Chavez does not nationalize ignorantly, but you are self deceiving if you believe he did not do it with great arrogance.

4) I agree with you also that this was in no way a move against "white people"

5) When you say it was smart to nationalize the companies, I can agree with that too, to an extent -- by stealing the companies or offering pennies on the dollar the country has tremendous short term gain -- Just like any thief would.

6) It is about the bottom line and you should care about the bottom line. That bottom line is not just about money. It is about the future development and prosperity of Venezuela, and hunger and education, and industry. All will suffer after the short term affects of the nationalization is realized. Cuba has become a basket case without Soviet subsidies.

I believe Chavez will run his country into the ground like Castro and blame foreigners, like Castro and eventually the economy will renew itself after a lot more unnecessary suffering.

Rodrigo, it is great to believe in your leadership, but foolish if you follow as a sheep. Many have, many times before and this is how great calamity happens and it is always the same. Great leaders and great demons share the same approach, which is to first establish a loyal base of followers who may eventually be kept or discarded.
Lord Acton made the famous quote of "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely". While he was talking about the power struggle between the two British P.M's, Benjamin Disraeli and Henry Gladstone the meaning remains the same. Too much power in the hands of any individual has historically meant hardship for any that oppose. Hitler killed hundreds of his supporters simply to make the point that he was in charge.
Stalin and Pol Pot made people disappear and Castro did all of the above plus jail.