So you get rid of the IMF, then what? What would change? What would be so much better?
What if it went back to what it was originally made for?
Printable View
So you get rid of the IMF, then what? What would change? What would be so much better?
What if it went back to what it was originally made for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
nice try. the fact that you think bolivia is in central america and that latin america is a continent tells us that you do not know more than a 5th grader.
first of all, the asian economic crisis of the late 90's has crippled the IMF and many middle income countries have piled up reserves so they do not have borrow from the IMF. this is why the IMF paid off its debt. with chavez willing to dole out cash to the bolivians and with china next in line the US and world bank will be handing out interest free loans to bolivia with no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
and your comment about the indigenous of bolivia speaks volumes about your ignorance of the region. it is 60% indigenous. if they do not get empowered that whole region will stay at the high poverty rate is has now (which just happens to be at 60%).
If you want to use my mistype as intelligence level than you need to correct your buddy wine. Thanks for the help though. I guess spending more time in college than working does that to you. If only you were so entrusted with my factual data as you were with your world beliefs, you wouldn't be so naive. Also you are the jackass that used latin america as a measurable location. I can only assume you meant a continent, because that is the closest thing. So what were you talking about when you said latin america?Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
I have tried now to move this topic away from nonsense and all you want to do is keep it in the troughs.
:lol That is your coined phrase huh? So besides getting rid of the IMF, your idea for empowering 60Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
% of the population is how? Just to empower them? If it has anything to do with centralizing government, then you are the one speaking volumes, not me.
The IMF needs to just die... I have less of a problem with the World Bank because they have loaned for infrastructure and education projects, which are more than necessary in this region...
Should Chile be the type of government for countries in S. America to emulate? There style economic liberalism? Free trade agreements? Could this type of reform help Bolivia and in the long run fix it?
mistype? :lol how do you mistype "south" as "central" or even place the word continent in there at all. a brain fart is not the same thing as a mistype. and if you really have never heard the term latin america used in any political, economic, cultural or even geopgraphical context then perhaps your attempt to move this topic away from nonsense is a futile effort. here's a clue: if you really want to move a topic away from nonsense then stop throwing around questions like how long were you in college and stick to the points at hand. in other words, perhaps something in defense of the CIAs decision to remove allende. something that would tell me that pinochet was somehow the better option. or that the IMF was a necessary evil given the options available to argentina or bolivia at the time. at this point i just have to assume your rather machiavellan ethics would declare the genocide of guatemalan indians an unfortunate consequence of the need for the united fruit company to prosper.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
if you want to keep conversations out of the trough do not place them there to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
well if you went back to the original posts of this thread in which you spent more time deciding to call everyone cheerleaders insead of checking out the points of the debate you would see that the most recently approved constitution are all about this.
[quote=rjv;3863958]
M. Moore? So it had nothing to do with nationalizing being communist? With him being a socialist? ALso just because he owned stock doesn't mean he did not do his job. For you to discredit a man who gave his life to his country is despicable.Quote:
guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected jacob arbenz in a military coup. arbenz threatened to nationalize the rockefeller-owned united fruit company (ah yes, those chiquita bananas), in which CIA director allen dulles (was this man the devil himself) also owns stock. arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 guatemalans (mostly of indigenous background) in the next 40 years (plenty of US presidents sat on their asses while this went on).
Like I said the CIA is not the boyscouts. Their stands have all been against resource nationalism and socialism. Presidents know this and either allow it or don't. However lets put up their top 25 "jewels" up against any other country's intelligence agency. We should keep it in perspective. America was at war with an ideology. It was a real war. The Soviets had already shown to be willing to support any Commie country. Finally look at who took over when CIA didn't help. It was always someone worse.
I have to say this was a good job at using facts though. :toast
I asked a question. You no talent ass clowns could have answered it, instead you made a swipe at me.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
Is there a communist leader you cheerleaders are not willing to defend?Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
rhetorical questions are not really questions. so no one answered it
[quote=spursncowboys;3864280]the cia would rank below the more despicable ones no doubt. the KGB and the massod do make the CIA look like a group of boy scouts. but that does not excuse the grossly unethical acts of the agency.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
cleary, you subscribe to the "red menace" line that i do not. i believe that the US used the communist threat as an excuse to justify economic and militaristic imperialism throughout latin america.
I'm mixed on this...
If he legalized the coca he's sort of a hero to me as there are more leaders that need to do that type of shit.
Fuck these motherfuckers that make all these plants illegal and throw people in jail for using that plant that has been here longer than we have.
Fuck
These
Motherfuckers
That do that.
Not only that but they create the black markets, and in doing so they artificially drive up the price for something that should be free, and the only form we can get the plant in is in a highly destructive man-made concentration that really isn't adapted well to human physiology.
Fuck
These
Assholes
That do that shit.
Wise up people...
Why don't Obama do some kind of shit like that libs, come to think of it, why in the fuck aren't you guys doing that?
At least when Bush was President he got us into a ME war like he was supposed to...when do the libs ever do the shit they are supposed to?
They just tell people what they want to hear.
Anyway, back to this dude. seems pretty cool except for whole take all the land and resources bullshit.
I went to Bolivia in 2000...complete and total shithole, I acutally got food poisoning while I was there. The village I stayed in was a complete shithole and a dangerous one at that.
It easy to see why those people hated that Government. It was incompetent. However, this guy just wants to be king and how long he will remain competent remains to be seen.
Oh the problem with Latin America is that all they do is go back and forth between extremes, usually not very peacefully either. They inherited that from Spain who has more or less started to grow out of it.
And it seems like the only time you guys get a stable government, is when it's socialist. Which sucks for ya'll.
If I were you guys, who lived in these countries, I would want the US Government in my country to stabilize it, just like we have been stabilizng Western Europe since WWII.
It's just basically people taking turns fucking each other over instead of actually making any long term progess...
And at heart, both of the sides ultimately boil down to some dude who wants to be king.
And don't blame America because Latin Americans themselves are polarized and elect leaders that alternately, bend over for us, or completely hate us.
We take advantage of that, it's still ultimately the problem of the politicians in power.
Moderation, peaceful transfer of power...you'd be amazed what sort of difference those things can make to any political landscape.
That's what the developed world has that LA and Africa lack more than anything else, the peaceful transfer of power, and they aren't continually jumping back and forth between extremes ultimately getting nowhere.
the problem is that many of the democratically elected leaders have often been assasinated or overthrown by staged coups.Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
Chile owes a lot of their economic stability to the military junta that governed from '73 to the '90s... The 3 democratic governments since then have slowed down a bit on the privatization of state-owned companies, but they don't have a lot of the historical baggage that other countries have. Chile also benefits immensely from having unfettered access to the ocean, something that Bolivia does not have.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
I think we need to stop telling countries to emulate this or that, and let them figure out who they want to emulate and what fits better for them. I think they figured out for themselves that military juntas only kill innocent people, so I don't think they're going away from democracy. I just wish they stop trying to cheat on it.
Yes because we were in this thing called the Cold War with the Soviet Union and every fucking time they had a free election people would elect some fucking commie that was going to(at least potentially) cozy up to the Soviet Union. Fuck that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
I also hold the people responsible for that as well. You kept electing leaders ideologically symathetic or our enemy, we did what we had to do protect ourselves. Simple as that.
We are no longer in the cold war which is why we no longer really give a shit except as it pertains to our own country...yet you guys are still stuck in the coldwar mindset. And getting totally played by leaders using that card.
I suggest moving on...like both the US and Russia have.
Russia is no longer the Soviet Union and China is more capialistic than we are in many ways...that war is over, you guys can elect all the Socialists you want now and we don't really give a shit except for the fact we know it is a mistake and these guys are little more than tin pot dictators.
I agree completely with not telling countries how to operate. Chile did their change on their own though.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I agree almost completely with your assessment. Especially the part about extremes.Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
To be honest, even the governments that have ruled with a mostly right wing style, have arrived to power by spewing a populist left wing ideology (Menem in the 90's and his Productive Revolution rhetoric comes to mind).
They all also end up being self-serving. They cater to the oligarchy, which they all are part of, and eventually blame that same oligarchy for all the problems in the country.
History repeats itself again, and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
You have an ailing country, and some charismatic man comes to power to lead. Get's the people to trust him, and abolish their way of life, and become their permanent leader.
Well the USA and Obama be next?
Morales restored their way of life. And he still has to win elections to be a permanent leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I just think it's a disservice to democracy to have a 'unlimited' reelection clause.
I'm just going to reiterate he was smart to legalize the coca plant.
You know what happens when you illegalize a plant that has the spiritual potential of the coca? You turn a lot of people into criminals needlessly.
No Govt has a right to people what they can and cannot do with something that grows freely and has been used by man for centuries, that is opression plain and simple. And it turns very normal human beings into criminals, and even forces them to associate with true criminals for what is essentially a non-criminal pursuit.
Every religion, spirtual movement, pretty much originated out of some kind plant alkaloid ritual...they cut us off from those plants, they cut us off from spirituality. We become more animal like because we are not allowed to use those plants.
It needs to stop...every place in the world it is being done, where it is creating a blackmarket, criminals, for somehting that is in the nature of every human being to want to experience, that they need to experience.
I support any an all leaders who legalize these plants as it is the primary step to getting our shit together as human being if you ask me, regalrdless of the rest of the politics behind it. Taking a little socialism with what Morales has done is no different than taking the Iraq war out of patriotism and a sincere desire to do the right thing, it might even be easier.
But he's going to fuck a lot of people over with his Nationalizing policies, and that is not something that is just going ot end once the stuff is Nationalized..and I also think that blanket statements like, the indigenous and the poor need this...
That is a generalizing mindset and I'd say pretty clearly some of them probably do need it, and some of thm don't. Their class and status does not inherentely make them worthy or divine, or most importantly when you are talking land and mineral resources, competent and good business men.
the rockefeller report imho supports the perspective that the red menace reasoning for intervention in latin america was mostly a whitewash. that report has some very suspicious and revealing details.Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
a good read on the actual level of involvement of the USSR in latin america during the "cold war" is The Giant's Rival: The U.S.S.R. in Latin America (1986, Pittsburgh University Press).
one needs only look at NAFTA to see how lack of land possession affects an agrarian community. in mexico alone, the north american free trade agreement drove many mexican farmers out of business and several turned to drug cultivation and another one-sixth of the mexican agricultural work force that has been displaced in the NAFTA years have been compelled into emigration to the united states. being that most of the problems that have historically caused economic issues in many latin american countries is the migration of too large of a population into overcrowded urban areas, it makes all the sense in the world to ensure the survival of the agrarian communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
this is not an issue of piety and the mere mention of aboriginal origins should not conjure up any inferences that one is placing them on some pedestal.
Oh please. Morales decriminalized coca grow, but even if cocaine wasn't made legal de jure, it was legalized de facto. The price of coca is indexed to the price of cocaine - the idea that Bolivia's production of coca serves to fill the needs of pharmaceutical companies and to be used in the indigenous rituals is nothing more than a fairy-tale. Morales is no more than a tool in the hands of the cocaleros and of the drug mafia. Bolivia is quickly becoming a narco-state, where a few powerful interest groups, sustained by the wealth created by the production and traffic of cocaine, used the political power to take over the natural resources by expropriating and nationalizing the gas and oil fields and now rule at their will with no restraint. His anti-American, anti-capitalist rhetoric earns him the favours of bien pensant minds of the Western World, who mourn for the past times when Moscow was the beacon of human kind and "Hasta Siemper Comandante" was fashionable to sing.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
The problem isn't in the end of democracy. As you say, Morales is, from that perspective, a democratic leader. But democracy is frequently overrated. Unlimited democracy is no better than tyranny; liberalism, (or constitutionalism, or whatever you want to call it), in its classic definition of a core of individual liberties that are protected - freedom of press, of reunion, respect for contracts, respect for property, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, protection of minorities, etc - is what prevents that democracies degenerate in totalitarianism. Democracies like Bolivia's, "winner takes it all" democracies, aren't better than any other authoritarian regime.
Huh? Do you even know who Garcia Marquez is? What's the connection between Garcia Marquez and deconstructionalism? I mean, GGM is an extreme-left nutty, so there's something there, but to the point of putting him together with Derrida? Marquez is a writer of fiction (some good, some not so good), a poor man's Mario Vargas Llosa; to point him out as emblematic of post-modernism is nonsensical. Perhaps one try to link the realismo mágico to some retro-nihilist currents of thought, but that's a stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
Also, criticising someone for linking post-modernism to marxism is ignorant. Plenty of literature available about that.