Read David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism and you will see that it was us who fucked up Chile's and Argentina's economy b/c we used those countries as testing grounds for a hands off, market based economy, and they imploded because of it...kind of like here. Oh and yes that is America's fault, at least partially.
a free market economy is the way to go. and the only way to know how to run it is the hard way. a lesson even we learn from time to time. you people get so spooked by big bad capitalism. in the end its about freedom and choices. something that is taken away with socialism and communism.
you are wrong the free market economy is about class separation, it's about the rich keeping their's on the backs of the poor, that is all it has ever been about...the sooner you realize this, the sooner you will realize that not all of us are for rote socialism and communism as they, in practice, often do quite the same thing.
how many times does free market capitalism have to fail before you see the reality that it is always doomed for failure. A good example of this failure is the whole reason why fire stations have to be governmentally run, b/c in a free market economy where you have to make profit to survive fire fighters would actually fight to put out a fire, and never put that fire out (see: gangs of new york for a simplistic view of this). Or why is it that obesity is prevalant in a an advanced society such as ours? A. Free Market economy. Under the direction of the Reagan administration the way that food companies were thought to be a success is by making more profit. How do you make more profit? Sell more food...now we, as a country, have become fat, diabetic, and need health care. Only insurance companies only make money by not giving out money, because of why? The free market economy. Again how many times does it have to fail before you get it?
and your think the US, and the world, should adopt what exactly?
something that works...kind of like Scandanavian social capitalism since they all seem to get along just fine without having to blow things up. Of course the fact that 9 out of the 11 countries that have a better standard of living than provided in the United States use socialism or social capitalism never hinders those that argue against it, and for an outdated and failed system of economics in free market capitalism.
something that works...kind of like Scandanavian social capitalism since they all seem to get along just fine without having to blow things up. Of course the fact that 9 out of the 11 countries that have a better standard of living than provided in the United States use socialism or social capitalism never hinders those that argue against it, and for an outdated and failed system of economics in free market capitalism.
I agree there needs to be a mix of government involved aka socialism into free market capitalism. where to draw that line is the challenge though.
It no secret the US and G-8 run the IMF and WB. Secondly, I don't know about you, but I am fully versed and read in the history, ongoings and dealings of these organizations, from your comments, you don't seem to be adding much of fact other than playing the entire "it's not the US's fault" card without adding any substantial data and fact to the conversation There are tons of books, articles and examples of the US's and other rich nations who have underminded economic stability and practices in order to gain strong holds politically over other nations, especially in South America. In the long term, these practices have created financial and political instability which have wrecked the foundations of many nations which have also led to the underminding of democracy and free market capitalism throughout South America.
If you're interested in learning a bit more bout the IMF, WB and G-8, I wrote this not that long ago. You may not agree with my commentary, but I clearly describe what each does in the world. http://political-illusions.blogspot.com ... cture.html
Also If you want to read a few good books about these topics here's a few off the top of my head:
And the Money Kept Rolling in (And Out)Author: Paul Blustein
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
Unholy Trinity : The IMF, World Bank and WTO by Richard Peet, Beate Born, Kendra Feher, Matthew Feinstein, Richard Peet
Lastly, debt is not debt are you claim in any manner. In an unstable nation, when you rely on foriegn loans and the government is forced to restructure economic and social polices in order to accomodate receiving these loans, banks, companies and industries in general are in a constant state of flux. It could be something as simple as the value of the local currency changes or something more significant like a massive bank run or massive inflation. These are all major ongoing economic issues related to the IMF, WB and G-8's impact and relations on foreign nations and borrowers. We do not have anything remotely like these problems on a wide-scale, long term level. So to make a very naive and simplistic state like "debt is debt" is simply untrue.
Ever read anything about the World Bank and International Montetary Funds interactions and dealing with South America? I take it you haven't because some of the biggest financial debacles in the world were at the helms (led by US and other industrial nations of the West), have legitimately created catastrophe's in places like Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and a few others. These organization are run and mandated by the US government at the highest levels and have led to the long term economic, political and societial debacles many of these nations have faced for about the past 10-20 yrs.
so now the IMF, World Bank, and UN = the US government. thats funny, but anway... you'll have to be more specific if you want to hold any credibility instead of just chest thumping that you've heard of the IMF and World Bank. so you dont like their lending standards? ok, how is that the fault of the US? the opposition south America has towards those banks are merely symbolic because of Chavez.
did you know they are also starting their own World Bank called the Bank of the South? if the US was the almighty powerful, wouldnt we have the power to stop such a move?
As for your comment about the US debt, such a comparsion shows your naitivity on the world of economics if you think our debt is anyhow the same as theirs. In fact, if we had the type of debt and cutbacks these nations face regularly, our population would have long ago overthrown the government. That's not a joke either - it's the absolute truth!
debt is debt. and its a problem for them and us.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
that's the rub isn't it...do we just let businesses run willy nilly all over the globe looking for cheaper and cheaper labor, or do we let American's make a decent living wage only to watch other corporations undercut American businesses thereby forcing them to fail? This is why free market capitalism is so vile it forces cutthroat competition devoid of any morality aside from money, because if you try to do it 'right' then their is someone else who is willing to push the line of what's acceptable further to make more loot. I think the first thing that absolutely has to change is the idea that companies must make a profit at all costs and that human labor is counted as an expense rather than an asset. If we never do that then we can't go anywhere.
I already asked, what kind of discussion are you looking for here? the majority of the things you posted were from 30-50 years ago. are you just looking to get people like me to admit the US has made mistakes in the past? of course we have. but like I said, TODAY, south america is doing just fine except for Venezuela and Columbia.
How is Venezuela not doing fine? Did you watch the documentary 'The War on Democracy'? It covers recent events in Venezuela. It's very informative. I recommend you watch it.
What does the government of the United States do when faced with a choice between supporting: (a) a group of totalitarian military thugs guilty of murdering thousands, systematic torture, widespread rape, and leaving severely mutilated corpses in the streets ... or (b) a non-violent priest, legally elected to the presidency by a landslide, whom the thugs have overthrown in a coup? ...
Aristide (peaceful, popular priest in Haiti) urged a boycott of the elections, saying "The army is our first enemy." The CIA, on the other hand, funded some of the candidates. The Agency later insisted that the purpose of the funding program had not been to oppose Aristide but to provide a "free and open election", by which was meant helping some candidates who didn't have enough money and diminishing Aristide's attempt to have a low turnout, which would have "reduced the election's validity". It is not known which candidates the CIA funded or why the Agency or the State Department, which reportedly chose the candidates to support, were concerned about such goals in Haiti, when the same electoral situation exists permanently in the United States.
What does the government of the United States do when faced with a choice between supporting: (a) a group of totalitarian military thugs guilty of murdering thousands, systematic torture, widespread rape, and leaving severely mutilated corpses in the streets ... or (b) a non-violent priest, legally elected to the presidency by a landslide, whom the thugs have overthrown in a coup? ...
Aristide (peaceful, popular priest in Haiti) urged a boycott of the elections, saying "The army is our first enemy." The CIA, on the other hand, funded some of the candidates. The Agency later insisted that the purpose of the funding program had not been to oppose Aristide but to provide a "free and open election", by which was meant helping some candidates who didn't have enough money and diminishing Aristide's attempt to have a low turnout, which would have "reduced the election's validity". It is not known which candidates the CIA funded or why the Agency or the State Department, which reportedly chose the candidates to support, were concerned about such goals in Haiti, when the same electoral situation exists permanently in the United States.
What's really interesting with regards U.S involvement in Haiti is how this subject has been so successfully brushed under the carpet by Western mainstream media. America's history of interference and tyranny with regards to Haiti alone destroys any credibility the U.S government has when talking of wanting to spread democracy in the world.
What does the government of the United States do when faced with a choice between supporting: (a) a group of totalitarian military thugs guilty of murdering thousands, systematic torture, widespread rape, and leaving severely mutilated corpses in the streets ... or (b) a non-violent priest, legally elected to the presidency by a landslide, whom the thugs have overthrown in a coup? ...
Aristide (peaceful, popular priest in Haiti) urged a boycott of the elections, saying "The army is our first enemy." The CIA, on the other hand, funded some of the candidates. The Agency later insisted that the purpose of the funding program had not been to oppose Aristide but to provide a "free and open election", by which was meant helping some candidates who didn't have enough money and diminishing Aristide's attempt to have a low turnout, which would have "reduced the election's validity". It is not known which candidates the CIA funded or why the Agency or the State Department, which reportedly chose the candidates to support, were concerned about such goals in Haiti, when the same electoral situation exists permanently in the United States.
What's really interesting with regards U.S involvement in Haiti is how this subject has been so successfully brushed under the carpet by Western mainstream media. America's history of interference and tyranny with regards to Haiti alone destroys any credibility the U.S government has when talking of wanting to spread democracy in the world.
you can make that case with south america as a whole i think.
"The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect."{1}
The words of an instructor in the art of torture. The words of Dan Mitrione, the head of the Office of Public Safety (OPS) mission in Montevideo.
Officially, OPS was a division of the Agency for International Development, but the director of OPS in Washington, Byron Engle, was an old CIA hand. His organization maintained a close working relationship with the CIA, and Agency officers often operated abroad under OPS cover, although Mitrione was not one of them.{2}
Dan Mitrione did not introduce the practice of torturing political prisoners to Uruguay. It had been perpetrated by the police at times from at least the early 1960s. However, in a surprising interview given to a leading Brazilian newspaper in 1970, the former Uruguayan Chief of Police Intelligence, Alejandro Otero, declared that US advisers, and in particular Mitrione, had instituted torture as a more routine measure; to the means of inflicting pain, they had added scientific refinement; and to that a psychology to create despair, such as playing a tape in the next room of women and children screaming and telling the prisoner that it was his family being tortured.{4}
Dan Mitrione had built a soundproofed room in the cellar of his house in Montevideo. In this room he assembled selected Uruguayan police officers to observe a demonstration of torture techniques. Another observer was Manuel Hevia Cosculluela, a Cuban who was with the CIA and worked with Mitrione. Hevia later wrote that the course began with a description of the human anatomy and nervous system ...
Soon things turned unpleasant. As subjects for the first testing they took beggars, known in Uruguay as bichicomes, from the outskirts of Montevideo, as well as a woman apparently from the frontier area with Brazil. There was no interrogation, only a demonstration of the effects of different voltages on the different parts of the human body, as well as demonstrating the use of a drug which induces vomiting -- I don't know why or what for -- and another chemical substance. The four of them died.{16}
In his book Hevia does not say specifically what Mitrione's direct part in all this was, but he later publicly stated that the OPS chief "personally tortured four beggars to death with electric shocks".{17}
On another occasion, Hevia sat with Mitrione in the latter's house, and over a few drinks the American explained to the Cuban his philosophy of interrogation. Mitrione considered it to be an art. First there should be a softening-up period, with the usual beatings and insults. The object is to humiliate the prisoner, to make him realize his helplessness, to cut him off from reality. No questions, only blows and insults. Then, only blows in silence.
Only after this, said Mitrione, is the interrogation. Here no pain should be produced other than that caused by the instrument which is being used. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," was his motto.
During the session you have to keep the subject from losing all hope of life, because this can lead to stubborn resistance. "You must always leave him some hope ... a distant light."
"When you get what you want, and I always get it," Mitrione continued, "it may be good to prolong the session a little to apply another softening-up. Not to extract information now, but only as a political measure, to create a healthy fear of meddling in subversive activities."
The American pointed out that upon receiving a subject the first thing is to determine his physical state, his degree of resistance, by means of a medical examination. "A premature death means a failure by the technician ... It's important to know in advance if we can permit ourselves the luxury of the subject's death."{18}
Not long after this conversation, Manual Hevia disappeared from Montevideo and turned up in Havana. He had been a Cuban agent -- a double agent -- all along.
About half a year later, 31 July 1970 to be exact, Dan Mitrione was kidnapped by the Tupamaros. They did not torture him. They demanded the release of some 150 prisoners in exchange for him. With the determined backing of the Nixon administration, the Uruguayan government refused. On 10 August, Mitrione's dead body was found on the back seat of a stolen car. He had turned 50 on his fifth day as a prisoner.
Back in Mitrione's home town of Richmond, Indiana, Secretary of State William Rogers and President Nixon's son-in-law David Eisenhower attended the funeral for Mitrione, the city's former police chief. Frank Sinatra and Jerry Lewis came to town to stage a benefit show for Mitrione's family.
And White House spokesman, Ron Ziegler, solemnly stated that "Mr. Mitrione's devoted service to the cause of peaceful progress in an orderly world will remain as an example for free men everywhere."{19}
"A perfect man," his widow said.
"A great humanitarian," said his daughter Linda.{20}
The dissident Uruguayan writer, Eduardo Galeano, summed up his country's era of dictatorship thusly: "People were in prison so that prices could be free."
'In early June, Peruvian President Alan García, an ally of US President Barack Obama, ordered armored personnel carriers, helicopter gun-ships and hundreds of heavily armed troops to assault and disperse a peaceful, legal protest organized by members of Peru’s Amazonian indigenous communities protesting the entry of foreign multinational mining companies on their traditional homelands. Dozens of Indians were killed or are missing, scores have been injured and arrested and a number of Peruvian police, held hostage by the indigenous protestors were killed in the assault. President García declared martial law in the region in order to enforce his unilateral and unconstitutional fiat granting of mining exploitation rights to foreign companies, which infringed on the integrity of traditional Amazonian indigenous communal lands...'
'In early June, Peruvian President Alan García, an ally of US President Barack Obama, ordered armored personnel carriers, helicopter gun-ships and hundreds of heavily armed troops to assault and disperse a peaceful, legal protest organized by members of Peru’s Amazonian indigenous communities protesting the entry of foreign multinational mining companies on their traditional homelands. Dozens of Indians were killed or are missing, scores have been injured and arrested and a number of Peruvian police, held hostage by the indigenous protestors were killed in the assault. President García declared martial law in the region in order to enforce his unilateral and unconstitutional fiat granting of mining exploitation rights to foreign companies, which infringed on the integrity of traditional Amazonian indigenous communal lands...'
that was interesting. especially this part...
The Obama regime has predictably not issued a single word of concern or protest in the face of one of the worst massacres of Peruvian civilians in this decade – perpetrated by one of America’s closest remaining allies in Latin America. García, taking his talking points from the US Ambassador, accused Venezuela and Bolivia of having instigated the Indian ‘uprising’, quoting a letter of support from Bolivia’s President Evo Morales sent to an intercontinental conference of Indian communities held in Lima in May as ‘proof’. Martial law was declared and the entire Amazon region of Peru is being militarized. Meetings are banned and family members are forbidden from searching for their missing relatives.
Throughout Latin America, all the major Indian organizations have expressed their solidarity with the Peruvian indigenous movements. Within Peru, mass social movements, trade unions and human rights groups have organized a general strike on June 11. Fearing the spread of mass protests, El Commercio, the conservative Lima daily, cautioned García to adopt some conciliatory measures to avoid a generalized urban uprising. A one-day truce was declared on June 10, but the Indian organizations refused to end their blockade of the highways unless the García Government rescinds its illegal land grant decrees.
In the meantime, a strange silence hangs over the White House. Our usually garrulous President Obama, so adept at reciting platitudes about diversity and tolerance and praising peace and justice, cannot find a single phrase in his prepared script condemning the massacre of scores of indigenous inhabitants of the Peruvian Amazon. When egregious violations of human rights are committed in Latin America by a US backed client-President following Washington’s formula of ‘free trade’, deregulation of environmental protections and hostility toward anti-imperialist countries (Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador), Obama favors complicity over condemnation.
looks like the treatment of latin america will continue, big surpirse. not a word in the media, not a word from officials. change we can believe in, sure.
looks like the treatment of latin america will continue, big surpirse. not a word in the media, not a word from officials. change we can believe in, sure.
I wonder if we'll see another attempt by the U.S at removing Chavez from power?
looks like the treatment of latin america will continue, big surpirse. not a word in the media, not a word from officials. change we can believe in, sure.
I wonder if we'll see another attempt by the U.S at removing Chavez from power?
wouldn't surprise me. i'm actually surprised Chavez is even still alive.
US policy: assassinating democratically elected leaders since the 50's.
President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was overthrown in a military coup June 28 because he was about to conduct a non-binding survey of the population, asking the question: "Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?" One of the issues that Zelaya hoped a new constitution would deal with is the limiting of the presidency to one four-year term. He also expressed the need for other constitutional changes to make it possible for him to carry out policies to improve the life of the poor; in countries like Honduras, the law is not generally crafted for that end.
At this writing it's not clear how matters will turn out in Honduras, but the following should be noted: the United States, by its own admission, was fully aware for weeks of the Honduran military's plan to overthrow Zelaya. Washington says it tried its best to change the mind of the plotters. It's difficult to believe that this proved impossible. During the Cold War it was said, with much justification, that the United States could discourage a coup in Latin America with "a frown". The Honduran and American military establishments have long been on very fraternal terms. And it must be asked: In what way and to what extent did the United States warn Zelaya of the impending coup? And what protection did it offer him? The response to the coup from the Obama administration can be described with adjectives such as lukewarm, proper but belated, and mixed. It is not unthinkable that the United States gave the military plotters the go-ahead, telling them to keep the traditional "golpe" bloodiness to a minimum. Zelaya was elected to office as the candidate of a conservative party; he then, surprisingly, moved to the left and became a strong critic of a number of Washington policies, and an ally of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, both of whom the Bush administration tried to overthrow and assassinate.
Following the coup, National Public Radio (NPR) showed once again why progressives refer to it as National Pentagon Radio. The station's leading news anchor, Robert Siegel, interviewed Johanna Mendelson Forman, of the conservative think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies:
Siegel: "There hasn't been a coup in Latin America for quite a while."
Forman: "I think the last one was in 1983"
Siegel did not correct her.14
This is ignorance of considerable degree. There was a coup in Venezuela in 2002 that briefly overthrew Hugo Chavez, a coup in Haiti in 2004 that permanently overthrew Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and a coup in Panama in 1989 that permanently overthrew Manuel Noriega. Is it because the US was closely involved in all three coups that they have been thrown down the Orwellian Memory Hole?
-Bill Blum
That's some interesting news that most of the world and South America would like to hear considering its not true. Economically as a whole, most the nations in South America are in terrible debt and politically many have serious issues in terms of stability, drug wars, kidnapping, ridiculous separation wealth and varying other issues...
I won't enter the political debate. However, I have to clarify this statement, as a South American (South America includes: Colombia, Venezuela, The Guyanas, Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina).
It is safe to say that South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008). There's, also been a significant degree of political stability in the region (except for 2002 coup in Venezuela). If currents South Americans presidents are all competent or doing good things for their respective countries is another discussion (a very long one, BTW). Kidnappings are an issue in Colombia and Venezuela, every now and then here in Argentina.
I'll stick to the economy, though. In average poverty has been reduced both in relative and absolute terms; unemployments has decreased; socioeconomic indicators have improved; there's been some progress in reducing inequality (particularly in Brazil) and most South American countries are on track for the Millenium Development Goals. Furthermore, Chile has already reduced it's poverty rates by more than 50% and Brazil should accomplish that goal before 2015. Argentina's growth rate for the 2003-2008 period was, in average, 8%. Peru has been growing steadily, like Ecuador. Uruguay has always been a different animal, due to its social protection and political systemas. I'd say that Bolivia and Paraguay have had the worse perfomances in the region. But make no mistakes, we've made huge improvements. For instance, Brazil has the 8th largest world economy these days, it is a global player, there's no denying that. Chile could very well become a developed country in the upcoming 20 years...
About public debt, well, for the first time the public debt-GDP ratio is not dangerous for our countries fiscal stability. There's consensus among most economists, politicians and experts about the fact that our region is better prepared for this new global crisis.
looks like the treatment of latin america will continue, big surpirse. not a word in the media, not a word from officials. change we can believe in, sure.
I wonder if we'll see another attempt by the U.S at removing Chavez from power?
wouldn't surprise me. i'm actually surprised Chavez is even still alive.
US policy: assassinating democratically elected leaders since the 50's.
I'm not, because that's an absurd statement. It should read:
"US policy: fucking up attempts at assassinating democratically elected leaders since the 50's."
That's some interesting news that most of the world and South America would like to hear considering its not true. Economically as a whole, most the nations in South America are in terrible debt and politically many have serious issues in terms of stability, drug wars, kidnapping, ridiculous separation wealth and varying other issues...
I won't enter the political debate. However, I have to clarify this statement, as a South American (South America includes: Colombia, Venezuela, The Guyanas, Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina).
It is safe to say that South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008). There's, also been a significant degree of political stability in the region (except for 2002 coup in Venezuela). If currents South Americans presidents are all competent or doing good things for their respective countries is another discussion (a very long one, BTW). Kidnappings are an issue in Colombia and Venezuela, every now and then here in Argentina.
I'll stick to the economy, though. In average poverty has been reduced both in relative and absolute terms; unemployments has decreased; socioeconomic indicators have improved; there's been some progress in reducing inequality (particularly in Brazil) and most South American countries are on track for the Millenium Development Goals. Furthermore, Chile has already reduced it's poverty rates by more than 50% and Brazil should accomplish that goal before 2015. Argentina's growth rate for the 2003-2008 period was, in average, 8%. Peru has been growing steadily, like Ecuador. Uruguay has always been a different animal, due to its social protection and political systemas. I'd say that Bolivia and Paraguay have had the worse perfomances in the region. But make no mistakes, we've made huge improvements. For instance, Brazil has the 8th largest world economy these days, it is a global player, there's no denying that. Chile could very well become a developed country in the upcoming 20 years...
About public debt, well, for the first time the public debt-GDP ratio is not dangerous for our countries fiscal stability. There's consensus among most economists, politicians and experts about the fact that our region is better prepared for this new global crisis.
I can't comment any further, have to get back to work...
Peace
Caterina
Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight jk of course. excellent information thank you for posting.
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight jk of course. excellent information thank you for posting.
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight jk of course. excellent information thank you for posting.
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight jk of course. excellent information thank you for posting.
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
That's some interesting news that most of the world and South America would like to hear considering its not true. Economically as a whole, most the nations in South America are in terrible debt and politically many have serious issues in terms of stability, drug wars, kidnapping, ridiculous separation wealth and varying other issues...
I won't enter the political debate. However, I have to clarify this statement, as a South American (South America includes: Colombia, Venezuela, The Guyanas, Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina).
It is safe to say that South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008). There's, also been a significant degree of political stability in the region (except for 2002 coup in Venezuela). If currents South Americans presidents are all competent or doing good things for their respective countries is another discussion (a very long one, BTW). Kidnappings are an issue in Colombia and Venezuela, every now and then here in Argentina.
I'll stick to the economy, though. In average poverty has been reduced both in relative and absolute terms; unemployments has decreased; socioeconomic indicators have improved; there's been some progress in reducing inequality (particularly in Brazil) and most South American countries are on track for the Millenium Development Goals. Furthermore, Chile has already reduced it's poverty rates by more than 50% and Brazil should accomplish that goal before 2015. Argentina's growth rate for the 2003-2008 period was, in average, 8%. Peru has been growing steadily, like Ecuador. Uruguay has always been a different animal, due to its social protection and political systemas. I'd say that Bolivia and Paraguay have had the worse perfomances in the region. But make no mistakes, we've made huge improvements. For instance, Brazil has the 8th largest world economy these days, it is a global player, there's no denying that. Chile could very well become a developed country in the upcoming 20 years...
About public debt, well, for the first time the public debt-GDP ratio is not dangerous for our countries fiscal stability. There's consensus among most economists, politicians and experts about the fact that our region is better prepared for this new global crisis.
I can't comment any further, have to get back to work...
Peace
Caterina
Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight jk of course. excellent information thank you for posting.
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
hope all is well with you, good to see you again!
this thread has done a poor job of detailing US involvement.
Say Brazil has the 8th largest economy in the world-it has the resources to be 3rd, and today's "success" in no way excuses past US crimes.
The left has been persecuted for decades, as Dom Helderama put it, a priest,
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
The legacy of of the Contras alone should be enough put to rest any question of US invlovement being positive or not. The democratically elected Sandanistas (the people of Nicaragua VOTED them into power in elections considered fair by outside observers) were unacceptable to Washington. In the ten years of brutality that followed some 30,000 Nicaraguans were murdered, many tortured first. Washington gave the people of Nicaragua a choice. Vote for the US backed candidate or face torture and murder and brutality from the US Congress funded Contras.
And economic success is NO indicator of overall success. Hitler's Nazis achieved outstanding economic success in Germany, and as should be obvious, economic indicators and internal repression have nothing to do with each other. So as Caterina put it "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" means absolutely nothing in the context of the thread. I believe Mussolini also had great "performance in economic terms" in Italy. Means nothing.
Good indicators of success include poverty rates, number of hospitals, infant mortality rate, number of schools, legitimate choices on election day, things like that.
And maybe South America is seeing some progress in some of these categories, but it in no way excuses past crimes committed by the US government.
this thread has done a poor job of detailing US involvement.
Say Brazil has the 8th largest economy in the world-it has the resources to be 3rd, and today's "success" in no way excuses past US crimes.
The left has been persecuted for decades, as Dom Helderama put it, a priest,
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
The legacy of of the Contras alone should be enough put to rest any question of US invlovement being positive or not. The democratically elected Sandanistas (the people of Nicaragua VOTED them into power in elections considered fair by outside observers) were unacceptable to Washington. In the ten years of brutality that followed some 30,000 Nicaraguans were murdered, many tortured first. Washington gave the people of Nicaragua a choice. Vote for the US backed candidate or face torture and murder and brutality from the US Congress funded Contras.
And economic success is NO indicator of overall success. Hitler's Nazis achieved outstanding economic success in Germany, and as should be obvious, economic indicators and internal repression have nothing to do with each other. So as Caterina put it "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" means absolutely nothing in the context of the thread. I believe Mussolini also had great "performance in economic terms" in Italy. Means nothing.
Good indicators of success include poverty rates, number of hospitals, infant mortality rate, number of schools, legitimate choices on election day, things like that.
And maybe South America is seeing some progress in some of these categories, but it in no way excuses past crimes committed by the US government.
so its only acceptable to talk about America's so called crimes and completely ignore any positive influences we're had.
this thread has done a poor job of detailing US involvement.
Say Brazil has the 8th largest economy in the world-it has the resources to be 3rd, and today's "success" in no way excuses past US crimes.
The left has been persecuted for decades, as Dom Helderama put it, a priest,
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
The legacy of of the Contras alone should be enough put to rest any question of US invlovement being positive or not. The democratically elected Sandanistas (the people of Nicaragua VOTED them into power in elections considered fair by outside observers) were unacceptable to Washington. In the ten years of brutality that followed some 30,000 Nicaraguans were murdered, many tortured first. Washington gave the people of Nicaragua a choice. Vote for the US backed candidate or face torture and murder and brutality from the US Congress funded Contras.
And economic success is NO indicator of overall success. Hitler's Nazis achieved outstanding economic success in Germany, and as should be obvious, economic indicators and internal repression have nothing to do with each other. So as Caterina put it "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" means absolutely nothing in the context of the thread. I believe Mussolini also had great "performance in economic terms" in Italy. Means nothing.
Good indicators of success include poverty rates, number of hospitals, infant mortality rate, number of schools, legitimate choices on election day, things like that.
And maybe South America is seeing some progress in some of these categories, but it in no way excuses past crimes committed by the US government.
so its only acceptable to talk about America's so called crimes and completely ignore any positive influences we're had.
feel free. you can do whatever you want.
i was pointing out that any success today does not excuse any crimes. its doesn't make it ok. its like your iraq argument. we killed a million iraqis, but we built a mcdonalds so all is forgiven. fuck that. not gonna work here.
i was pointing out that any success today does not excuse any crimes. its doesn't make it ok.
I agree. I'm not saying it makes ok. but it seems like any positive influences we have are non existent because we've committed "crimes" in south America.
Comments
and your think the US, and the world, should adopt what exactly?
I agree there needs to be a mix of government involved aka socialism into free market capitalism. where to draw that line is the challenge though.
If you're interested in learning a bit more bout the IMF, WB and G-8, I wrote this not that long ago. You may not agree with my commentary, but I clearly describe what each does in the world.
http://political-illusions.blogspot.com ... cture.html
Also If you want to read a few good books about these topics here's a few off the top of my head:
And the Money Kept Rolling in (And Out)Author: Paul Blustein
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
Unholy Trinity : The IMF, World Bank and WTO by Richard Peet, Beate Born, Kendra Feher, Matthew Feinstein, Richard Peet
Lastly, debt is not debt are you claim in any manner. In an unstable nation, when you rely on foriegn loans and the government is forced to restructure economic and social polices in order to accomodate receiving these loans, banks, companies and industries in general are in a constant state of flux. It could be something as simple as the value of the local currency changes or something more significant like a massive bank run or massive inflation. These are all major ongoing economic issues related to the IMF, WB and G-8's impact and relations on foreign nations and borrowers. We do not have anything remotely like these problems on a wide-scale, long term level. So to make a very naive and simplistic state like "debt is debt" is simply untrue.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
How is Venezuela not doing fine? Did you watch the documentary 'The War on Democracy'? It covers recent events in Venezuela. It's very informative. I recommend you watch it.
http://killinghope.org/bblum6/haiti2.htm
What's really interesting with regards U.S involvement in Haiti is how this subject has been so successfully brushed under the carpet by Western mainstream media. America's history of interference and tyranny with regards to Haiti alone destroys any credibility the U.S government has when talking of wanting to spread democracy in the world.
US policy embraces torture, big surprise.
"The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect."{1}
The words of an instructor in the art of torture. The words of Dan Mitrione, the head of the Office of Public Safety (OPS) mission in Montevideo.
Officially, OPS was a division of the Agency for International Development, but the director of OPS in Washington, Byron Engle, was an old CIA hand. His organization maintained a close working relationship with the CIA, and Agency officers often operated abroad under OPS cover, although Mitrione was not one of them.{2}
Dan Mitrione did not introduce the practice of torturing political prisoners to Uruguay. It had been perpetrated by the police at times from at least the early 1960s. However, in a surprising interview given to a leading Brazilian newspaper in 1970, the former Uruguayan Chief of Police Intelligence, Alejandro Otero, declared that US advisers, and in particular Mitrione, had instituted torture as a more routine measure; to the means of inflicting pain, they had added scientific refinement; and to that a psychology to create despair, such as playing a tape in the next room of women and children screaming and telling the prisoner that it was his family being tortured.{4}
Dan Mitrione had built a soundproofed room in the cellar of his house in Montevideo. In this room he assembled selected Uruguayan police officers to observe a demonstration of torture techniques. Another observer was Manuel Hevia Cosculluela, a Cuban who was with the CIA and worked with Mitrione. Hevia later wrote that the course began with a description of the human anatomy and nervous system ...
Soon things turned unpleasant. As subjects for the first testing they took beggars, known in Uruguay as bichicomes, from the outskirts of Montevideo, as well as a woman apparently from the frontier area with Brazil. There was no interrogation, only a demonstration of the effects of different voltages on the different parts of the human body, as well as demonstrating the use of a drug which induces vomiting -- I don't know why or what for -- and another chemical substance. The four of them died.{16}
In his book Hevia does not say specifically what Mitrione's direct part in all this was, but he later publicly stated that the OPS chief "personally tortured four beggars to death with electric shocks".{17}
On another occasion, Hevia sat with Mitrione in the latter's house, and over a few drinks the American explained to the Cuban his philosophy of interrogation. Mitrione considered it to be an art. First there should be a softening-up period, with the usual beatings and insults. The object is to humiliate the prisoner, to make him realize his helplessness, to cut him off from reality. No questions, only blows and insults. Then, only blows in silence.
Only after this, said Mitrione, is the interrogation. Here no pain should be produced other than that caused by the instrument which is being used. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," was his motto.
During the session you have to keep the subject from losing all hope of life, because this can lead to stubborn resistance. "You must always leave him some hope ... a distant light."
"When you get what you want, and I always get it," Mitrione continued, "it may be good to prolong the session a little to apply another softening-up. Not to extract information now, but only as a political measure, to create a healthy fear of meddling in subversive activities."
The American pointed out that upon receiving a subject the first thing is to determine his physical state, his degree of resistance, by means of a medical examination. "A premature death means a failure by the technician ... It's important to know in advance if we can permit ourselves the luxury of the subject's death."{18}
Not long after this conversation, Manual Hevia disappeared from Montevideo and turned up in Havana. He had been a Cuban agent -- a double agent -- all along.
About half a year later, 31 July 1970 to be exact, Dan Mitrione was kidnapped by the Tupamaros. They did not torture him. They demanded the release of some 150 prisoners in exchange for him. With the determined backing of the Nixon administration, the Uruguayan government refused. On 10 August, Mitrione's dead body was found on the back seat of a stolen car. He had turned 50 on his fifth day as a prisoner.
Back in Mitrione's home town of Richmond, Indiana, Secretary of State William Rogers and President Nixon's son-in-law David Eisenhower attended the funeral for Mitrione, the city's former police chief. Frank Sinatra and Jerry Lewis came to town to stage a benefit show for Mitrione's family.
And White House spokesman, Ron Ziegler, solemnly stated that "Mr. Mitrione's devoted service to the cause of peaceful progress in an orderly world will remain as an example for free men everywhere."{19}
"A perfect man," his widow said.
"A great humanitarian," said his daughter Linda.{20}
http://killinghope.org/bblum6/uruguay.htm
The dissident Uruguayan writer, Eduardo Galeano, summed up his country's era of dictatorship thusly:
"People were in prison so that prices could be free."
Keep 'em coming. Nicaragua and Chile should be easy enough to document.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22813.htm
Peru: Blood Flows in the Amazon
By James Petras - June 12, 2009 "ICH"
'In early June, Peruvian President Alan García, an ally of US President Barack Obama, ordered armored personnel carriers, helicopter gun-ships and hundreds of heavily armed troops to assault and disperse a peaceful, legal protest organized by members of Peru’s Amazonian indigenous communities protesting the entry of foreign multinational mining companies on their traditional homelands. Dozens of Indians were killed or are missing, scores have been injured and arrested and a number of Peruvian police, held hostage by the indigenous protestors were killed in the assault. President García declared martial law in the region in order to enforce his unilateral and unconstitutional fiat granting of mining exploitation rights to foreign companies, which infringed on the integrity of traditional Amazonian indigenous communal lands...'
that was interesting. especially this part...
The Obama regime has predictably not issued a single word of concern or protest in the face of one of the worst massacres of Peruvian civilians in this decade – perpetrated by one of America’s closest remaining allies in Latin America. García, taking his talking points from the US Ambassador, accused Venezuela and Bolivia of having instigated the Indian ‘uprising’, quoting a letter of support from Bolivia’s President Evo Morales sent to an intercontinental conference of Indian communities held in Lima in May as ‘proof’. Martial law was declared and the entire Amazon region of Peru is being militarized. Meetings are banned and family members are forbidden from searching for their missing relatives.
Throughout Latin America, all the major Indian organizations have expressed their solidarity with the Peruvian indigenous movements. Within Peru, mass social movements, trade unions and human rights groups have organized a general strike on June 11. Fearing the spread of mass protests, El Commercio, the conservative Lima daily, cautioned García to adopt some conciliatory measures to avoid a generalized urban uprising. A one-day truce was declared on June 10, but the Indian organizations refused to end their blockade of the highways unless the García Government rescinds its illegal land grant decrees.
In the meantime, a strange silence hangs over the White House. Our usually garrulous President Obama, so adept at reciting platitudes about diversity and tolerance and praising peace and justice, cannot find a single phrase in his prepared script condemning the massacre of scores of indigenous inhabitants of the Peruvian Amazon. When egregious violations of human rights are committed in Latin America by a US backed client-President following Washington’s formula of ‘free trade’, deregulation of environmental protections and hostility toward anti-imperialist countries (Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador), Obama favors complicity over condemnation.
looks like the treatment of latin america will continue, big surpirse. not a word in the media, not a word from officials. change we can believe in, sure.
I wonder if we'll see another attempt by the U.S at removing Chavez from power?
wouldn't surprise me. i'm actually surprised Chavez is even still alive.
US policy: assassinating democratically elected leaders since the 50's.
President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was overthrown in a military coup June 28 because he was about to conduct a non-binding survey of the population, asking the question: "Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?" One of the issues that Zelaya hoped a new constitution would deal with is the limiting of the presidency to one four-year term. He also expressed the need for other constitutional changes to make it possible for him to carry out policies to improve the life of the poor; in countries like Honduras, the law is not generally crafted for that end.
At this writing it's not clear how matters will turn out in Honduras, but the following should be noted: the United States, by its own admission, was fully aware for weeks of the Honduran military's plan to overthrow Zelaya. Washington says it tried its best to change the mind of the plotters. It's difficult to believe that this proved impossible. During the Cold War it was said, with much justification, that the United States could discourage a coup in Latin America with "a frown". The Honduran and American military establishments have long been on very fraternal terms. And it must be asked: In what way and to what extent did the United States warn Zelaya of the impending coup? And what protection did it offer him? The response to the coup from the Obama administration can be described with adjectives such as lukewarm, proper but belated, and mixed. It is not unthinkable that the United States gave the military plotters the go-ahead, telling them to keep the traditional "golpe" bloodiness to a minimum. Zelaya was elected to office as the candidate of a conservative party; he then, surprisingly, moved to the left and became a strong critic of a number of Washington policies, and an ally of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, both of whom the Bush administration tried to overthrow and assassinate.
Following the coup, National Public Radio (NPR) showed once again why progressives refer to it as National Pentagon Radio. The station's leading news anchor, Robert Siegel, interviewed Johanna Mendelson Forman, of the conservative think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies:
Siegel: "There hasn't been a coup in Latin America for quite a while."
Forman: "I think the last one was in 1983"
Siegel did not correct her.14
This is ignorance of considerable degree. There was a coup in Venezuela in 2002 that briefly overthrew Hugo Chavez, a coup in Haiti in 2004 that permanently overthrew Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and a coup in Panama in 1989 that permanently overthrew Manuel Noriega. Is it because the US was closely involved in all three coups that they have been thrown down the Orwellian Memory Hole?
-Bill Blum
I won't enter the political debate. However, I have to clarify this statement, as a South American (South America includes: Colombia, Venezuela, The Guyanas, Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina).
It is safe to say that South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008). There's, also been a significant degree of political stability in the region (except for 2002 coup in Venezuela). If currents South Americans presidents are all competent or doing good things for their respective countries is another discussion (a very long one, BTW). Kidnappings are an issue in Colombia and Venezuela, every now and then here in Argentina.
I'll stick to the economy, though. In average poverty has been reduced both in relative and absolute terms; unemployments has decreased; socioeconomic indicators have improved; there's been some progress in reducing inequality (particularly in Brazil) and most South American countries are on track for the Millenium Development Goals. Furthermore, Chile has already reduced it's poverty rates by more than 50% and Brazil should accomplish that goal before 2015. Argentina's growth rate for the 2003-2008 period was, in average, 8%. Peru has been growing steadily, like Ecuador. Uruguay has always been a different animal, due to its social protection and political systemas. I'd say that Bolivia and Paraguay have had the worse perfomances in the region. But make no mistakes, we've made huge improvements. For instance, Brazil has the 8th largest world economy these days, it is a global player, there's no denying that. Chile could very well become a developed country in the upcoming 20 years...
About public debt, well, for the first time the public debt-GDP ratio is not dangerous for our countries fiscal stability. There's consensus among most economists, politicians and experts about the fact that our region is better prepared for this new global crisis.
Links: http://www.eclac.cl (United Nations Economic Comission for Latin America and the Caribbean), I also recommend http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (UN's site for the MDGs)
I can't comment any further, have to get back to work...
Peace
Caterina
I'm not, because that's an absurd statement. It should read:
"US policy: fucking up attempts at assassinating democratically elected leaders since the 50's."
Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
hope all is well with you, good to see you again!
is something funny?
Yes.
Yes.[/quote]
allow me to rephrase. what is so funny?
this thread has done a poor job of detailing US involvement.
Say Brazil has the 8th largest economy in the world-it has the resources to be 3rd, and today's "success" in no way excuses past US crimes.
The left has been persecuted for decades, as Dom Helderama put it, a priest,
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
The legacy of of the Contras alone should be enough put to rest any question of US invlovement being positive or not. The democratically elected Sandanistas (the people of Nicaragua VOTED them into power in elections considered fair by outside observers) were unacceptable to Washington. In the ten years of brutality that followed some 30,000 Nicaraguans were murdered, many tortured first. Washington gave the people of Nicaragua a choice. Vote for the US backed candidate or face torture and murder and brutality from the US Congress funded Contras.
And economic success is NO indicator of overall success. Hitler's Nazis achieved outstanding economic success in Germany, and as should be obvious, economic indicators and internal repression have nothing to do with each other. So as Caterina put it "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" means absolutely nothing in the context of the thread. I believe Mussolini also had great "performance in economic terms" in Italy. Means nothing.
Good indicators of success include poverty rates, number of hospitals, infant mortality rate, number of schools, legitimate choices on election day, things like that.
And maybe South America is seeing some progress in some of these categories, but it in no way excuses past crimes committed by the US government.
so its only acceptable to talk about America's so called crimes and completely ignore any positive influences we're had.
i was pointing out that any success today does not excuse any crimes. its doesn't make it ok. its like your iraq argument. we killed a million iraqis, but we built a mcdonalds so all is forgiven. fuck that. not gonna work here.
I agree. I'm not saying it makes ok. but it seems like any positive influences we have are non existent because we've committed "crimes" in south America.
LOL my Iraq argument? are you new here? I've never made such an argument. second of all, we didn't kill a million Iraqis.