Sorry I misled you... I didnt intend to position the FARC as the sole victims... my bad I guess I also jump to conclusions once and a while, the examples you used in your last post were Oil Companies, and you reference Chiquita... so thats were I got my assumption... However, I dont think the "many educated people in Colombia" that you refer to include many of the displaced indigenous, farmers, and average slum dwellers... hence my point about the importance of widening these posibilities to include others. Oh common... smile chibchab! let me jab at the US once and a while , its just in good clean fun... The bombs will start in the future when we stop American ships in the North West passage because we're protecting "Arctic Soverignty"... or when you decide that our oil isnt open too you enough I know that the whole "with us... ect" speach was rhetoric, but you have to admit the US gets its way one way or another, its not like we Canadians are gonna stand up against you or anything. Oh so astronomical approval ratings mean that the leader is a counrties saviour and good for its future? Hitler had astronomical approval ratings when he came to power... sorry I dont think approval ratings = sunshine and roses.
AH approval ratings The Nazis (NSDAP) never polled a majority in any German election. The highest percentage was 43.9%, after blaming the Communists for the Reichstag fire. After that, arrests of the opposition & the propaganda machine replaced democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_1933
Tyrant approval ratings When opponents are imprisoned, exiled or killed, it's easy to see how the survivors would answer a poll question affirmatively, whether it's Adolf, Josef, Fidel or Saddam. Wonder if it's true.
stax...I reread my post immediately after submitting it and realized Hitler would be in your responce. That's just the amateur chess player in me, though I shouldn't flatter myself, as it was a juicy lob. Fair point though I think you're obviously reaching. As to the role of other than educated people in an expanding economy, I envision manufacturing jobs from foreign companies willing to invest in Colombia. Corporate taxes funding public projects to benefit the citizenry and employ people in infrastructure projects etc. As for the oil in Arctic...does Canada have nukes?
Re: Tyrant approval ratings Big IF but the stories that come of Colombia...I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this story was true. When I was 20 I turned down a trip through the jungle from Cali to Puerto Asis, I wonder how that trip would've turned out.
How about having a girlfriend like that? I wouldn't ever get in an arguement and my answer to everything would be 'yes sweetie, of course, right away, you're right!'. Talk about walking on eggshells....
lol... sorry I couldnt resist. Im going to level a bit with you here... I agree that to see manufacturing jobs from foreign countries investing in Colombia would be great, likewise I really like the fact that you added the Corporate taxes part. My worry with Uribe, and maybee I am to sceptical, is that he will end up simply catering to foreign companies with same result that happened to the pre-socialist leaders accross the rest of S.A. Brazil is one example (I'll admit here that Im not extremely educated when it come to Brazil) where the Governments before Lula catered to foreign investments... yes it brought jobs for a little while in the manufacturing core, but the foreign investment went in and the profits all went out... when the economy crashed because, despite being foreign freindly, the government couldnt keep up with social programs... ( I wont go on too much here, you seem educated enough to realize that neo-liberalism imposed by SAPs such as the Washington Consensus, do not always have positive effects on the Collective of a Country, its happened all over L.A) Colombia has already signed various neo-lib FTAs and SAPs under Uribe, from what has happened in the rest of L.A. Im simply afraid that Uribe will be another popular leader, until the poor of the country realize things arent getting much better for them (FARC aside here, security is important, Im thinking longer term) and suddenly Polo Democratica or some fringe remenant from a leftist group will come to power promising all sorts of goodies. No, but we are working on Nuclear power reactors again... so since we have scarry ideals and a large population of anti-american extremests up here, I can see how you guys might get worried.
0-1 through 87 minutes The closest I've been to Cali was watching America play Deportivo at Giants Stadium before a fervent but disappointingly small crowd. Considering the way the 261st classico ended this weekend, I consider myself lucky to have been watching in my living room. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336229,00.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZT5q5PqWsM
You forgot to mention the history of the USA and Canada...both of whom had risen to power under the influence of strong foreign direct and indirect investment.
Sure... I'll give you that. but it was in a much different way, and before the period of accelerated globalization, the easy flow of capital, masses of trade restrictions, very little MNC responsibility, and not nearly the amount of powerful MNCs, FTAs, complicated trade organizations, SAPs and the list goes on.
Please explain how these changes make the situation that our nations suffered any different than the changes Brazil is suffering. Remember, the USA exhibited most of the symptoms that Brazil is suffering during its large surge in growth, namely drastic income inequality, slums, corruption, and pro business anti-worker legislation.
Re: Tyrant approval ratings I went to Bogota and Cartagena when I was about 10, obviously didn't appreciate it as much as I would have if I was older. Have been wanting to go back (and go to Brazil as well)
Ok Im going to try to brief, by your first comment I assume that you are trying to say that L.A development is following the same path of development that the US and Canada did... if thats what your saying, somewhere you've missed a whole lot of information on the history of colonozation and the comparisons between L.A. and N.A. in social, political, and historical levels. one of the biggest differences in modern economics between L.A. and N.A is the fact that MNCs have an amazing ability to go into a country with lax labor laws, set up shop, and run out of the country with the profit... this all is considered "foreign investment" low wages, and little or no money flowing from international investment into the betterment of a country is not "investment." all the things that I mentioned in last post have made it easier to do. In the N.A development there were way fewer MNCs in the first place, foreign investment often remained in the country. all the things you mentioned were able to be dealt with through democratic change. However, if the "democracies" in L.A. dont cater to outside investor nations, they get a thrashing from all sides in the form of embargoes, 0 investment, helping to depose governments, ect. Show me how the US and Canada were continuously manipulated by outside nations to the same extent, when did the US or Canada ever have to sign an SAP or FTA that took advantage of their nations cheap labor, or lax labor laws? yes we had some of the same problems (mind you I dont think you can say slums and lack of upward mobility to the same extent)... But as I already said, they were able to be corrected by governments who wanted to ensure that America truely was the land of opportunity.
Colonization is not only gone, but has been for years. What is left right now is a bunch of undeveloped and recessed countries that are trying to decide which economic systems will lift them out of it. Only four countries have come close: Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. And all four of them are countries that have achieved their growth thanks to strong foreign direct investment. The rest of the countries in South America and Central America have persisted in poverty AND isolationism...hardly a coincidence. This is not different in any way whatsoever from the history of the US and Canada. At all. Almost all railroads and industrialization in the US had capital flowing from Great Britain, just like Argentina during the same periods. And FTAs were not necessary...trade just happened. And it happened exactly the same way as it is happening in SA right now. That is, foreign firms see an opportunity for low cost production, are guaranteed certain protections like a strong rule of law and enforced contract laws, and decide to invest. They take advantage of cheap labor and low capital costs (which includes lesser working conditions), and profit off of the better profit margins. On top of that, non multi-national firms seeking a share of the new trade revenues will get their capital through foreign firms in the sale of bonds and direct loans through foreign banks.
Argentina was one of the top ten economies of the world before Juan Peron destroyed it all by empowering the working class (effectively removing foreign investment), and enacting protectionist strategies. Those reforms wouldn't have been so bad, except Argentina, like the US and Canada at certain points in time, were heavily reliant on exports for their prosperity. There was not enough of an internal economy to support the wealth of the nation in the same way. The economy of Argentina has bounced around like a basketball since then, and while some of it can be traced to neo-liberal reforms, the failings of the country can be summarized into a few things: -Nationalization of the railroads and banks (to this day, the perceived threat of nationalization due to these events are still a psychological barrier to investment in Argentina) -Expulsion of many investors -Trade tariffs and other forms of protectionism -Wars -Shock Therapy I don't know much about Lula, so I do hope you will let me know. And you are missing the point too. Foreign investment comes in the form of exploited labor, no matter where it is found. The USA experienced it, Canada experienced it, Eastern Europe is experiencing it, and certain parts of Latin America are experiencing it. With so many countries as viable options for foreign direct investment, it is the protectionist and labor-rights countries that will lose out. Sure, it would be nice if companies voluntarily propped up countries...but this is the real world. Companies that invested in America back then are no different than they are now. They are all looking for lower margins and higher profits, and that means income inequity. But the growth of the nation over the long run will correct that...unlike economic reforms that just mandate changes. Poor countries are poor because they don't produce on the same level as developed countries. That means that poor countries benefit from foreign direct investment by gaining experience in productivity. Foreign companies show how to produce more by using less. Its not a surprise that countries that have strong foreign direct investment have vast productivity improvements. And those productivity improvements spread out amongst the entire population...not just the companies that benefit from cheap labor. By encouraging free trade and maintaining an adequate rule of law, poor countries in essence are inviting extremely productive companies to come and teach the population how to produce.
Stax....where may I find information regarding Colombia's agreements with MNC and how much profit they can withdraw without paying corp. taxes?
Im really sensing some serious sacasm here I never said that MNCs dont pay corp. taxes, I said I liked your point about corporate taxes didnt I? and I was actually serious. http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreTopics/PayingTaxes/Details.aspx?economyid=46 (this is a little, Id like to also see somewhere, how the Colombian government spends these corporate taxes)
Parallel Investments http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/04/07/mdutch_ed3_.php "Britain and the Netherlands provided most of the financing for the fledgling rail network." http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2767 "It is a well-known fact that the railroads of most European countries, and also of the United States, were built with the aid of British capital. You know that the same happened in this country, in Argentina." http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002895 http://www.gicgroup.com/21st_century_la_fund.html
I understand where you are coming from, that extreme neoliberalism can be seen as an attack on the poor and actually kills the stability of neoliberalism. And unfortunately, a major problem with a lot of reforms that are seen as neoliberal is that they are in fact pro-business. In reality, I don't think there should be any laws that hold businesses to any higher standard than workers or vice versa. Both should be treated equally. In other words, workers can form unions, and businesses can fire workers. Workers can work for raised wages, and businesses can work toward lower wages. The problems start arising when you favor one group over another. If you grant too many rights to workers, you discourage business investment and employment. If you grant too many rights to businesses, you discourage ethical treatment of humans. So, I don't know exactly how you meant that reforms must maintain adequate law, but that is how I see ideal law balances.