|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: Now There Are Three... |
 |
|
Castro, Chavez, and now Bolivia's president-elect, Evo Morales. Calling themselves "the Axis of Good," ignorant that the word "axis" doesn't exactly conjure up "good" imagery in the English-speaking world.
In any case, it will be interesting to follow developments in Latin America and the Caribbean now. These three are mostly united by their hypernationalist, socialist, fiery, anti-U.S. rhetoric. Morales is starting off by letting everyone know he is Washington's enemy. Brilliant diplomacy. That's what Allende did in Nov. 1970.
Most interesting in this situation will be the increased tensions with Chile that such a nationalist Bolivian president will provoke and, of course, how Bolivia's conservatives and elites will deal with his likely attacks on their interests.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/01/03/morales.chavez.reut/index.html
Looks like they might drive U.S.-Mexican relations much closer with their clumsy attacks, too. Remember this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/americas/4453738.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1121-04.htm
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?b423685842&r=MSNnews |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The combined powers of Bolivia, Venezuela, and Cuba are standing up to the imperialists in Washington!
Bolivia:
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$22.33 billion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
3.7% (2004 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $2,600 (2004 est.)
Cuba:
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$33.92 billion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
3% (2004 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $3,000 (2004 est.)
Venezuela:
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$145.2 billion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
16.8% (2004 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $5,800 (2004 est.)
Los Malos Estados Unidos:
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$11.75 trillion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
4.4% (2004 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $40,100 (2004 est.)
Anyway, what these populists should be doing is focusing on improving their economies and stop whacking off to socialist pipe dreams which were discredited years ago. If they want to improve their economies a simple market-oriented military dictatorship would be the best bet (although I have to say Venezuela's growth is impressive), and anti-American rhetoric is perhaps not going to keep long-term investment money rolling in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And two of them democratically elected. You're not going to blame the Bolivian and Venzualian people, like people blame 'stupid Americans' for electing Bush? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| And two of them democratically elected. You're not going to blame the Bolivian and Venzualian people, like people blame 'stupid Americans' for electing Bush? |
How cute. I take it you have a soft spot for these caballeros? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| And two of them democratically elected. You're not going to blame the Bolivian and Venzualian people, like people blame 'stupid Americans' for electing Bush? |
How cute. I take it you have a soft spot for these caballeros? |
Of course he does. He loves anyone who, like himself, has the cajones to stand up against the fat, ignorant, imperialist American swine.
Seriously, though. I think most of it is rhetoric to get elected. When someone's chips are down, there is the necessity to blame someone and the richest country in the world is usually the most convenient scapegoat.
Actually, I can think of another country whose politicians also trash the U.S. to get elected...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| And two of them democratically elected. You're not going to blame the Bolivian and Venzualian people, like people blame 'stupid Americans' for electing Bush? |
Bolivia and Venezuela are extremely problematic countries, especially Bolivia. Bolivia is barely held together as a nation-state at present. The Indians are despised by the whites, but they vastly outnumber the whites. Her politics are in turmoil. There is a successionist movement afoot...push Bolivia and it will fall over.
In short, anything is possible there. Given these internal conditions, and given Washington's problematic Cold War relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, this election did not come as a great surprise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Yu_Bum_suk on Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
(although I have to say Venezuela's growth is impressive), |
Not so impressive when you factor in:
1. Its economic shrinkage in previous years (and therefore it is merely reaching what it used to be)
2. Totally dependant on oil. When oil prices go down (and they are bound to, just a matter of how much and when), so will Venezula's economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, since the Cold War is over, and none of these countries are in danger of becoming Soviet satellites, who really cares anymore? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: Now There Are Three... |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Castro, Chavez, and now Bolivia's president-elect, Evo Morales. Calling themselves "the Axis of Good," ignorant that the word "axis" doesn't exactly conjure up "good" imagery in the English-speaking world.
In any case, it will be interesting to follow developments in Latin America and the Caribbean now. These three are mostly united by their hypernationalist, socialist, fiery, anti-U.S. rhetoric. Morales is starting off by letting everyone know he is Washington's enemy. Brilliant diplomacy. That's what Allende did in Nov. 1970.
Most interesting in this situation will be the increased tensions with Chile that such a nationalist Bolivian president will provoke and, of course, how Bolivia's conservatives and elites will deal with his likely attacks on their interests.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/01/03/morales.chavez.reut/index.html
Looks like they might drive U.S.-Mexican relations much closer with their clumsy attacks, too. Remember this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/americas/4453738.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1121-04.htm
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?b423685842&r=MSNnews |
Why is it imporant whether or not they are pro-, anti- or ambiva-American? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Well, since the Cold War is over, and none of these countries are in danger of becoming Soviet satellites, who really cares anymore? |
As you remind us (for some reason), the Cold War has nothing to do with this.
But we have huge interests at stake in Latin America and the Caribbean, not just long-term loans, but direct investments. Canadian firms like Scotiabank, too, which didn't make any friends in Chile, by the way, when it bought several banks and fired many executives who couldn't read English-language memoranda or speak in English at weekly meetings. (I don't know if I spelled the bank's name correctly, but I was living there when the firings occurred, and I earned a lot of money translating several operating contracts from Spanish to English because most of the Canadian execs who took over knew no Spanish.)
Stability, therefore, is in everyone's interest.
This kind of thing tends to disrupt stability and also frightens investors...and pay attn to the McDonald's that is burning in the first link. A Molotov cocktail did that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/newsid_2245000/2245414.stm
http://bousculade.online.fr/img/edito/usa_bush2.jpg
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/valparaiso/051104_0034.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, well.
This is an old hangup, and one not likely to disappear here.
In the 1920s, Mexico went socialist, and nationalized some US properties. In the 30s the two countries were able to settle their differences and negotiate a cash settlement for the expropriated properties. Even if Chile and Venezuela do the same thing (which I doubt will happen), they can come to a cash settlement as well.
As a Canadian, I don't really care if a few banks get burned on overseas investments. Capitalism involves risk, price of doing business.
It's a bit like reefer madness. The problem is exaggerated.
And even if they go pink, who cares. Live and let live, the Cold War is over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| In the 1920s, Mexico went socialist, and nationalized some US properties. In the 30s the two countries were able to settle their differences and negotiate a cash settlement for the expropriated properties. |
Well, I assume you refer to President Lazaro Cardenas's nationalist-driven expropriation of U.S. and British [you're still very U.S.-centric in your historical thinking] oil investments and facilities. Cardenas emerged from Mexico's 1910 Revolution as a strong figure. But after this, he was immortalized as a hero.
But, as Mexico's premier novelist and respected diplomat Carlos Fuentes and other Mexican writers like historian Ramon Eduardo Ruiz have shown, this revolution quickly became a middle class revolt against a dictatorial regime, and was not a socialist revolution. When the Indians and peasants started rising up and demanding land, for instance, they were put down by the new regime, which did not redistribute the land.
In any case, Cardenas did this very well. So did Costa Rica's "Pepe" Figueres, who skillfully opposed the United Fruit Company without opposing the U.S. govt in general.
Castro, Chavez, Morales, and other hyper-nationalist Latin American leaders would do well to learn from people like Cardenas and Figueres, but they never do.
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Even if Chile and Venezuela do the same thing (which I doubt will happen), they can come to a cash settlement as well.
As a Canadian, I don't really care if a few banks get burned on overseas investments. Capitalism involves risk, price of doing business. |
Allende not only nationalized U.S. corps. during his presidency, but he passed new tax laws by decree and applied them retroactively, telling the U.S. transnats that not only would they not be compensated for their billion dollars in lost investments, but in fact they owed money.
Castro did much the same in 1960, without the retroactive tax law, of course.
It isn't so peaceable as you seem to think, when these hypernationalist come to power, at least not with the U.S. transnats who are blamed for all of the country's ills...
Canada projects much less money and influence abroad and, therefore, is a much lower-profile target. Another reason to remember that our situations are, ultimately, entirely different in the world. Perhaps this helps explain why many Canadians fail to understand the U.S. perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Well, since the Cold War is over, and none of these countries are in danger of becoming Soviet satellites, who really cares anymore? |
In all fairness, this is a current events board. If you think an element of current events is irrelevent, you probably shouldn't respond?
But I am sub-purposely misunderstanding you (which is a convaluted description of a common phenonomen on these boards). Personally, I think its kind of funny. Statesmen exhibiting all the rhetorical abandon of an internet chatboard poster. The neo-cons were rightfully attacked for their flip and mocking statements and so was Chirac, but when these guys do it, who really cares anymore? Actually, I agree with you. Bolivia is a backwater and if it chooses to sink itself by electing a belligerent socialist, its more farce to me than tragedy.
I mean really, these guys don't even play in the same league as Chirac or the neo-cons or even Kim Jong Il. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Well, since the Cold War is over, and none of these countries are in danger of becoming Soviet satellites, who really cares anymore? |
In all fairness, this is a current events board... |
I was trying to find a way to deal with that, too.
Latin America is my area of expertise. I've studied the place. I lived in and travelled to several countries there, and hope to see more. I'm hoping to earn a doctorate in the region's history starting this fall. I am interested in its current events mostly because the region is intrinsically interesting to me for reasons I cannot explain any better than I could tell you why my favorite color is what it is. (I think J. Guru and also Jack the Cat feel the same about South Korea as I do about Latin America and the Caribbean -- sometimes it's an idiotic place but for one reason or another, I fell in love with the region several years ago.)
So, MOS threw me a curveball with his "so what?" attitude. And I think I wasted some space trying to answer him when the only answer is I wanted to share "look what's happening here" with this board.
Yeah, there is a practical relevance for U.S. policymakers and stockholders. And Bolivia is no backwater from Chilean, Peruvian, and Argentine perspectives: it sits on huge natural gas reserves and they are desperate to get their hands on them. In any case, I created this thread to share what looks like an interesting trend in Latin American affairs. No more no less. I wasn't prepared to justify its existence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
