Ecuador declares state of emergency

[swgprop]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

If they had any sort of back bone they would actually try to accomplish something meaningful. Like coming together to end the war on drugs (marijuana, cocaine and heroin specifically), a war for which proves most costly to us in terms of money spent, countless lives lost, millions made by druglords and gangs and what has become the #1 obstacle for justice reform in Latin America. This cause would actually require coming together because of US backlash but they wont do it off course. . . IF any of you cared for real change in Latin America supporting and end to the drug war in America would do more good than anything, as the current policy on drugs is the most harmful US policy for Latin America.

Couldn't agree more. And a monumental waste of money and resources within the US.

[tsetsefly]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

tsetsefly,

I was told that the massacre had taken taken about 4 years earlier. That would be in 1992, during the Guatemalan civil war period. I was actually there in late November, early December 1996, around time that the peace accord was signed in Guatemala.

I had another intesting experience in Guatemala. One day, we took the bus from Antigua into Guatemala City, to attend the premiere of a movie about the presidency of Arbenz-Guzman, his attempts to re-distribute uncultivated land to the peasants, and finally the coup that overthrew him. It was a European documentary. The audience was almost entirely Guatemalan and seemed to be middle and working class.

To be honest, I was politically naive in those days and I also had never heard of Arbenz-Guzman. Several things amazed me. 1. A former CIA operative was interviewed during the film and he openly admitted participating in the overthrow of Arbenz-Guzman. I was shocked - holy sh*t, I thought to myself, the CIA really does do that stuff and this guy is openly admitting it. 2. At the end of the movie the audience stood up and starting clapping. It seemed to be that they were glad that the truth was finally getting out. I was told that this movie had not been allowed to play in Guatemala before the peace accord period.

Guatemala is a beautiful country. I've been there twice, have friends that live there, and also a very close Guatemalan friend who lives here in Houston. I only wish the best for Guatemala and all its people. And, of course, now it is a much better place than during the civil war. From what I've saw and have heard, biggest problem is now crime, same types of violent crimes we have in the U.S.

My Houston Guatemalan friend has an interesting story. She was born and raised there, to a French father and American mother who chose to settle in Guatemala (he had spent some there as a young man). Attended school and first marriage was there. in 1990 in Guatemala City, she and her 2 kids were caught in the middle of a shoot-out. Because she has dual citizenship, she said that's it, I'm moving to the U.S.

Another Guatemalan friend, who lives there, told me that during the civil war, around 1989, there was a shoot-out at the university she attended. This shoot-out was associated with politics, not crime.

I'm really glad that the political situation is better in Guatemala now. I'd go back there in a minute, in fact, some day I probably will.

Ah okay, I see, yeah 92 was also election year, a prominent candidate(he was more right center but I am not quite, certianly wasn't on either extreme) was also killed that year (I am sure it was not the only politically motivated killing). The Arbenz situation is seen more as incredible disrespect from the US than a great "tragedy". From people I have talked to his government certainly was not seen as good but he didn't seem to be too to the left. And by the time he was killed many wanted him out. Bad luck for him in the sense that at that time the US was looking to get rid of any slightly pro soviet governments or anyone who might of seemed to be leaning that way.

I will say this though about land distribution, its overrated, if im not correct Peru and Bolivia did it years ago with very little benefit to those it intended to help. I am pretty sure others in Latin America have done it but I cant remember the facts on that right now.

As for Guatemala, yeah crime is a terrible problem. As I said the problem is the amount of money the drugloards are making makes it impossible to fight it. For one they can buy off people in government or the justice system and if not they will just kill who they want to kill. This impunity is taken advantage of by gangs (extortion, kidnappings etc. are rampant), gangs are also used by the drugloards as enforcers. Until drugs are legalized, we have not shot. Unfortunately I think more people realize that here than they do in Guatemala, but that will start to changes as you see more and more leglization talk throughout Latin America and its starting to spread into Guatemala.

[tsetsefly]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

Couldn't agree more. And a monumental waste of money and resources within the US.

Hopefully California legalizes pot this year, that would be a start...

[oddlots]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

FIrst off, I was born and raised in Guatemala, living 18 years there, and i sitll regularly vist. Anyway... What economic record of evo are you talking about? The same one that made 3 different state's want to become autonomous? Or his nationalization of the natural gas that has yielded nothing for bolivia? Last I checked Bolivia is still the poorest and most underdeveloped country in Latin America...

Er the economic record praised here:

"Despite the global crisis, Bolivia boasted one of the highest growth rates in Latin America in 2009, with GDP growth of three percent, according to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and 2.8 percent according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which praised the Morales administration's balanced management of public finances. "

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49925

Bolivia somehow has not benefited from the nationalisation of the gas industy?

bol_oil_revs_0208.jpg

So those states wanted to secede because of the poor economic performance? Really? I thought it was mostly about opposition to the land reform. I assume they have your sympathy. Does that extend to the Media Luna groups sabotage of pipelines, political intimidiation of the indigenous community including the massacre at Pando, or their part in attempting to assasinate Morales?

Bolivia's poverty is a "pre-existing condition,
"so I trust you don't blame Morales for that.

What coup? You mean the rosenberg case a couple of years ago? When did the coup become secure? There has been a wave of murders for about 6 years now. I have no idea what your talking about with gay rights and unions?

The coup I'm talking about is the removal of Zelaya in Honduras (sorry for the confusion. It was one in the morning FWIW. But have at me if you like.)

The increase in violence against the coup opponents even after the elections has been reported in many places. Here's a list:

http://www.sydney-says-no2honduras-c...-this-coup.php

On the LGTB activist:

http://direland.typepad.com/direland...assinated.html

3. Ecuador is still in economic mess with a government that has doubled public spending, even with defaulting on the debt his still managed to mess up things more.

The defaults as far as I recall have been strategic. Certainly in the case I followed about 2 years ago the country had the ability to pay but refused on the basis that the bonds were issued by corrupt governments and so were illegitimate. In other words, the default was not evidence of poor economic performance. As for the economy since then I haven't been paying much attention but I do know that he has been arguing vigorously for responsible resource development and talking up Canada's experience as a model. Seems sensible enough to me, but he is facing big opposition from his ex-environment minister Accosta and CONAIE (the umbrella indigenous organisation), i.e., the radical left. The right of course despises him for his rhetoric as you point out. I think by definition that makes him a centrist no? Anyway, you really can't claim he's not vigorously trying to create jobs.

Regarding doubling public spending, that seems pretty mild given the presumably low base and the fact that we're in a recession worldwide. That would need some context to mean anything.

4. WHen your own police held you captive, I wouldn't call that an "elite"revolt

Well I dunno. It became obvious that Gutierrez was behind this when he tipped his hand as described here:

"Today, speaking from Brasilia, Guitierrez called for the dissolution of parliament and a new election "to avoid bloodshed". And thus his tips his hand. Also, his lawyer was spotted as one of the crowd of officers that stormed and cut off the transmission of Ecuador's State TV channel tonight., which is what you call a dead giveaway in this game. Here below is the translated money quote from Guitierrez, meanwhile Correa has just said he'll either leave the hospital where's he's holed up "as President or as a cadaver". He has a good turn of phrase, gotta be said.

"(New elections) could be the constitutional solution to avoid the possibility of bloodshed in the country", said Guitierrez."

There's also some suggestion that the Ecuadorian police have become something of an instrument of American covert influence as described here:

http://machetera.wordpress.com/2010/...eeding-ground/

FINALLY (To ALL): Unfortunately most of the "anti-US" leaders in Latin America only take up useless causes (ie. backing iran, saying bush is the devil) but there is very little substance to what they do. If they had any sort of back bone they would actually try to accomplish something meaningful. Like coming together to end the war on drugs (marijuana, cocaine and heroin specifically), a war for which proves most costly to us in terms of money spent, countless lives lost, millions made by druglords and gangs and what has become the #1 obstacle for justice reform in Latin America.

I don't see a lot of useless causes really. Take Bolivia as an example:

- Evo's institution of an old age pension
- Evo's nationalisation of the natural gas industry
- Evo's push toward upgrading the housing stock in the country with a guaranteed right to a modest home (anyone spent any time in a shanty town?)
- Evo's land reform (with compensation!)
- Evo's expert management of the countries reserve base and inflation

I don't know what to say about the Drug War II suggestion except to laugh. We can add another useless cause to the above list:

bol_drug2009sep2.gif

But to really get the joke you need to realise that Bolivia anti narco results have improved since they threw out the DEA.

Yeah, what we need is a new war on drugs.

Iran-Contra ring a bell?

[oddlots]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

Some good colour on the coup attempt (?) / Police Protest gone wrong (?):

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/...f_emergency_as

The line that it was a reaction against austerity measures still gets repeated - here for example - yet the rise in salaries under Correa have been stunning appareantly $150 a month to $650? It just doesn't add up.

Squinting a little bit, i'd say it was a coup attempt pure and simple.

[oddlots]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

Not to gild a lily but this piece caught my eye:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...lee-protesters

Iceland's politicians forced to flee from angry protesters



Protesters took to the streets of Reykjavik today, forcing MPs to run away from the people they represent as renewed anger about the impact of the financial crisis erupted in Iceland.
The violent protest came amid growing fury at austerity measures being imposed across Europe. Disruption in more than a dozen countries this week included a national strike in Spain and a cement truck driven into the Irish parliament's gates.
Witnesses said up to 2,000 people caused chaos at the state opening of the Icelandic parliament, with politicians forced to race to the back door of the building because of the large number of protesters at the front. Eggs were said to have hit the prime minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, other MPs and the wife of the Icelandic president, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson.


Contrast Correa going to the seized police barracks surrounded by armed and apparently angry policemen and daring them to kill him. Whatever you want to say about him the man's got balls.

[tsetsefly]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

Er the economic record praised here:

"Despite the global crisis, Bolivia boasted one of the highest growth rates in Latin America in 2009, with GDP growth of three percent, according to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and 2.8 percent according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which praised the Morales administration's balanced management of public finances. "

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49925

Bolivia somehow has not benefited from the nationalisation of the gas industy?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3614[/ATTACH]

So those states wanted to secede because of the poor economic performance? Really? I thought it was mostly about opposition to the land reform. I assume they have your sympathy. Does that extend to the Media Luna groups sabotage of pipelines, political intimidiation of the indigenous community including the massacre at Pando, or their part in attempting to assasinate Morales?

Bolivia's poverty is a "pre-existing condition,
"so I trust you don't blame Morales for that.

3%, for an undeveloped country that is nothing...

The chart you put says nothing. Only that public sector revenue from hydrocarbons has gone up. since they nationalized it, obviously way more money will go into the government seeing as they are the owner now. I'd like to see how much more productive it is, if its more. It will be the first time in recorded history I think, that government has been more efficient than the private sector. do you really want such corrupt countries and government to that type of access to that money?

The defaults as far as I recall have been strategic. Certainly in the case I followed about 2 years ago the country had the ability to pay but refused on the basis that the bonds were issued by corrupt governments and so were illegitimate. In other words, the default was not evidence of poor economic performance. As for the economy since then I haven't been paying much attention but I do know that he has been arguing vigorously for responsible resource development and talking up Canada's experience as a model. Seems sensible enough to me, but he is facing big opposition from his ex-environment minister Accosta and CONAIE (the umbrella indigenous organisation), i.e., the radical left. The right of course despises him for his rhetoric as you point out. I think by definition that makes him a centrist no? Anyway, you really can't claim he's not vigorously trying to create jobs.

Regarding doubling public spending, that seems pretty mild given the presumably low base and the fact that we're in a recession worldwide. That would need some context to mean anything

Talking is one thing doing is another. As for the public spending for someone who assumes he knows so much about latin america, I am surprised you presume a low spending. Seeing as history has indicated, if there is anything latin american governments do is spend way more than they have. And yes it definately means something as once again Ecuador is in fiscal trouble even with the default.

Well I dunno. It became obvious that Gutierrez was behind this when he tipped his hand as described here:

"Today, speaking from Brasilia, Guitierrez called for the dissolution of parliament and a new election "to avoid bloodshed". And thus his tips his hand. Also, his lawyer was spotted as one of the crowd of officers that stormed and cut off the transmission of Ecuador's State TV channel tonight., which is what you call a dead giveaway in this game. Here below is the translated money quote from Guitierrez, meanwhile Correa has just said he'll either leave the hospital where's he's holed up "as President or as a cadaver". He has a good turn of phrase, gotta be said.

"(New elections) could be the constitutional solution to avoid the possibility of bloodshed in the country", said Guitierrez."

There's also some suggestion that the Ecuadorian police have become something of an instrument of American covert influence as described here:

http://machetera.wordpress.com/2010/...eeding-ground/

wordpress really?

I don't see a lot of useless causes really. Take Bolivia as an example:

1. Evo's institution of an old age pension
2. Evo's nationalisation of the natural gas industry
3. Evo's push toward upgrading the housing stock in the country with a guaranteed right to a modest home (anyone spent any time in a shanty town?)
4. Evo's land reform (with compensation!)
5. Evo's expert management of the countries reserve base and inflation

Okay, well comprehension is not your forte, i dont know how these would be described as anti-american stances except maybe 2??

1. Im sure that will yield great results. People will be fully paid what they contribute and the fund wont be raided by politicians.
2. Nationalisation has worked so well for other countries and industries! I mean those built on it are/where an astounding success (north korea, cuba, USSR etc.)
3. Improving the housing stock? sorry dont understand what your trying to do, do you mean he wants everyone to own a home (that rings a bell for some reason)
4. We shall see, and if im not mistaken bolivia had previously had land reforms.
5. That is almost laughable, his expert management of reserve base and inflation? Quite a multitasker that Evo.

I don't know what to say about the Drug War II suggestion except to laugh. We can add another useless cause to the above list:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3615[/ATTACH]

But to really get the joke you need to realise that Bolivia anti narco results have improved since they threw out the DEA.

Yeah, what we need is a new war on drugs.

Iran-Contra ring a bell?

Okay, again with the reading comprehension? were in my statement did you see I am for the war on drugs. I think I clearly stated its the worst policy the US has towards Latin America and it should be ended. And that latin american countries should come together to end the war on drugs, because that move would obviously create blowback from the US.

That they confiscate more(if true) only mean its way more abusive than the DEA, i guess that could be considered an accomplishment!.

[oddlots]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

3%, for an undeveloped country that is nothing...

Well you are hard to please. The figures were for 2009. But my point was that the - relative or whatever - economic successes by left-wing governments don't register . Here's an exception that proves the rule:

Bolivia's progressive economic model spurs growth

Bolivia saw some of the region's strongest economic growth last year thanks to its socially progressive economic model that bucks traditional capitalism and the neoliberal policies that have ruled the nation for decades, Bolivian Minister of Economy and Public Finance Luis Alberto Arce said Tuesday.
Speaking at the inauguration of the Americas Conference in Coral Gables, Arce said the nation's decision to nationalize oil production, electricity and other strategic sectors have helped insulate it from the global economic crisis.
The Andean nation saw GDP growth of 3.4 percent last year and had unemployment near 7.9 percent -- both strong results in South America.
``There's not one recipe for all countries and we decided to rethink our own economic model,'' Arce said. ``This is [policy] made by Bolivians for Bolivia.''
Since first taking office in 2006, Bolivian President Evo Morales has nationalized key industries and said he favors a system that shifts economic power away from the private sector to indigenous groups and social cooperatives.
Now, the country is running an economic surplus, is seeing the return of foreign direct investment and has helped reduce poverty...

It's from the Miami Herald of all places. If even the publisher of this paper can see their way to recognizing positive developments why can't you?

The chart you put says nothing. Only that public sector revenue from hydrocarbons has gone up. since they nationalized it, obviously way more money will go into the government seeing as they are the owner now. I'd like to see how much more productive it is, if its more. It will be the first time in recorded history I think, that government has been more efficient than the private sector. do you really want such corrupt countries and government to that type of access to that money?

Well the point of the chart is to demonstrate the rise in revenues that is going to the state as you say and the missing premise is that this will help fund education, housing and health: i.e., reduce poverty, a premise that is supported by the Herald article.

Regarding whether it's preferable to the private sector running it, I would say it depends on what kind of private sector. If the private sector is allowed to develop national resources with little to no benefit to a country's citizens, the real "owners" of the resources obviously, especially when the same citizens carry all the risks of environmental damage etc., I would say yes it's preferable. Peru, from what I've read, is an example of a place that has had robust private sector development of national resources and yet the needle on poverty has hardly budged for decades.

If the private sector participates in a way that results in higher royalties as something more akin to the operator of extractive industries - not the owners - then I would prefer this. The ideal I think is something like Norway which has a mixed approach with the government being a majority owner of Statoil and the public benefiting from high royalty rates in the form of Norway's massive Sovereign Wealth fund. Is this what Evo is doing? No, but I still think it's highly preferable to a situation where national resources are simply plundered by private interests.

As the above should make clear it's not simply a question of productivity but of productivity for whom. There's no way of testing the wildly sweeping generalisation that "it will be the first time in recorded history I think, that government has been more efficient than the private sector." Regardless, if the efficiency just improves the rapidity with which the benefits are off-shored or skimmed off by a wealthy minority you haven't achieved much in my eyes.

This meme that government can do no right in the economy - which I take you are invoking here - is belied by countless examples in various countries. The above mentioned Statoil would be a good example or perhaps Areva in France. I am not claiming that these should be the model, I am simply saying that the fact they exist is proof that the sweeping generalisation is not supportable. In a more general way the same meme is also invoked whenever the notion that America should have an industrial policy arises. Again there are countless examples of mixed-model economies such as the Asian tigers that suggest that the meme is simply ridiculously narrow-minded and parochial. The world is simply far more complex and interesting than this.

So why does the meme persist when it explains nothing? Really I think it just acts to salve the conscience of people who somehow realise they're getting away with something. In the case of economies dominated by extractive industries - as opposed, for instance to the FIRE sector - "the getting away with" something takes the form of plundering the commons for private gain. I think it also clearly works as a way to narrow the political options down to a select, "elite" endorsed menu.

For god's sake EJ is proposing private-public partnerships and really an industrial policy. Would you reject this on the basis that government can never have a beneficial impact?

Talking is one thing doing is another. As for the public spending for someone who assumes he knows so much about latin america, I am surprised you presume a low spending. Seeing as history has indicated, if there is anything latin american governments do is spend way more than they have. And yes it definitely means something as once again Ecuador is in fiscal trouble even with the default.

Regarding your first point, I was simply responding to your suggestion here that the issue was jobs and that somehow he was not addressing it.

Regarding the snark, apart from repeatedly saying you are a Guatemalan by birth have you actually cited any outside analysis to support your assertions? But somehow I assume that I know so much?

With regard to the level of spending pre-Correa I was speculating, as I admitted. But my point was simply that your bald assertion that his doubling of public spending somehow damned him in itself needs more context to be true, especially given the world-wide co-ordinated stimulus we've just lived through. Do you disagree? If so an argument please.

As in the question of productivity for whom the real question is spending on what. Huge bond deals backing infrastructure projects that line the pockets of politically connected private interests is bad spending. Much of the spending that caused the defaults and crises in Latin America in the past fall into this category from what I've read. A lot of it was just bad fiscal management which can apply anywhere. (Look at the per capita debt of Ontario as an example.) But that doesn't mean all increases in spending are bad which is what is implied in your criticisism of Correa. To hammer that argument home you need more detail (please.)

Speaking of good fiscal management take a look at this:

bol_M2_reserves.gif

That's an enviable chart don't you think? As is this:

bol_inflation_sep101.gif

Regarding the dis of Machetera, the wordpress site, let's recall that I was responding to your suggestion that the fact that the uprising originated in the police somehow suggested that it was free from elite influence.

My response was to point to this quote:

“I applied and was accepted at the Escuela superior de policía de Quito, and studied there from September 1992 to August 1995.” Guy Philippe, speaking to Peter Hallward about his background prior to leading an armed insurgency that contributed to the removal of Haiti’s elected president, Jean Bertrand Aristide.
Are you saying that Guy Philippe is lying or misquoted? If not who cares where it's quoted. It's now quoted at itulip. Happy now?

The article goes on to cite Philip Agee. Any problem with this sources?:

"The uprising by putschist elements of the Ecuadoran police against President Rafael Correa confirms an alarming report about the infiltration of the Ecuadoran police by U.S. intelligence services released in 2008, which indicated that many members of the police corps developed a “dependence” on the U.S. Embassy.


The report made clear that the Ecuadoran Police “maintain informal economic dependence on the United States, to pay for informants, training, equipment and operations.”


The systematic use of corruption techniques by the CIA in order to acquire the “goodwill” of police officers was described and denounced on many occasions by the ex-CIA agent Philip Agee who, before leaving the agency’s ranks, was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Quito."

Okay, well comprehension is not your forte, i dont know how these would be described as anti-american stances except maybe 2??

1. Im sure that will yield great results. People will be fully paid what they contribute and the fund wont be raided by politicians.
2. Nationalisation has worked so well for other countries and industries! I mean those built on it are/where an astounding success (north korea, cuba, USSR etc.)
3. Improving the housing stock? sorry dont understand what your trying to do, do you mean he wants everyone to own a home (that rings a bell for some reason)
4. We shall see, and if im not mistaken bolivia had previously had land reforms.
5. That is almost laughable, his expert management of reserve base and inflation? Quite a multitasker that Evo.

First on the specifics above:


1. Why oh why do you hate grannies? Is there really not a single country capable of managing its pension system such that the whole project of old age pensions is pointless. Nowhere? The grannies must starve. There are no alternatives.
2. Yep well it would seem that the only choice is Stalinism or whatever you favour. (What is that by the way?) That seems a little narrow no? I suggest that you try out whatever platform you have in Norway first. Should be a winner.
3. I think its unlikely that Evo's housing policies are going to create a real estate bubble since, you know, the banks hate him. That and the fact he's basically giving them away to the poor. Where does he get the money for this? Why natural gas revenue (see 2 above)!
4. I'm glad "reform" came up at the end here. You said you think Latin America needed reform in some way though you haven't really clarified what reform that is. At the same time you decry anyone trying to change Latin American politics as a "buffoon." So is your position that you are pro-reform until someone actually tries to do it?
5. You appear to suggest I think Evo is like Santa Clause and all those toys: how does he get it all done?! Ha. That's funny. (I've included a video below that you might find funny by the way.) I was sloppily using Evo as shorthand for the Morales Administration. My bad. I should be more precise.



I'm not sure where I proposed that my rough list of Evo's accomplishments were anti-American in character, but let's assume I did. My argument would be...


As far as I can make out American policy in Latin America is aimed at keeping the region messed up politically, kind of like Pakistan's starategy with Afghanistan. Anything that has the potential to lead to more political or economic stability or independance might be viewed as against American interests. Thus we get American involvement in coups on a regular basis over the last century and opposition to any political or economic progress that does not accept that American interests come first. (I assume you would agree with this policy since you seem to think you have some right of access to Bolivian gas. Or perhaps you've just got a paternal concern for your fellow latin american's ability to decide for themselves?)

So in this way, and to the extent that Evo is doing his job as an extremely popular, democratically elected leader and doing it well he is, in fact, acting in an anti-American fashion in America's eyes at least.

Incidentally this could explain the constant drum beat of anti-Chavez coverage that dominates any discussion of the region in the west. I know people who have absolutely no knowledge of Latin American economics or politics and have little interest in these subjects in any part of the globe but are adamant in their conviction that Chavez is a disaster. Doesn't that seem kind of suspect to you?

Finally you are completely right that I misread your comments on the drug war. Mea culpa. Point taken.

That said, you might ask yourself why the drug war, if it is a massive waste of money, continues perhaps with reference to my musings about overall American policy objectives. Just a thought

From your side I'm still waiting for any opinion on Accosta or Gutierrez as opponents of Correa. Again any better? I'm also curious about your silence regarding the extra-judicial killings that have taken place in Honduras post-election or in the separatist provinces of the Media Luna. Since you appear to look favorably upon the anti-Evo opposition here are you not troubled by the treasonous acts of those behind the assassination plot for instance and their ties to the Media Luna leadership. Does that not prick your conscience as a believer in democracy? Or perhaps I'm presuming too much.

On that note you might find the following amusing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEle_DLDg9Y

For the record I'm not calling you a.... well you know (don't want to ruin your enjoyment of the above.) I'm just suggesting you might want to look at who you are making political friends with.

[flintlock]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

Hopefully California legalizes pot this year, that would be a start...

That will be a great testing ground for theories on drug legalization. By some account the streets will be full of drugged out zombies.

[oddlots]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

Here's Inca Kola News' latest on the coup attempt with some nauseating audio:

http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/201...kill-kill.html

"Your humble scribe ran this recording on his twatter last night and now it's time to note it here at IKN as well. It seems the northern milquetoast pardoners of explicit violence against Rafael Correa, all the hangwringing academics that try their best to follow S.Am affairs from up North and just end up looking teh stoopid every time, will finally have to admit that Ecuador's September 30th happenings that centred around the country's police force in Quito weren't just a call for social justice, or a protest gone wrong. As we pointed out on the blog last week it was clearly a coup attempt.


M'lud, we offer evidence. This link is to a recording of police radios that day and captures the ill and violent intent of the coupmongers all too clearly. In Spanish of course, you can either take my word for things or get your own translation done but amongst the choice phrases used by the police who fired tear gas canisters at their President and managed to shoot dead one of the military personnal that was shielding Correa as he left the hospital under fire in the late evening are the following:

"Kill Correa"
"The man doesn't get out today"
"Kill them, fill them with lead, shoot them"
"Kill Correa and finish with this protest"
"Shoot the son of a bitch Correa"
"The man doesn't leave unless a stiff"
"Cut the power"
"Don't let the bastard leave"

There are dozens more on the 27 minute recording, help youself to a few facts and find out for yourself.


It was an attempted coup. Sez me, sez Correa, sez all the Presidents of the region who signed the Unasur declaration from the right (Santos, Piñera) to the centre (García) to the left (Morales, Chávez) and all points in between. It's your choice to believe the bullshit CNN would like you to believe but me I like the truth, not gringospin lies."

[oddlots]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

Here's the Guardian's Weisbrot on the situation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...a-ecuador-coup

Emphasis mine:

"In June of last year, when the Honduran military overthrew the social-democratic government of Manuel Zelaya, President Rafael Correa of Ecuador took it personally. "We have intelligence reports that say that after Zelaya, I'm next," said Correa.

"The coup might have had a chance if Correa were not so popular. Despite his enemies in high places, the president's approval rating was 67% in Quito a couple of weeks ago. His government has doubled spending on healthcare (pdf), significantly increased other social spending, and successfully defaulted on $3.2bn of foreign debt that was found to be illegitimately contracted. Ecuador's economy managed to squeak through 2009 without a recession, and is projected to grow about 2.5% this year. Correa, an economist, has had to use heterodox and creative methods to keep the economy growing in the face of external shocks because the country does not have its own currency.

Correa had warned that he might try to temporarily dissolve the congress in order to break an impasse in the legislature, something that he has the right to request under the new constitution – though it would have to be approved by the constitutional court. This probably gave the pro-coup forces something they saw as a pretext. It is reminiscent of the coup in Honduras, when Zelaya's support for a non-binding referendum on a constituent assembly was falsely reported by the media – both Honduran and international – as a bid to extend his presidency.

Media manipulation has a big role in Ecuador, too, with most of the media controlled by rightwing interests opposed to the government. This has helped build a base of people – analogous to those who get all of their information from Fox News in the United States, but proportionately larger – who believe that Correa is a dictator trying to turn his country into a clone of communist Cuba.

[oddlots]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

Oh and here's more on Gutierrez's sudden press presence from Granma, a real life commie rag for sure:

http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2010/10...a/artic01.html

You don't need this obviously but here's the translation (empahasis on quotes and comments mine):

An odd couple appeared on NTN24, the right-wing Colombian channel affiliated with FOX News. A few hours into the attempted coup d'état in Quito, the CIA agent Carlos Alberto Montaner, a terrorist fugitive from Cuban justice, met with one of the leaders of the failed Ecuador coup plot, former military officer Lucio Gutiérrez, to attack president Rafael Correa.
Montaner opened the show by denigrating the president with fallacies, in his typical fashion: "If they killed [President Correa] there would have been a bloodbath all over the country. Why did they do it? These things don't just happen. This isn't how presidents comport themselves--taking off his tie and defying the police," Montaner said. [It's as if a woman appeared without a corset. Shocking. Message: I assure you my boss's hair will be well oiled and his Armani pressed as he departs the country under a cloud the next time. No indignities for our class.]

Calling the president a "choleric man" and "a person who has to work hard to control himself", Montaner--known for precisely those characteristics himself--accused Correa of having met with the rebellious police officers to provoke them. "He didn't go to seek consensus, nor to converse, he went to destroy them," Montaner accused. [Which of course you do unarmed.]

Arrogant as always, Montaner ironically remarked that Correa wanted to give "the image of a president full of testosterone, who is capable of controlling the situation...and this among some people who are very primitive, who have little education. He wanted to awaken their sympathies." [There's no upside to respecting your boss's - hopefully - future constituents it would seem.]

With an uncharacteristic respect for the ousted president Lucio Gutiérrez, calling him "Mr. Ex-President", Montaner asked him with a fine incredulity: "Did you really have the intention of toppling Rafael Correa?" [Lickspittle in any language.]

And the putschist conspirator answered him with great solemnity: "Greetings to all the democratic world. [yuck. that doesn't inspire confidence.] I deny the assertions of President Correa that there was an attempted coup d'état in Ecuador. There was nothing more than a protest by police, a protest by police troops."

Gutiérrez continued with allegations of "the worst economic management by President Correa", and "for this reason, he tried to reduce the police salaries by way of a law." [Please see notes on Correa's economic performance via the Guardian article above and earlier notes about police pay increases under Correa. But regardless, is this guy now a labour leader. WTF?]

"We have a president who doesn't tolerate opposition," assured Gutiérrez to his congenial interviewer, then preoccupied himself with the luck of the conspirators: "What will happen to the opposition? And who will speak in the name of the opposition? They're already being persecuted..." [Not a word of concern for the victims of the crime wave that was the result of the Police withdrawing any services during the protest? Try that in a western country and see how much sympathy the population has for a "police protest." The persecution looks like future prosecution for treason to me. I'm wondering how tsetsefly enjoys strikes by essential service workers. Care to comment fly?]

And Montaner added: "That's the problem, there are no international mechanisms in defence of the opposition..." [Perhaps he'd like to take this rare opportunity to bolster support for human rights organisations... Nope. Fail. I wonder why?]

A marginal figure in media spectacles, Montaner is known for his fanatical support for the most extremist elements of the Cuban-American mafia. Last year, following the coup d'état against the Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, on June 28, he became a furibund apologist for the dictator Roberto Micheletti, along with US congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and another Cuban-American terrorist and CIA collaborator, Armando Valladares.

Montaner turned up repeatedly in Tegucigalpa to "defend human rights", applauding when the fascist Honduran coup-régime turned its police against demonstrations of the Resistance.

A graduate of the Inter-American Defense College (IADC) in Washington, Lucio Gutiérrez participated, on January 21, 2000, in the coup d'état against Ecuador's constitutional president, Jamil Mahuad. In 2002, he got himself elected president. A popular protest on April 20, 2005, expelled him from power amid a heavy crackdown that caused the death of a Chilean news photographer, Julio García, and left hundreds wounded.

NTN24 is a right-wing news channel, property of the Colombian chain RCN Television, transmitting from studios in Bogotá, Colombia.

Thoughts fly?

[tsetsefly]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

It's from the Miami Herald of all places. If even the publisher of this paper can see their way to recognizing positive developments why can't you?

Well the point of the chart is to demonstrate the rise in revenues that is going to the state as you say and the missing premise is that this will help fund education, housing and health: i.e., reduce poverty, a premise that is supported by the Herald article.

Ive seen those growth rates many times before in Latin American countries, how about we wait some more years before calling them the southamerican tiger? haha...
Actually it seems you are missing the premise, because in government especially in LAtin America, corruption reigns. If you think those funds will be properly used I have some cloud insurance I would like to sell you.

1. Regarding whether it's preferable to the private sector running it, I would say it depends on what kind of private sector. If the private sector is allowed to develop national resources with little to no benefit to a country's citizens, the real "owners" of the resources obviously, especially when the same citizens carry all the risks of environmental damage etc., I would say yes it's preferable. Peru, from what I've read, is an example of a place that has had robust private sector development of national resources and yet the needle on poverty has hardly budged for decades.

2. If the private sector participates in a way that results in higher royalties as something more akin to the operator of extractive industries - not the owners - then I would prefer this. The ideal I think is something like Norway which has a mixed approach with the government being a majority owner of Statoil and the public benefiting from high royalty rates in the form of Norway's massive Sovereign Wealth fund. Is this what Evo is doing? No, but I still think it's highly preferable to a situation where national resources are simply plundered by private interests.

3.As the above should make clear it's not simply a question of productivity but of productivity for whom. There's no way of testing the wildly sweeping generalisation that "it will be the first time in recorded history I think, that government has been more efficient than the private sector." Regardless, if the efficiency just improves the rapidity with which the benefits are off-shored or skimmed off by a wealthy minority you haven't achieved much in my eyes.

4. This meme that government can do no right in the economy - which I take you are invoking here - is belied by countless examples in various countries. The above mentioned Statoil would be a good example or perhaps Areva in France. I am not claiming that these should be the model, I am simply saying that the fact they exist is proof that the sweeping generalisation is not supportable. In a more general way the same meme is also invoked whenever the notion that America should have an industrial policy arises. Again there are countless examples of mixed-model economies such as the Asian tigers that suggest that the meme is simply ridiculously narrow-minded and parochial. The world is simply far more complex and interesting than this.

5. So why does the meme persist when it explains nothing? Really I think it just acts to salve the conscience of people who somehow realise they're getting away with something. In the case of economies dominated by extractive industries - as opposed, for instance to the FIRE sector - "the getting away with" something takes the form of plundering the commons for private gain. I think it also clearly works as a way to narrow the political options down to a select, "elite" endorsed menu.

For god's sake EJ is proposing private-public partnerships and really an industrial policy. Would you reject this on the basis that government can never have a beneficial impact?

1. If a person finds gold or oil in his land, is that "everyone's" oil or his oil? More to the point. If he spends the money to extract that gold or oil, has he not the right to profit from it? IN Latin America for decades if not entire centuries you had state run natural resources companies (mexico's oil company, for one) and what benefit did it bring?

2. Norway's situation is a bit different because the oil is offshore and property laws their get more tricky so its not the same situation as illegally expropriating land from companies or private individuals.

3. lol, the wealth skimmed of by the wealthy minority!, love that kind of rhetoric. Anyway, yes efficiency has alot to do with it. If you fail to realize that then I dont know what I can say.

4. I dont know what you refer to as meme. But I would say badly run state enterprises are more the rule than the exception. That is not to say that all privatization has been good. Its been done very badly in many places as well.

5. Again dont know what you mean by meme. And though I think EJ is spot on with most of his stuff I disagree with some of his solutions.

Regarding the snark, apart from repeatedly saying you are a Guatemalan by birth have you actually cited any outside analysis to support your assertions? But somehow I assume that I know so much?

With regard to the level of spending pre-Correa I was speculating, as I admitted. But my point was simply that your bald assertion that his doubling of public spending somehow damned him in itself needs more context to be true, especially given the world-wide co-ordinated stimulus we've just lived through. Do you disagree? If so an argument please.

I only said I was Guatemalan when you assumed I was from "El Norte". And not only by birth, lived there for most of my life. Never did I assert it gave me authority on the subject.
Here you go: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2894 . As for not providing outside analysis. First most of what I talked about where, imo common knowledge (specifically the Evo and Correa rhetoric) I never pulled any statistics out of thin air. Second, I really dont wish to waist my time putting hundred's of links with somehow who is disingenuous when it comes to asserting facts about wanna be dictators (like chavez) ive had many discussions like that and know they lead nowhere, like this one.

As in the question of productivity for whom the real question is spending on what. Huge bond deals backing infrastructure projects that line the pockets of politically connected private interests is bad spending. Much of the spending that caused the defaults and crises in Latin America in the past fall into this category from what I've read. A lot of it was just bad fiscal management which can apply anywhere. (Look at the per capita debt of Ontario as an example.) But that doesn't mean all increases in spending are bad which is what is implied in your criticisism of Correa. To hammer that argument home you need more detail (please.)

I would say yes, all increases in spending are bad when you just defaulted on debt and will get yourself into it again.

First on the specifics above:

1. Why oh why do you hate grannies? Is there really not a single country capable of managing its pension system such that the whole project of old age pensions is pointless. Nowhere? The grannies must starve. There are no alternatives.
2. Yep well it would seem that the only choice is Stalinism or whatever you favour. (What is that by the way?) That seems a little narrow no? I suggest that you try out whatever platform you have in Norway first. Should be a winner.
3. I think its unlikely that Evo's housing policies are going to create a real estate bubble since, you know, the banks hate him. That and the fact he's basically giving them away to the poor. Where does he get the money for this? Why natural gas revenue (see 2 above)!
4. I'm glad "reform" came up at the end here. You said you think Latin America needed reform in some way though you haven't really clarified what reform that is. At the same time you decry anyone trying to change Latin American politics as a "buffoon." So is your position that you are pro-reform until someone actually tries to do it?
5. You appear to suggest I think Evo is like Santa Clause and all those toys: how does he get it all done?! Ha. That's funny. (I've included a video below that you might find funny by the way.) I was sloppily using Evo as shorthand for the Morales Administration. My bad. I should be more precise.

1. haha... Again with the comprehension, I said your smoking some nasty stuff if you think pension funds in latin america wont be raided by corrupt politicians. Having said that, I would like to see one social security system or state run pension fund where the citizen gets what he put in.

2. Oh I didn't mean stalinism, i was giving examples of communism. But I know your think there is a big difference. As for my philosophy on government. I just want a government that does not violate it's own citizens rights. Nor one that uses government force to take from a select group and give to others. Be that take from the poor to give to the rich or the other way around.

3. I dont think his housing policy will work. Period.

4. Really evo and correa are reformers? who knew, weve had hundreds like them throughout the 19th and 20th century. You should read: http://www.amazon.com/Fabricantes-mi...6489269&sr=8-1 and http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Perfect-...6489290&sr=8-1 . Ill give you my thoughts on latin american reform at the end of this post.

5. I was well aware of that. I also have seen Evo's selection of ministers. Alot which can hardly handle the spanish language. Not a good start...

I'm not sure where I proposed that my rough list of Evo's accomplishments were anti-American in character, but let's assume I did. My argument would be...

You responded to my take that anti-american government in latin american dont really take up usefull "anti-american" policies. Like legalizing drugs would be.

As far as I can make out American policy in Latin America is aimed at keeping the region messed up politically, kind of like Pakistan's starategy with Afghanistan. Anything that has the potential to lead to more political or economic stability or independance might be viewed as against American interests. Thus we get American involvement in coups on a regular basis over the last century and opposition to any political or economic progress that does not accept that American interests come first. (I assume you would agree with this policy since you seem to think you have some right of access to Bolivian gas. Or perhaps you've just got a paternal concern for your fellow latin american's ability to decide for themselves?)

Really I wasnt aware that I believe that, thank you for clearing that up. If im not mistaken it was actually brazil who suffered the most from expropriated natural gas companies. I doubt they want the region to continue unstable.

So in this way, and to the extent that Evo is doing his job as an extremely popular, democratically elected leader and doing it well he is, in fact, acting in an anti-American fashion in America's eyes at least.

Incidentally this could explain the constant drum beat of anti-Chavez coverage that dominates any discussion of the region in the west. I know people who have absolutely no knowledge of Latin American economics or politics and have little interest in these subjects in any part of the globe but are adamant in their conviction that Chavez is a disaster. Doesn't that seem kind of suspect to you?


From your side I'm still waiting for any opinion on Accosta or Gutierrez as opponents of Correa. Again any better? I'm also curious about your silence regarding the extra-judicial killings that have taken place in Honduras post-election or in the separatist provinces of the Media Luna. Since you appear to look favorably upon the anti-Evo opposition here are you not troubled by the treasonous acts of those behind the assassination plot for instance and their ties to the Media Luna leadership. Does that not prick your conscience as a believer in democracy? Or perhaps I'm presuming too much.

Wow, all of a sudden he is extremely popular imagine that!, nice choice of words there.

Finally you are completely right that I misread your comments on the drug war. Mea culpa. Point taken.


Funny that your bothere by anti-chavez coverage. Anyone with intellectual honesty could realize that he is a wannabe dictator who uses his famous “circulos bolivarianos” as thugs to intimidate people. His violations of free speech and property on top of being disastrous for venezuela (now boasting the highest crime rate in Latin America).
I dont know much about Accosta or Gutierrez, in overall terms they might be slightly better, slightly. As for honduras what killings are you talking about? Off course ill be silent about something I dont know. As for the Medi Luna attacks, it obviously is the wrong way to go about it.

On that note you might find the following amusing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEle_DLDg9Y

For the record I'm not calling you a.... well you know (don't want to ruin your enjoyment of the above.) I'm just suggesting you might want to look at who you are making political friends with.

Well off course, haha, I didn't think you would show your hand that easily. So anti-chavez and anti-morales= Nazi.... hmmm where have I heard rhetoric like that before? Pathetic but not unexpected.
I wasn't aware I was making political friends with anyone, so please you tell me who am I making friends with. (hint, it wasn't the nazis as they didnt accept me because I wasnt white, haha)
Finally, Latin America inherited a law system that was entrenched with corruption. This was because of the top-down level of control the Spanish had, including over 1 million laws to govern the colonies. This incredible inefficiency has been with us for close to 200 years now. Every country in a way is a carbon copy of eachother. With intense meddling of government in all sorts of affairs, huge red tape, all sorts of regulation that make it impossible to actually follow the rules. The result has been that bribes is a standard modus of operation. This off course is translated into other areas such of law, not just business practices. Rendering the justice system, useless. It varies to what point country by country, but I dont think anyone would call the institutions and justice system in latin america effective or even mildly effective.
Add to that archaic ways of thinking, with protectionism and trade barriers and you have a continent where even two countries cant come to an agreement to have a european like free trade zone. Ironically, many of these protectionist measures that aim at protecting “national industries”from competition really only protects the elite who hold these companies. Throughout the continent you have stories of local industries(sugar, banana, etc.) being protected for years even going back to the 19^th century. By industries I mean one or two families who in turn have a big say in who gets elected in what not. However, just because a candidate or president is against them (an most of the times this is just rhetoric because to get elected they align themselves with someone and then dont bother them) doesn't necessarily make them good.


Until people dont understand this and really rally for real change it will be status quo for years to come.

[oddlots]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

Starting from the bottom and working up...

- I think when you reference the Media Luna separatists in opposition to Morales as evidence of his mis-Rule as you did here I think you are making political friends
- if you think there is no relevance to Nazism - even in jest - then please explain these photos of the Princes of Santa Cruz in revolt against a popularly elected, legitimate government:

SANTA CRUZ.jpg

- the Media Luna opposition leadership was also implicated in the Pando massacre:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/unasu...ainst-humanity

- and in the attempt to assassinate Morales (which we shouldn't care about because, presumably, he's a buffoon.)

So you know, I think you showed your hand rather early on here. Maybe I'm assuming you know about these events and that's a mistake clearly as you say you didn't. But the fact that you didn't know about these events (or don't seem to have any curiousity about them) speaks to my original point: the coverage of South America in the North American media is terrible. The shoddy coverage makes it very easy to mis-represent anti-democratic usurpers as say 1) democrats concerned about the sanctity of the constitution (Honduras) or 2) police officers protesting non-existent pay cuts or (Ecuador) 3) citizens of the Media Luna provinces concerned about a slide into socialist decline (Bolivia.) That this representation fools even you, someone who has lived in the region only makes this more remarkable.

As I said, my original point: thanks for helping me make it.

I'll get to the other points later...

[tsetsefly]

Re: Ecuador declares state of emergency

Starting from the bottom and working up...

- I think when you reference the Media Luna separatists in opposition to Morales as evidence of his mis-Rule as you did here I think you are making political friends
- if you think there is no relevance to Nazism - even in jest - then please explain these photos of the Princes of Santa Cruz in revolt against a popularly elected, legitimate government:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3629[/ATTACH]

- the Media Luna opposition leadership was also implicated in the Pando massacre:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/unasu...ainst-humanity

- and in the attempt to assassinate Morales (which we shouldn't care about because, presumably, he's a buffoon.)

Uh, I never referenced the media luna. Unless you assume everyone who would like an autonomous region in these areas as a media luna nazi... So one car with five guys= everyone who is against evo is a nazi... okay...

So you know, I think you showed your hand rather early on here. Maybe I'm assuming you know about these events and that's a mistake clearly as you say you didn't. But the fact that you didn't know about these events (or don't seem to have any curiousity about them) speaks to my original point: the coverage of South America in the North American media is terrible. The shoddy coverage makes it very easy to mis-represent anti-democratic usurpers as say 1) democrats concerned about the sanctity of the constitution (Honduras) or 2) police officers protesting non-existent pay cuts or (Ecuador) 3) citizens of the Media Luna provinces concerned about a slide into socialist decline (Bolivia.) That this representation fools even you, someone who has lived in the region only makes this more remarkable.

As I said, my original point: thanks for helping me make it.

I'll get to the other points later...

Right, because I get all my news in english from American news media.
There was no need to know in detail the events you referenced. I merely mentioned Evo's and Correas policies and rehtoric. You brought into conversation honduras, and the media luna which is a small fringe group which you seem to be obsessed with.
Your ridiculous assumptions also dont help your case.