0fb3dc21abf2a985e5af…

Recently leaked footage of the new Paris Hilton sex tape…

you have a very nice blog and very informative article…

…

As the proud owner of a laptop computer, you’ll want to keep your…

I do think your right on the spot here, i am going to bookmark your site to see if other people have different views…

What am I for? I am for whatever works to reduce inequities in society, lower poverty, protect and conserve the environment, preserve and cherish cultural diversity, social justice, the usual list of liberal ideals. Problem is I don’t believe there is a one-size-fits-all approach to reaching those objectives. Renowned economist Joseph Stiglitiz seems to have a good handle on how to approach the development problematico, though. The globalization train has left the station but it does not mean we should get on board and lay tracks that allow it to take us over the cliff. We need some brakes, and control, and intelligent routing and planning. Out of careful thought and study, usually a mix of public and private, in other words measured governmental intervention in the interest of the general public when prudent and necessary, springs the formula in progress for the varied development needs of countries.

I think Bolivia, for example, is not being foolish, as Castenada would be wont to criticize, for boosting state control over its gas and other natural resources. For Bolivia, and Bolivians, it makes all the sense in the world to maximize their revenues from the country’s main source of wealth to invest in social issues and improve development in other areas of the economy. Its highly preferable to begging to the US and other “developed” nations for aid and loans that put them deeper in debt. Bolivia needs to do whats best for Bolivia and NOT what Bushwackers in Washington say they must do to guarantee the previously outrageous profit margins of foreign multinationals (many of whom, according to UNCTD, are proven adept at cheating and getting around the taxes that are applied if applied). Should the US nationalize its gas fields? No, its level of development does not demand such a measure, but the US is itself not alien to assessing a heavy tax bill on business activities.

To wind up this long ramble, I believe the answer is not extreme left or right, communism or free market orthodoxy, but a happy medium somewhere in between depending on each country’s needs and characteristics. In Chile’s case, it went off the deep end with its extreme worship of the market, and only now is beginning to make tentative steps to reverse the resulting legacy of social inequities.

Forgive me Mr. Cooper, for this newcomer trying to determine the nature of your hatred for the new right-wing boogeyman in Latin America (Chavez). As you well know, dislike of left-wingers in Latin America seems to lead to “action” and I believe all of us have a right to worry about it. Forgive me for caring about the depth of your sincerity. And forgive me for having the nerve to see some hope in a 21st Century model that has shown the ability to lift millions out of poverty quickly through the reclaimation of the most important resouce on earth – from Exxon and Chevron.

You obviously beleive something must be done, that someone must stand up to the Bolivarians. So I would hope asking whether you support current (visable and not) US efforts that apparently align with your own beliefs is not out of bounds. I wasn’t asking you to choose Bush or Chavez… but asking what you would do if you were Bush. There is an important difference between being against something, and advocating the use of US power to do it. I know its easier to avoid such questions…

The only talking aout what one is against talk camouflouages the real problem with Castaneda – NED aside (a point that I’ve proven) – however he (and Marc) phrase their probably sincerely held views – the overall result of this framework is continued US hegemony over Latin America. Everyone talks about Venezuela being so powerful…we’ll see what happens….he is only so powerful in the minds of his critics and his inner circle. To most , he is a product of a very new process, as is Lula – the new post- Monroe Latin America.

Castaneda wants to hold it back. This goes beyond economics.

In the meantime, I’ve made a little list on my desk. At the very bottom, right where it says “nothing more in the world left to do,” I have made the following notation: “Prove your credentials on Latin America to Leftside.” Patience, son.

To Brian Jones: No vomiting allowed on this site. In the meantime, you need to take a sedative…or at least a Pepto-Bismo. When I reproduce someone’s comments, it does not mean that I endorse them. I think what Castaneda says about the need for Lat Americans to be presented an alternative leadership to that of Chavez is absolutely necessary. I disagree with him on Calderon and, in addition, he’s much warmer on the Chileans than I am (well, like me he’s been married to one so maybe that explains it!).

I do respect his forthrightness however in saying what he supports — I admire his honesty. Meanwhile, most of his critics, including the ones on this board, can only tell us what they oppose (‘neoliberalism,” Bush, imperialism, yada yada yada etc). What are they for? Socialism? Great, And Ghandi was for western civilization though he could never actually see it. It would be nice to have a debate with some actual facts in it. i.e. Castaneda’s support for what he calls the “global market economy” is off-base and therefore we propose…. what?…. exactly?

That’s a question that I freely admit to not being able to answer. I wish I could but I can’t. So long as I can’t, Ive resolved to show some more tolerance for those proposing solutions I dont agree with. Telling Chileans they’d be better off with a Cuban or Vietnamese system is as ridiculous as selling them the nostrums of Milton Friedman.

It is true that debt piled up, but the oil crisis and inflation hit everyone hard, including in this country. As for pensions, Lula has reformed them a bit, but they are still more generous than we have in this country. Brazil should be proud of that, and US citizens disgusted.

The problems that Brazil had with state pensions as well as pinning the then overvalued real to the dollar and the simultaneous Asian financial crisis were far greater contributors to Brazil’s 1998 crisis.

Yes, not allowing the Real to float prior to the Telebras sell-off was a major mistake. Investors made bids in dollars in 98, then paid in Reals over the next few years, resulting in a 40% undervalue of the assets. The Brazilian people got screwed due to Cordoso’s trying to please the markets.

As for the Mayans in Guatemala, it is going to be interesting how Bush’s visit to “pay homage” to the region’s indigenous goes down. It might even overshadow the fact that the country’s government ties to death squads and organized crime is coming to light. The news with our right-wing buddies in Colombia is no better.

I wonder if those guys are for hyire. I know some “Sacred” lands along the Potomac that could use some fumigating. . . .

What am I for? I am for whatever works to reduce inequities in society, lower poverty, protect and conserve the environment, preserve and cherish cultural diversity, social justice, the usual list of liberal ideals. Problem is I don’t believe there is a one-size-fits-all approach to reaching those objectives. Renowned economist Joseph Stiglitiz seems to have a good handle on how to approach the development problematico, though. The globalization train has left the station but it does not mean we should get on board and lay tracks that allow it to take us over the cliff. We need some brakes, and control, and intelligent routing and planning. Out of careful thought and study, usually a mix of public and private, in other words measured governmental intervention in the interest of the general public when prudent and necessary, springs the formula in progress for the varied development needs of countries.

I think Bolivia, for example, is not being foolish, as Castenada would be wont to criticize, for boosting state control over its gas and other natural resources. For Bolivia, and Bolivians, it makes all the sense in the world to maximize their revenues from the country’s main source of wealth to invest in social issues and improve development in other areas of the economy. Its highly preferable to begging to the US and other “developed” nations for aid and loans that put them deeper in debt. Bolivia needs to do whats best for Bolivia and NOT what Bushwackers in Washington say they must do to guarantee the previously outrageous profit margins of foreign multinationals (many of whom, according to UNCTD, are proven adept at cheating and getting around the taxes that are applied if applied). Should the US nationalize its gas fields? No, its level of development does not demand such a measure, but the US is itself not alien to assessing a heavy tax bill on business activities.

To wind up this long ramble, I believe the answer is not extreme left or right, communism or free market orthodoxy, but a happy medium somewhere in between depending on each country’s needs and characteristics. In Chile’s case, it went off the deep end with its extreme worship of the market, and only now is beginning to make tentative steps to reverse the resulting legacy of social inequities.