US To Keep Latin America In Check With War On Terror

great post! but I think chavez was right not to trust America. i certainly wouldn't. leopards don't change their spots.

 

This is going to go down a side path so my apologies beforehand, but Greenspan is a bit of an enigma to me.

In the mid to latter 90s when the markets were going crazy, Greenspan hit the nail squarely on the head in his comment " there is an irrational exuberance"

Then under Bush he did a complete 180 and supported policies that would deliberately create "irrational exuberance", policies that eventually led to the housing bubble and near collapse of the financial system.

I remember thinking at the time .. Who is this guy and what happened? Does he have a mistress on the side or something and is being blackmailed into doing things he knows will lead to economic ruin ?

Make no mistake, regardless of Greenspan's philosophical leanings, the man is no dummy and he knows his history.

He, as did others knew exactly what path they were going down and exactly where it would lead. I got a big chuckle after the 2008 crash when the fed heads and chief economists were all running around claiming " we had no idea".

Occam's razor dictates IMO that a likely reason these people would embark on the path that they did was that they wanted to line their own pockets short term and did not really care that it would lead to a good deal of economic ruin and result in the position of the US in the world being substantially diminished.

The only other reasonable conclusion I can think of is that diminishment the status of the US in the world "was" the plan.

 

i tend to think its just another case of a grovelling civil servant saying exactly what he thinks his political masters want to hear! an economic version of tenets slam dunk

 

You really don't understand what's going on in the world. It has nothing to do with nationalization. It has to do with what people with power want to happen. Do you realize that Bernard Madoff ran a whole ponzi scheme for years that ripped off investors for billions of dollars? Do you realize that Enron ripped of investors for billions of dollars? Do you realize that scandal in the savings and loan institutions caused 747 out of 3234 to fail and cost billions of dollars? Do you realize that hedge fund managers,in one year, PERSONALLY made billions of dollars from the systemic failure of the financial system in 2008? Do you realize that the Libor rate has been rigged for years? Do you realize that Allen Stanford ripped off investors for billions of dollars?

What was nationalized about Enron? What was nationalized about Stanford Financial Group?

The problem is not with nationalization. The problem is with greedy people. That is not to say that everything should be nationalized. But rather that people with power, when they are not educated that they need to focus on what is good for humanity and the environment primarily, and place profits in a secondary role, that you will get corrupt institutions, no matter if they are public and private.

What you are putting forward here is propaganda that is being taught in the name of economics, that serves as a smokescreen to provide rationale for rich people to control the resources of society. Nothing more.

 

Capital flow into India has resulted in farmers, who had for generations relied on the land and seeds passed down to them for subsistence, descent into the depths of ruin. Monsanto brought their capital into India. What did they do with it? They forced farmers to buy their filthy seeds which poor farmers had to get loans to buy. Then when the seeds did not work, they could not pay back the loans and hundreds of thousands of them committed suicide. Yeah, that's what Monsanto and it's influx of capital did to poor Indian farmers. Not only that they want to control the water supply in India. Then not only will farmers have to buy seeds from them, they will have to buy water from them as well.

Speaking of Africa, the Belgians brought their capital into the Congo. What did they do with that capital? Rape the country dry, and left the people with nothing.

Royal Dutch Shell brought it's capital into the Niger Delta. What did they do with it? Kill people like Ken Saro Wiwa and pollute the land.

Everywhere these people go with their influx of capital, they leave a path of destruction and pollution in their wake.

The problem is greed. People need to be trained that the problem is not sharing wealth with the poor, and people like Chavez that advocate such principles. The problem is people who control the Haliburton's of the world, like Dick Cheney, who think nothing of people, but merely think of making money. Such people create these think tanks, where the create propaganda which is taught to people like you when they go to school, that sharing wealth with the poor is bad, and causes capital flight. NO! What causes capital flight is the selfishness and greed of the rich and powerful, not people like Chavez.

 

Here's a Dutch disease for you. It's called Royal Dutch Shell. You want to talk about corruption? Try this for starters:

Shell Final Audit Shows 2002 Reserves Overstated 41%

Now that's corruption. You want me to believe that was caused by nationalization? No! It was caused by greed. The CEO is greedy to make millions of dollars, so he lies about reserves to keep the share price up. The shareholder's greedy for more profits put pressure on the greedy CEO to keep the share price up. It's greed, not sharing wealth with the poor that causes corruption. You have been brainwashed. You need to be re-educated.

 

This was a great post, and well worth repeating.

 

A couple of things here: 1.) I'm not a fan of Shell, particularly for its operations in Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea So I'm not sure why you think this is some sort of "Got ya" point you are making.

2.) You're deflecting again. Shell has nothing to do with Dutch disease effects that I talked about in Venezuela. It seems like your only defense of Venezuela is to ignore what is going on there. Not very convincing.

 

Heh, it isn't theory. It is based on decades of field work. Paul collier is one of the most well respected global economists who deals with things like resource curses. He is also an expert in conflict. I could refer you to any number of studies you'd like concerning the subject.

Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that I am wrong. That's not very good backing for your assertions.

So in other words you're admitting that Chavez's economic policies aren't going to be able to generate good FDI flow or new external capital inputs. Noted.

- - - Updated - - -

As a leader I'd rather not damage my citizens well being simply out of pride.

 

What do you mean not to trust America? Chavez was a bit of a hypocrite in his anti-US stance anyway as he depended heavily on America as an export market for his oil. The US is Venezuela's largest trading partner.

 

Is engaging in deflection after deflection all you know how to do? I'm not talking about the issues surrounding Enron there sport, I'm talking about the externalities that can be associated with an economy that is overly reliance on resource wealth. Your examples have nothing to do with that.

Do you think it impossible for a greedy individual to one day become the leader of Venezuela? Or for there to be greedy individuals anywhere within the Venezuelan government at any point in time in the future?

 

Nice red herrings you got there. Let me know when you'd actually like to talk about the subject itself.

 

The problem here is that modern industrialization and globalization have created quite a few problems. Lured by the false promise that industrialization will bring greater prosperity to society, people have abandoned the more sustainable lifestyle of subsistence on the produce of the land to survive. Rather they have taken to a lifestyle based on labor to produce items that are not consumed for subsistence, but rather for war, convenience, and entertainment. As a result, they cannot be locally self sufficient, but rather become dependent on the import of items, that are actually NEEDED for subsistence, from external sources. Once this happens, they become the prey of the system of international finance. The international financial institutions set the exchange rates for the currencies that various nations must use to trade to then get the things that they need. If these institutions are not satisfied way a nation chooses to allocate the resources of the nation, they will impose stiff penalties in the form of exchange rates that are designed to bring that country to it's knees. This results in many cases in high inflation which can cause various forms of misery for a nation which has abandoned a sustainable, agrarian based lifestyle for urban industrialization. People then are left in ghettos of large metropolitan areas with no means of subsistence. The powers that be in the world want to promote democracy because they feel that they can leverage the dissatisfaction of the population to put people into power who will agree to their schemes. But what happens generally is that the international system of finance creates leaders for the people who will do the financial institution's bidding. These leaders then merely give the people some crumbs and take the residual for themselves and their cronies. The result is the perpetual suffering of the mass of people for the sake of the enrichment of the few.

That's the problem.

 

You have to be reminded constantly what you have said. Get you some smelling sauce and then get back in the ring. You appear to be disoriented.

Let me help you out here. You have stated that nationalization results in corruption. The use of those examples demonstrates that it is not nationalization that results in corruption. It is greed that results in corruption.

Get it?

- - - Updated - - -

I am talking about the flow of capital into a country and what the results can be. If you can't debate the subject, don't bring it up.

 

I was talking about corruption as it relates to resources wealth reliance, not nationalization.

I'm not sure what world you live in where only one variable can contribute to corruption, but that's not the way the world works. Also, finding flaws in other countries isn't a defense for the flaws of Venezuela.

 

It's a red herring because it is a large and glaring generalization fallacy. FDI flows are pretty good, but any country can handle them wrong. That depends on the strength of the internal institutions of that country. Take a look at how South Korea has turned out compared to North Korea: want to take a stab at which of the two were most successful in capturing FDI flows and new capital sources? It isn't healthy to shut ones self off from the rest of the world, autarchy generally leads to stagnation, if not ruin.

 

You and anyone else you want to quote is wrong if they believe resource wealth causes civil war. Oil has been around for millions of years. Was their civil war 5 million years ago because of oil? No the civil war is caused by greedy people, not the oil. It's very simple to understand. Your problem is that you have become a slave of your model and as a result, you cannot see what the actual causality is.

 

You obviously don't believe your own mantra otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Your computer that you're using? Yeah, that isn't based on subsistence farming. I've worked with subsistence farmers for years and it is only a rare few who want that lifestyle for their children.

Like you have? Oh great computer and internet user?

- - - Updated - - -

There are greedy people in every society, you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise and ignoring that isn't very healthy for your country, or for stability.

 

It's also fine and dandy to say that we should engage in subsistence farming when you also have buckets of money coming in from oil wealth. If everyone is a subsistence farmer than what is going to pay for Venezuela's roads, health and education sectors, public services and infrastructure when its oil is gone? You doom your people to poverty under your great style of living.

 

I would rather our leaders not be such hypocrites and not make foreign policy decisions based on hypocrisy.

 

You cannot refute the arguments so you simply rely again and again on this generalization fallacy. Let me illustrate what a generalization fallacy is. Suppose Tom is a white man, and Tom is dumb. A generalization fallacy would be that because Tom is a white man and dumb, therefore all white men are dumb.

What I am doing with that example is demonstrating how the flow of capital into a country can have disastrous effects on a country. What you want to put forward is that leaders should focus on increasing the flow of capital into their country. I'm saying that principle has to be secondary to the principles of looking to the physical, mental, and spiritual well being of the people of the country, as well as the environment. The example of Monsanto in India demonstrates that simply focusing on bringing capital into a country, to the exclusion on the principles that I stated, can have disastrous results.

It is not a generalization fallacy or a red herring.

 

I'm saying that if people want to profit from the oil resources, they should do it in a spirit of looking to the well being of the people and the environment primarily, and making profit secondarily. If they don't do that, then they are simply menaces to the well being of the human race. People who simply think about profit, to the exclusion of the things I just mentioned are the problem. Not people like Chavez.

 

That's fine, but it doesn't have much to do with the thread subject.

 

like I said. I wouldn't trust America for an instant. they have proven untrustworthy for centuries

 

Yes, and that is exactly what you have been doing this entire time. Monsanto in india is bad therefore all FDI flows and capital inputs are bad!!! Not a very strong argument.

And what I'm doing with North Korea is showing you how cutting yourself off from the rest of the world can completely destroy your country. India is in much better shape than North Korea is.

Right, but that's never what I was advocating. You are "refuting" my position by making up a stance and then tearing that down. Hence why I have called your arguments red herrings and strawmen.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep on keeping on I guess. Meanwhile I'll live in comfort.