New Socialist Bloque in Latin America?

Rubiazo says on May 2, 2006, 09:01:

Watch Peru they could be on the bandwagon.
Although calling those places 'socialist' is really an exaggeration and just another example of alarmist yellow journalism.

I really do think that South America needs to make its own trading bloc and deal with the rest of the world that way. Right now the US is picking countries off one by one and raping them.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ixent says on May 2, 2006, 09:36:

They are sovereign nations... so why shouldn't they?

Rather than "sweaten [sic] their Free Trade Deals" the US should not try to dominate their affairs in the first place.

If the US didn't try to make smaller, poorer countries sign agreements on unfair, exploitative terms in the first place, maybe they wouldn't be marginalized and react in this way which you deem undesirable.

I guess it's not only the US though, it's really all nations that are able to do so (i.e. bully others). And Daver, don't forget: Bush, Blair and Aznar also formed a threesome recently.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

daver says on May 2, 2006, 10:31:

That is sort of my point. Of course they are sovereign nations, but so was Panama, and so was Iraq. The days of South America being the USA's iron curtain are over, but unless the US wants an intolerable ¨((sic) I am sure) situation in their own back yard, they should perhaps pay a little closer attention.

I mean, if the USA has to deal with Latin unity, it may as well be a capitalist bloc, and not the one that seems to be forming now.

And if we can't call Castro a socialist, than I am affriad the word "socialist" no longer has any meaning.

I am not too worried about this situation, nor do I oppose it, I just think it is something worth paying attention to.

And the Bush, Blair, Anzar trio easily became a duo with the Spanish running away as soon as their noses were bloodied. As if you couldn't see that coming.

I think the US also needs to pay closer attention to the foriegn sources of oil nearer to its borders. The US will never produce enough to feed its own needs, but they seem to be too tied up with Arabian oil. Canada represents the most stable source of foriegn oil to the US, yet they seem not very interested in jumping into the oil sands projects in Alberta, and they haven't done a very good job in keeping Venezuala on their side either. I guess they are betting on Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia....

Anyway, I am clearly no expert, but it is definitley a situation worth paying attention to.

Dave

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ixent says on May 2, 2006, 11:48:

Are socialist policies necessarily bad? Firstly, we need to be careful with words: I think “capitalism” and “socialism” are often labels which are applied, with little meaning. Take China for example, even if they are described as communist, I’m not really convinced that this is the case (to me they seem more like a capitalist dictatorship).

Anyway, from what I remember at economics at school: Pure Capitalism embraces 100% free market enterprise. Pure communism is 100% state control. Socialism is closer to communism than to capitalism. My understanding is that Cuba is a Communist dictatorship, and that Venezuela is a capitalist democracy with some socialist policies.

Government provision of free healthcare and education are an example of a socialist policy. Clearly, certain types of services cannot be provided effectively by an enterprise whose primary goal is to reduce costs and maximise profits. I think a “mixed economy”, in which a free market operates in conjunction with some socialist policies, can work well. Take Austria as a model country, it has a brilliant heavily subsidised public transport system which undoubtedly raises the standards of people’s lives (less pollution, less stress, shorter commuting times, all “external costs” which are not considered by enterprises). I believe that in principle, capitalism in conjunction with socialist policies, would be beneficial to Latin America, as there are many impoverished people who need access to basic services, and this would help to even out the gap in wealth between the rich and poor.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

daver says on May 2, 2006, 12:22:

ixent,

You are comparing apples to oranges. Capatalism is a form of economics, while communism is a form of goverment.

You should compare Communism to Democracy, or Capatalism to Socialism.

Communist embrace socialism as their form of economics, while Democracies typically embrace capatalism as their form of economic structure.

I don't feel there is anything wrong with socialist ideals. I am Canadian, and although not perfect, Canada has shown that socialism is possible in a democratic society.

I feel that ultra right wing capatalism breeds ultra left wing socialism. Both Canada and the United States, in my opinion, have certain levels of socialism in their economies, as almost a vacinne against Communism, but, I can't really argue at a level that I am comforatable with.

I see nothing wrong with South American countries having a more socialist form of economies. I simply stated that it something to keep an eye on.

So yes, Castro is a Communist, but he is also a Socialist.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ixent says on May 2, 2006, 13:25:

I agree that a distinction needs to be made between a form of economics and a form of government. These are two orthogonal issues, i.e.:

Form of government: Democracy Dictatorship
Economic model: Communist Socialist Capitalist

In theory, you can have a communist democracy (if people vote for the communist party) or a capitalist dictatorship.

I guess we were using the word "communism" in different senses, neither of which are incorrect. Typing "define: communism" in google reveals that it can be used to refer to (i) just an economic model, or (ii) both a form of government and economic model. So I guess we were saying something similar using different words.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on May 2, 2006, 14:56:

To me Canada is a shining example of how NOT to implement a social democracy. We were so much better off before that fuckwad Trudeau got in and fixed what wasn't broke!!! Take a look at ANY statistic from Pearsons time compared to now, and tell me Canada hasn't gone backwards in every area!!

Ixent Daver is right though. Communism is a totalitarian FORM of socialism. Social democracy and fascism are other 'brands' of socialism. In the real world, most governments fall somewhere near the center.

Tinto a South American bloc would indeed be powerful if you had all of Mercosur PLUS Colombia and Venezuela and Peru in it, and if more barriers were dropped and they adopted a common currency like the Euros did. Granted it would still mostly be raw materials, but they would get much better trade terms like that!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

johna says on May 2, 2006, 15:07:

No matter if you love or hate Chavez you have to admit he has some good strategy when it comes to influencing the US. I think that the discounted heating oil and the suprise visit to NY was a stroke of brillance. You are never going to win over the hard right, but if you go after the majority (ie not the ultra rich) you are going to make some ground. This is what the right has been doing in the US for years. They love to label the left "elitist" and get a canidate who can play a cowboy, but that is becoming a little transparent. He is doing a great job and people like Pat Robertson are just feeding him tools.

I don't think that socialism in Latin America needs to be looked at as a threat to the US. It needs to be viewed as a reality that has evolved, partly due to heavy handed policy. The US needs to make amends and a good way to start would be to drop the Cuba embargo, and work out some form of trade that would be mutually benefical. Heavy handedness does not work going after hearts and minds does. Unfortunately I think we are going to have to wait a few years for this even to become a possibility, at least on the US side.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on May 2, 2006, 16:45:

They'll be lucky if it takes 40 years. I'd say more like 100 years. In the meantime I wish we would follow Brazil's lead and become energy self-sufficient using ethanol or nukes. Whatever it takes so we can free ourselves from the grasp of these tinhorn dictators. Bush likes to talk about national security but our energy policies have made us hostages.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

daver says on May 2, 2006, 17:44:

"Canada is a shining example of how NOT to implement a social democracy. We were so much better off before that fuckwad Trudeau got in and fixed what wasn't broke!!! Take a look at ANY statistic from Pearsons time compared to now, and tell me Canada hasn't gone backwards in every area!!"

What? I can't hear you. Speak up! I can't hear you over the sound of the Canadian dollar soaring through the roof! Or maybe its the American economy going down the toilet that is making all this noise.... Perhaps its Canada's trade surplus that is BOOMING so loud...

Just kidding.

Many of Canada's social reforms took place before PET, but I agree that he liked to fix things that weren't broke. He used Crown Corporations like Stalin would if he were a Canadian PM, but then we wouldn't have seen those bumper stickers out west that said "let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark" and that sir, is some funny shit.

Anway, I don't think you would have seen 3 South American anti-USA leaders banding together like this in the 80s. When there was any hint of a socialist takeover, the Americans would either sponsor some sort of regime change (Chile and others), or just invade (Panama). Of course Fidel had the help of the USSR, and America agreed not to invade Cuba as part of the Cuban Missle Crisis, so his ass is safe...

Whatever, there are better people than me to argue about forms of government, forms of economics, and Trudeau's dream of The Peoples Republic of Canada.... I'm just saying that this is a VERY interesting development, and I think this is only possible due to the energy crisis in America, and the US military being tied up in Arabia (so it cannot invade or support any kind of regime change in these SA countries)

Dave

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on May 2, 2006, 18:37:

I remember one from way back when
"I'd rather push this thing a mile than buy from PetroCan." :P

They certainly were very interventionist in the region in the 60s 70s and 80s. Part of the problem is they shit so badly so many times that they have lost a lot of respect in the region now and can't operate as easily. Brazil in the 60s, for example, even before the military takeover, was sucking the US's hairy balls at every opportunity. Now they are decidedly neutral bordering on icy.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 2, 2006, 19:43:

... I think that a couple of guys here (and also in the real world) are mixing socialist populism with social democracy far too easily, when they are completely different things.

I believe that Chile's Bachelet isn't remotely similar to Venezuela's Chavez...heck, not even Brazil's Lula can be easily compared to Chavez.

And even Chavez and Morales aren't equal to Castro, even though they are obviously personally and ideologically very close.

So, right now, I can say that there's really no way to tell where each of these countries will end up in a few years. That being the case, accurately estimating the future of U.S. influence in South America isn't as easy as it looks.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on May 2, 2006, 21:44:

Wow, Dave, the Canadian dollar is up to 90 cents. Reminds me of the days when it was pegged at 92 cents to the dollar. Fort McMurray is looking better and better!

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

johna says on May 3, 2006, 07:08:

.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

daver says on May 3, 2006, 08:38:

UTC,

Yes, the price of most metals is very high, and we all know about the price of oil. Canada is a huge net exporter of both of these, so let the good times roll!!!! Not only that, we came up with some sort of deal with the USA about softwood lumber. Canada has the worlds largest forrest industry, so that helps too. Now only if our Cows weren't so damn MAD!

The Canadian dollar is also rising against the Col Peso, so times couldn't be better for me. I just made a tiny fortune working in the oil patch so I could kick back for a few more months with my wife in Medellin, and now the loonie is going up so things are just peachy. To HELL with alternative fuels...LOL (I don't own a car either... I'm just LAUGHING all the time)!

There is a lot of talk that the Canadian dollar will be at par with the US dollar. The only real arguement is when. Some say at the end of 2007, while others are thinking 2010.

With our large trade surplus, and the Americans trade defecit, the Canadian dollar is in higher demand. Also, our economy is running slightly above its capacity, and the predictions are it will be running at full capacity through at least 2008. Also, our governments now are running balanced bugets.... not bad for the socialist nightmare known as Canada.

Here is a pretty good article about the Canadian dollar if anyone cares (It was at about 62 cents in 2002, now its at 90 cents)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dollar_cdn/

It gives some good info about what affects the value of currency (At a basic level, good for people like me who don't know too much about this stuff)

Dave

0 funny, 0 helpful.

daver says on May 3, 2006, 08:48:

"Fort McMurray is looking better and better!"

I guess so. I was there a couple times last winter. We were drilling (exploration drilling) in oil sands a couple hours north of there for Husky Oil, and another job a couple hours further north still (and there is nothing North of Fort Mac).

Anyway, the boom is still on. You can't find a room to rent, can't get a hotel room, and trailers are selling for $350,000. McDonalds closes at 4pm becuase they don't have enough staff (starting wage at McDonalds in Fort Mac is $11.50 part time $13.50 full time per hour), and the yellow pages are full of "escorts" and the streets are flowing with cocainne. Great place to work, bad place to live if you ask me.

Dave

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on May 3, 2006, 20:14:

Last time I was in FtMc It was ROUGH ROUGH ROUGH, loads of mafiosos and tons of rowdiness and violence. And yeah TONS of the white powder, hey wait is that a snowbank in the middle of summer? brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......... :P

The Canadian $ used to be at par with the USD throughout the 60s and most of the 70s. It took a nose dive in the late 70s as government debt ran rampant. Incidentally at points in the 60s and 70s the Dominican peso and the Trinidadian and Nigerian dollars all were worth more than the USD! And the COP used to be 2 to 1 back then too!

BUT there are still hundreds of thousands of illegal Canadian immigrants in the US, and counting legal and illegal Canadians there are almost 2 million of us here! Thats a hell of a lot of emigration! So I wouldn't say Canada is surpassing the US economically just yet. When you see Americans trying to sneak into Canada to work that'll be a different story. With the way things are going here who knows, it just may happen!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on May 3, 2006, 22:02:

A lot will depend on the price of oil Bolivia just announced it will nationalize the gas industry, but they are just trying to negotiate better deals with foriegn companies. These companies often have deals like Haliburton's which charges the US military in Iraq $8 for a gallon of gas it buys from Kuwait for a $1.50.

It will be interesting to see if Bolivia can get more out of the gas companies, or scares them away. So far the tough negotiating tactics are working for Venezuela.

"For the past two years we have been increasing investments in Venezuela," said Hatem Soliman, the head of Schlumberger Ltd.'s (SLB) operations for Venezuela and the Caribbean.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B3DBD397F-50CE-46CB-98F1-3DD280A4C531%7D&keyword=

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on May 4, 2006, 06:04:

I doubt it since Brazil already has a viable ethanol program that could be imitated in other countreis.

The next thing we are going to be chronically short of is water! And Colombia and Brazil have most of it!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

daver says on May 5, 2006, 09:12:

"Speaking of,...remember when??? Just about 20 some years ago, people were fined and arrested for SELLING DRINKING WATER TO PEOPLE IN NEED ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, after a flood had put the place in severe crisis."

I think this had more to do with price gouging or (to hell with spell check) profiteering. The same thing happened in Florida with Hurricane Andrew, where people drove into the state from wherever and were trying to sell water at $5 to $10 a pint.

I know I am guilty of having posts that have nothing to do with Colombia, but bare with me for a second... This is Colombia related, you just have to be patient:

My country, Canada, has either the most fresh water in the world, or the 4th most (behind Brazil, Russia, and China) depending on the study. It is legal to export "bottled" water... the kind from glaciers or whatever, but so far, Canadians cannot export water in bulk. Under our trade agreements, the federal government has the authority to define what is a good and what isn't. Therefore they can prevent water from being sold in bulk, or on the flip side, if they let one company do it, they will have to let everyone do it.

One time my provincial government (Ontario) had a deal to sell water from one of the Great Lakes, and in the words of Jim Lahey, a shit-storm created shit-winds across the whole country.

I doubt Canada will be able to export water in bulk for at least the next 20 years, as any attempt will be blocked by environmental concerns...

So this brings me to Colombia, or other countries. What do you think the chances are of other "water rich" countries will be able to export their water in bulk? I mean, if the right people are making the money, it would seem that places like Colombia or Brazil would be able to make the deal go through, as they are more likely able to ignore any public outcry over such a deal...

Food for thought (or water I guess).

Dave

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 5, 2006, 09:38:

Latin Unity Daver wrote, "I mean, if the USA has to deal with Latin unity, it may as well be a capitalist bloc, and not the one that seems to be forming now."

The thing, Daver, is that the US knows it will NEVER have to deal with Latin unity. A simple look at history shows that the South America and Central American nations have NEVER been able to pull together for anything more significant than a futbol tournament. For all of his rhetoric about Bolivar, Chavez really needs to look at what happened to Bolivar and Gran Colombia.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

daver says on May 5, 2006, 10:50:

"the US knows it will NEVER have to deal with Latin unity"

Don't forget though, the USA has "known" a lot in its past, and, as great a country as it is (and I mean that) the US seems to have history of underestimating potential problems.

For instance, the USA "knew" that the Iraqi people would welcome them as liberators, and the USA "knew" they could never possibly loose the war in Vietnam, and the USA "knew" that China would never be an economic threat...

Now that doesn't mean I think that Latin Unity is a sure bet, but to simply ignore what's happening because they think SA is just a bunch of corrupt Banana Republics, is not wise in my opinion. Just my opinion though, and I am sure as hell no expert on global politics.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

daver says on May 5, 2006, 10:54:

...and to add something, the USA seems to have a lot more success when they take things "seriously". For instance, they took the threat of the USSR VERY VERY VERY seriously, and in the end, the US was the clear victor in the cold war....

Had they simply looked at the USSR and said "well, just a bunch of stupid Russians", I am sure history would not have unfolded as it did.

Again, just a humble opinion...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 5, 2006, 11:23:

The difference Is that in the case of Viet Nam and Iraq you're saying the US knew when what you really mean is that the delusional leadership assumed.

It's one thing to assume that a group of nations that have had 500 years to develop unity and haven't are probably going to continue on that course. It's another thing entirely to assume that you can invade a country and be met with flowers and kisses.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

daver says on May 5, 2006, 11:28:

"It's one thing to assume that a group of nations that have had 500 years to develop unity and haven't are probably going to continue on that course"

Hmmmm. I guess that means European unity was impossible, since they spent about 2000 years doing their best to kill each other... and now we have the EU. Nothing is impossible.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on May 5, 2006, 11:57:

There has been in the past 30 years a HUGE paradigm shift in SA and in many other Catholic countries. They have really all but left the Church behind. Once you leave religion out of the picture, people tend to act a lot smarter, so who knows what will happen!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 5, 2006, 12:40:

Daver, you could be right Let's revisit this thread in 10 years. If South America has formed anything even remotely approaching the EU in unity I'll buy you the best bottle of Aguardiente you can find.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 5, 2006, 12:44:

What a big spender! At least you could have offered to buy the best bottle of contraband whiskey he could find. ;-)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lfflorez says on May 5, 2006, 13:10:

social democracy in south america is sad to heard those mass brain washed gringos
talking about invading other lands
but there are all kind of humans there on the empire
i dont think chaves-castro-morales is a dangerous thing
so far they had elected by their people
so mr bush did the one that keep on doing his
job as leader of the master of puppets
and the puppets believe in his lies... sad
sad becouse i know so many good alive americans
and they are no commies bro, they just have their eyes open
to see and know when i lie is spoken
but
in case mr chaves want to play rough
and do weird things
we southamericans have to keep an eye there
and dont let that ball rolling
cuz is shit for all of us
like some countries did when he wanted to allied
brasil and argentina with iran for a nucler stuff
brasil and argentina say NO
besides... we dont need nucler nukeheads shit here
in south america
so my friend gringo mass sheep
wake up bro and know what time its is in the real world
get out of the brain washing matrix

sorry if it hurts
but truth make u free





Visit us at HOSTEL MOCHILEROS CALI COLOMBIA at
http://hostelmochileros.googlepages.com/home
info: hostelmochileros at gmail.com

Visit us at HOSTEL MOCHILEROS CALI COLOMBIA at http://hostelmochileros.googlepages.com/home info: hostelmochileros@gmail.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on May 5, 2006, 13:27:

I'm with you on that one, GringoD. Whenever we go to church in the big old church on the square in Belen, it's absolutely crammed. The Catholic Church retains a very strong hold in Colombia.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on May 5, 2006, 15:46:

Look at their laws and look at the laws on the books anywhere in the US. That will tell you a lot more than some image some girl wants to present to you!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on May 6, 2006, 01:41:

If the church had so much power -The city of Bogota would NEVER be printing up posters reminding people to use condoms and giving them out free to public establishments.

-There would be NO openly gay people anywhere in the country. There would be NO gay pride section to the Barranquilla carnival.

-Prostitution would be illegal.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on May 6, 2006, 01:59:

OK so I searched the site NOTHING that indicates that church and state are any closer together in Colombia than anywhere else! All I can say is I think less and less of that motherfucking son of a bitch Uribe and I hope his ass gets kidnapped and tortured! What a fucking cunt he is!

Having gotten THAT out of my system, :) it looks like he is either spouting rhetoric or simply not going to succeed because the Supreme Court are not going to let him. I just hope the next generation that are not the ones who were around when the Constitution was drafted (1991) will have as much respect for it as this one does!

0 funny, 0 helpful.