Guatemalan libertarian activist speech.

[Lord Commander Palis]

That explains the general election it doesnt explains why people picked Trump over the other 17 major republican candidates.

You guys are just lucky that your institutions are solid enough to not have democracy threatened over it.

Of course our institutions are solid enough, it's why we aren't threatened by your wild accusations of Trump and Shillary being akin to 3rd world "populist" politics.

 

[Rod1]

Of course our institutions are solid enough, it's why we aren't threatened by your wild accusations of Trump and Shillary being akin to 3rd world "populist" politics.

Its not an accusation, its a fact.

 

[DespicablePeep]

Most countries in South America would fail under any system (maybe not that bad).
While you can apply any system to the Chinese the Northern Europeans or Japanese they will succeed in all of them.
Its just simply the mentality not a race thing before anyone asks.
A South American or African that grows up in Northern Europe will have the same mentality.

Chile indicators are better and countries with more economic freedom have provem to be better in SA.

Cuba revolution has been a major bad influece for LA

 

[DespicablePeep]

Care to name one latin "neoliberal" country that implemented 6 or more of the above and still went broke?

Good one, never seen neoliberal goverment in SA yet people are constantly up in arms about neoliberamism.

 

[Trotsky]

Good one, never seen neoliberal goverment in SA yet people are constantly up in arms about neoliberamism.

As I specified to Rod1, I did not say any neoliberalist regimes were operating in South America, and in fact specified that the preconditions for neoliberalism were not present, outside of perhaps Argentina and Puerto Rico. It was the OP's speaker that seemed to imply that, although her meaning and conclusion were not clear to me.

Neoliberalism is pretty clearly defined historically and politically by leftists. It is the fact that the term was recently commandeered by right-wingers that has muddled the issues (further than would be typical of a convoluted political artifact).

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Its not an accusation, its a fact.

It's actually evolving first world politics, not to say that they were filled with tact, however, it was pure pushback to overly progressive leftist ideals plaguing the land.

People are tired of being labeled 'deplorable' and 'racist' merely because of the color of their skin or because they support someone who is not politically correct. It's hypocritical of the left and dehumanizing overall of our own people.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Yup, and i see Venezuela, Ecuador, Venezuela and a lot of other XXI century socialists out there.

Also where in the video did you see her defending the right wing governments of Latin America? She isnt defending the unequal conditions, she is simply pointing out the truth, that the unequal conditions are created by people who use political power to get rich, and this is the reason why people get tricked by populists.

She even points out that unequal conditions, created by a rigged system is what caused people to go down that route in the first place.

Of course she doesn't defend right wing governments. She just defends the larger ideology of neoliberalism.

And no shit a "rigged system" is part of the problem. That's not an ideological question though. That's something anyone can agree on and point to. Corruption is bad, political favors shouldn't be made, public money should help out people, etc., yeah, no kidding.

Which is exactly what she said.

Yeah, and she supports a system that is going to continue this inequality. In fact, it often exacerbates it.

I refer to post #6 with the 10 points of the dreaded "Washington Consesus" care to name one latin American regime that has actually followed said points?

The closest example i can think of is Chile and Chile isnt exporting immigrants anywhere, at least not due to poverty.

Most of Latin America did during the 90s! Argentina, Peru, Venezuela for sure. Chavez's predecessor- Carlos Andres Perez- "had promised to oppose the United States government's Washington Consensus and the International Monetary Fund's policies, he opposed neither once he got into office, following instead neoliberal economic policies supported by the United States and the IMF"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez#Operation_Zamora_coup_attempt:_1992

And we know how that turned out and led to.

And Chile went far right (politically AND economically) during the Pinochet years. They only started seeing development in the 90s when they elected a few presidents from the- gulp- Socialist Party. And of course, their state-owned copper industry is the driver of their success.

They're a bit of a mixed bag. Great growth and development, low poverty and high levels of education. But also massive inequality.

 

[loyalyolayal]

Didn't listen. She would get it.

 

[Rod1]

It's a complex term, but it's not one that I generally apply to the third world: that is, I don't associate "neoliberalism" as being a problem outside of the focal points of the world economy. To be able to enact neoliberal policy, you need to have existing prosperity and existing economic dominance over other players in the international market. For a country like Guatemala, those preconditions are not met. Neoliberalism is marked first and foremost by borrowing of the aims and fiduciary standards of the US corporate form, in that upward trajectory of profits for the economic elites and for industrial cartels are considered the baseline for allowing any wealth to trickle downwards and that, in establishing that baseline, austerity measures, privatization, and reduction of international democracy are tools toward undermining a shift in priorities.

But thats not something that was ever asked of said countries by any respectable lending agency of worth.

As i pointed out, what of the 10 points of the Washington Consensus do you disagree with? Because thats what most Latin American leftists claim that neoliberalism actually is.

Ceding economic power is the same as ceding political and judicial power if we are to take an historically informed perspective. Say what you will about the political or non-democratic influences of Latin American socialism/state capitalism, but at least it is upfront about its aims. Meanwhile libertarian capitalist philosophy has again and again weakened the democratic state, empowered economic actors, and then allowed the latter to coerce the former into a more "business friendly" form. It's why, for all the conjecture about how socialism fails due to human nature and is impossible to properly implement, it is libertarian capitalism that is truly and most basically incompatible with corporate nature, and human nature as well, and accommodation of its dictates has led to ruin everywhere other than the United States, which is well on its way.

No, its not, at least not anymore of the current economic dependence most nations have from the rest of the world, only the US i think would be able to reach functional autarky nowadays, so if we part from the premise that every state is still economically dependant from economic factors it cant control then we ought to define economic independence from the perspective of what the State can control.

And from that POV the economic independence of a country rests in its fiscal and monetary policy. A government that cant control its own currency and set its own taxes its by that condition, worthless.

Mexico managed to thumb its nose at the US and keep political stability through the mere fact that the country had a stable currency. We had strong growth UNTIL the 50s.

Everything went downhill in Mexico, when guess what, the government decided to increase the share of government in the economy, displacing the necesarily profitable, private sector with the zero accountability public sector.

Our trade balance was shot because the electric, oil and part of the food sector had been totally or partially expropiated and run to the ground.

How is that not ceding economic power when you have to beg to the world powers for hard currency? its because said "revolutionary" governments dont really care about general well-being but absolute power from within that can be achieved when you run a country to the ground and only you hold the bread.

Ridiculous when you consider the fact that government always profits from private profit if it controls its fiscal policy so when a private company profits government gets a cut but losses are the private company owns.

In a socialist country where the government controls these companies, the losses are public debt and there is no incentive to run a profit at all for that reason.

Again, I did not use "neoliberal" to describe Latin American countries: your speaker did. However, speaking more generally, neoliberalism is just a natural political evolution of capitalism in a democratic state, and capitalism has failed Latin America every bit as woefully as Leninism and socialism.

Because neoliberalism is a boogeyman used by left populists.

Capitalism has not failed latin America, corrupt governments have, almost all these "capitalist" failures are given when a government deviates from the true and tested templates in order to gain political power.

 

[MiniCraque]

Care to name one latin "neoliberal" country that implemented 6 or more of the above and still went broke?

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Henrique_Cardoso#Crisis_Económica

 

[DespicablePeep]

As I specified to Rod1, I did not say any neoliberalist regimes were operating in South America, and in fact specified that the preconditions for neoliberalism were not present, outside of perhaps Argentina and Puerto Rico. It was the OP's speaker that seemed to imply that, although her meaning and conclusion were not clear to me.

Neoliberalism is pretty clearly defined historically and politically by leftists. It is the fact that the term was recently commandeered by right-wingers that has muddled the issues (further than would be typical of a convoluted political artifact).

the conditions specified made no sense, but if they made Brasil would be much closer than Argentina. Puerto Rico is almost an US colony.. Any government could simplify taxes, keep government to a minimum and focus in education, health, infrastructure and basic regulations to ensure free/competitive market.

 

[Rod1]

Of course she doesn't defend right wing governments. She just defends the larger ideology of neoliberalism.

What exactly of the Washington Consensus are you against?

And no shit a "rigged system" is part of the problem. That's not an ideological question though. That's something anyone can agree on and point to. Corruption is bad, political favors shouldn't be made, public money should help out people, etc., yeah, no kidding.

And Trump still hovers at 40% approval rating, common sense, aint so common.

She is saying that institutions should be independent and that there ought to be a strong rule of law and property. The rest is just as she said "her opinion".

Yeah, and she supports a system that is going to continue this inequality. In fact, it often exacerbates it.

How is spending primarly on education and healthcare and keeping inflation low promoting inequality? What part of the Washington Consensus promotes inequality?

Most of Latin America did during the 90s! Argentina, Peru, Venezuela for sure. Chavez's predecessor- Carlos Andres Perez- "had promised to oppose the United States government's Washington Consensus and the International Monetary Fund's policies, he opposed neither once he got into office, following instead neoliberal economic policies supported by the United States and the IMF"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez#Operation_Zamora_coup_attempt:_1992

And we know how that turned out and led to.

LOL, absolutely nobody followed the Washington Consensus outside of "privatization" and by privatization it means selling the public companies to close friends in order to get themselves rich. Not to open them up and make them more competitive.

And Chile went far right (politically AND economically) during the Pinochet years. They only started seeing development in the 90s when they elected a few presidents from the- gulp- Socialist Party. And of course, their state-owned copper industry is the driver of their success.

They're a bit of a mixed bag. Great growth and development, low poverty and high levels of education. But also massive inequality.

This is demonstrably false. And yes, its not like Friedman and the monetarists were 100% correct, but they did experienced some growth and if not for the deviation of the formula given (free floating currency) the 1982 crisis would had been avoided. Much better than what Allende would had led towards.

That being said what the Chicago Boys did in Chile is not exactly the same as the Washington Consensus.

Chicago Boys biggest failures were both healthcare and education, and the Washington Consesus does points out that the government main expenditures should be those 2. And Chile is the latin American country with the lowest poverty rates.

As to the "chilean socialists" as i said before these terms seem to be meaningless when taken against policy.

Just look up to the finance ministers during the post-Pinochet years, its all economic orthodoxy, just like AMLO is running again with economic orthodoxists as his financial advisors.

 

[DespicablePeep]

Capitalism has not failed latin America, corrupt governments have, almost all these "capitalist" failures are given when a government deviates from the true and tested templates in order to gain political power.

Perfect, populists in South America sell the idea that state companies are for the people, they own the property, that way politicians have the money to continue to get elected while offering bad services and a lot more expensive if it was up to the market.

Venezuela and Brasil sold the idea that oil was for the people, they created huge companies to explore with absurd costs, making those oil companies into debt. Brasil oil company was a huge money laundry scheme, with several projects just to embezzle money from the company into the political system.

just give it a read

https://www.barrons.com/articles/petrobras-u-s-refinery-so-cheap-could-venezuela-buy-it-1494353070

Petrobras paid $1.2 billion for the refinery, but could part with the asset for $200 million

 

[Rod1]

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Henrique_Cardoso#Crisis_Económica

Crisis Económica[editar]
A pesar de su éxito en términos inflacionarios y cambiarios, el Plan Real mostraba falencias para resolver los problemas de déficit comercial y fiscal, los cuales eran cubiertos a través de financiamiento externo atraído por las altas tasas de interés ofrecidas por el Banco Central. El déficit externo no preocupaba tanto a las autoridades, ya que el incremento de las importaciones era una consecuencia lógica de la estabilización económica y de la apreciación cambiaria. Se suponía que la importación de bienes de capital llevaría a mayores índices de productividad interna y por lo tanto a generar industrias más competitivas, lo cual repercutiría posteriormente en mayores exportaciones.13

Large governmeent deficits used to finance import substitution, heavy tariffs barriers and a non-floating currency. Thats all in the first few sentences.

So care to at least point out the parts that they actually did followed since i alreayd counted 3-4 ones that they didnt?

 

[DespicablePeep]

And Chile went far right (politically AND economically) during the Pinochet years. They only started seeing development in the 90s when they elected a few presidents from the- gulp- Socialist Party. And of course, their state-owned copper industry is the driver of their success..

Chile always had steady growth rates since the 70s, after the junta following governments did not make radical changes and Chile continued to have economic freedom.

Argentina, Brasil, Venezuela and most of SA are always jumping from crisis to crisis, unlike Chile.

 

[2arctanx]

she doesn't look guatemalan at all.

 

[MiniCraque]

Crisis Económica[editar]
A pesar de su éxito en términos inflacionarios y cambiarios, el Plan Real mostraba falencias para resolver los problemas de déficit comercial y fiscal, los cuales eran cubiertos a través de financiamiento externo atraído por las altas tasas de interés ofrecidas por el Banco Central. El déficit externo no preocupaba tanto a las autoridades, ya que el incremento de las importaciones era una consecuencia lógica de la estabilización económica y de la apreciación cambiaria. Se suponía que la importación de bienes de capital llevaría a mayores índices de productividad interna y por lo tanto a generar industrias más competitivas, lo cual repercutiría posteriormente en mayores exportaciones.13

Large governmeent deficits used to finance import substitution, heavy tariffs barriers and a non-floating currency. Thats all in the first few sentences.

So care to at least point out the parts that they actually did followed since i alreayd counted 3-4 ones that they didnt?

Wait. Where on earth did you read "finance import substitution" or heavy tariffs?

Market/financial deregulation, open the floodgates to foreign investment, free trade, privatizations, fiscal discipline (as in no deficit spending, higher taxes to balance the budget)... aside from exchange rate policy, it was textbook IMF recipe.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

I thought that while this lady is articulate, quite convincing and rather charismatic, just imagine an old Anglo-Saxon fart with a Hermes tie saying exactly what she said.

Her stuff basically reads like a column from The Economist. Yawn.

 

[Rod1]

Wait. Where on earth did you read "finance import substitution" or heavy tariffs?

Market/financial deregulation, open the floodgates to foreign investment, free trade, privatizations, fiscal discipline (as in no deficit spending, higher taxes to balance the budget)... aside from exchange rate policy, it was textbook IMF recipe.

Holy crap i think i got lost in wiki limbo right there.

Going to read about it and give you a proper response.

EDIT.

It seems that Brasil fell in the same trap as Chile in the 70s, high interest rates and a pegged currency that were too attractive and robbed the productive sector of financing.

 

[Rod1]

she doesn't look guatemalan at all.

Born and raised.