[LAz]

Hm, I'm kinda surprised that nobody mentioned this yet. But, Ortega won the elections in a landslide recently.
He had managed to do a lot of good that many people actually benefited from.


Here's an article
http://news.yahoo.com/nicaraguas-ortega ... 06487.html


Any opinions? I find it interesting how he managed this outstanding come back. What I find particularly interesting is his adaptability - for example embracing religion. And hey, it leads to more votes, so it makes sense.

Considering what difficult state the Central American countries are in, I expect Nicaragua to become one of the strongest ones.

[Smertios]

Ortega's existence is terrible for Latin America, as a whole. His policy of allying himself with dictators is not good for anyone. I hope his reign ends soon...

[Social_Critic]

Ortega violated the Nicaraguan Constitution to get elected. He got a lot of cash from Venezuela to prop him up prior to the elections, which means Venezuela is intefering in the internal affairs of other nations. I think Ortega can be considered an autocrat.

[LAz]

Ortega's existence is terrible for Latin America, as a whole. His policy of allying himself with dictators is not good for anyone. I hope his reign ends soon...

He has gone far in improving socioeconomic conditions. How is that bad?

[Smertios]

He has gone far in improving socioeconomic conditions. How is that bad?

So has Lula, yet his level of acceptance by developed markets is much greater, since he doesn't have an extremist positioning. Chavez's, Morales's, Correa's and Ortega's anti-imperialist discourses cause uncertainty about the economy (there is nothing guaranteeing they won't break the contracts and nationalize everything, after all) and about politics (there is nothing guaranteeing there won't be a popular revolt, as the politics in those countries are heavily divided), so that scares investors away from your country. And that is especially harmful, considering they need developed countries to buy their resources.

This discourse that the "imperialist" developed nations make it impossible for Latin American nations to prosper, and that only by ditching them, we can develop properly, is bullshit. Brazil became a newly industrialized country (NIC) in the last 50-70 years, not because we ditched the US and Europe, but because we developed our industry and started selling our products in their markets. Did they do anything to prevent us from doing that? No. But 20 years ago, no one would have imagines that one day, the USAF would be buying military aircraft from Embraer. And we did it ourselves, not by adopting an anti-US discourse, but precisely by accepting that the US is a strategic economic partner for our market.

If you analyze the last 2 centuries, you will see that the reason why the Hispanic world never prospered was due to several caudillos, coups, constitutions changing etc, which caused the countries to become politically and economically unstable. Juan Manuel de Rosas, Francisco Solano Lopez, António Lopez de Santa Anna, Simon Bolivar, Augusto Pinochet, Alfredo Stroessner, Juan Peron, Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega, Rafael Correa etc are pretty much the only reason why this region has been so chaotic for the last 2 centuries.

Brazil avoided that chaos during the 19th century, but ended up falling into the hands of dictators three times in the 20th. But now Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Mexico etc seem to be doing fine. And the reason why Brazil is doing so much better than the Hispanics isn't really due to a huge population. Our population was really small in the 1940s, for example. The reason is that we had one century of stability and economic prosperity ahead of all Hispanic countries. And even in the 20th century, we managed to remain somewhat more stable, with only 4 chaotic periods (1889-1894, 1930-1934, 1937-1945, 1964-1985). And the only one that seriously affected us was the last one (the military rule), though it wasn't as bad as what was going on the rest of the region, since we managed to keep a steady economic growth. So, since there was no political chaos, we ended up industrializing first. And we are also one of the only two Latin American nations that have manufactured goods as the main exporting product (the other being Mexico).

The caudillo discourse has never led Latin America anywhere, I doubt it will start being good now...

[Social_Critic]

I'd like to know what you mean by "he has gone far in improving social conditions". Also I wonder if you know he's using a lot of money donated by Venezuela to prop himself up, and at the same time is violating the Constitution by having himself re-elected illegally (they have term limits and he's violating them). But tell us, what statistics do you have to show he's doing well?

[Smertios]

and at the same time is violating the Constitution by having himself re-elected illegally (they have term limits and he's violating them).

To be fair, Latin American leaders have a long history of disrespecting constitutions and replacing them for whatever they want. Chileans are talking about changing constitutions right now, for example.

Most of Latin America, like I said, is getting stable now. Soon the entire region will be developed. But backward leaders and governments, such as Chavez's and Ortega's will continue to exist for a while, unfortunately...

[Pants-of-dog]

I am always a bit mystified by the "cult of the constitution" that influences so much political discourse. I wonder if this has to do with some sort of unconscious idea that US style republicanism is the be-all and end-all of democracy.

[Smertios]

I am always a bit mystified by the "cult of the constitution" that influences so much political discourse. I wonder if this has to do with some sort of unconscious idea that US style republicanism is the be-all and end-all of democracy.

Agreed. Though obviously for different reasons

I don't think the American model is good at all. Brazil, for example, was politically stable when we had a parliamentary regime. Then, with a coup, everything changes and in 1889, we have the exact same system as the US. But the political culture here was completely different, so that obviously didn't work.

Now we have finally managed to find a system that seems to be working well (a coalition-based presidential system). But it didn't happen before, while we were trying to mimic every action the US took...

[LAz]

So has Lula, yet his level of acceptance by developed markets is much greater, since he doesn't have an extremist positioning. Chavez's, Morales's, Correa's and Ortega's anti-imperialist discourses cause uncertainty about the economy

Ortega has been very friendly to foreign business and markets and whatnot.
In fact I'd say that all those leftist regimes in latin america are friendly towards markets. Of course, there is state responsibility to prevent market failure and negative externalities.

But, the point remains that ortega has the support of the rich in nicaragua.

If you analyze the last 2 centuries, you will see that the reason why the Hispanic world never prospered was due to several caudillos, coups, constitutions changing etc, which caused the countries to become politically and economically unstable.

No. It did not develop because there was extreme unequal distribution of resources/slavery.
Those in power who supported this enslavement system prevented real development as their only goal was exploitation.
Coups and such things happened when leftist regimes came to power. These leftist regimes had serious plans to develop the economy and improve the living standards and socioeconomic conditions. The coups and bad things that followed are a response from the US, as the US has been responsible for continual intervention that destabilized the region and enforced banana-republic status. The foreign imperialists prevented stability. Now that they have stopped interfering the region is finally allowed to democratically procede and develop... aka to be leftist and develop.

Yet you do not respond to what I said...
..."He has gone far in improving socioeconomic conditions. How is that bad?"

I'd like to know what you mean by "he has gone far in improving social conditions". Also I wonder if you know he's using a lot of money donated by Venezuela to prop himself up, and at the same time is violating the Constitution by having himself re-elected illegally (they have term limits and he's violating them). But tell us, what statistics do you have to show he's doing well?

In the 1980s he has gone very far in reducing poverty and increasing literacy, among other things.

Nowadays he has gone far in improving socioeconomic conditions, resulting in him to be reelected by a landslide.
Yes, much money is from Venezuela, but are you gonna dare suggest that this is bad? No longer are there electricity shortages in the capital as there were in the past. The country is developing well.

Most of Latin America, like I said, is getting stable now. Soon the entire region will be developed. But backward leaders and governments, such as Chavez's and Ortega's will continue to exist for a while, unfortunately...

Because they're leftist? Brazil is led by that same kin. Throw in Argentina, Urugay, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and whoah WHOA HWHOAH WHOLE REGION OMG NOES ?!?!
The fact is that the leftist path is the only real choice for development and prosperity.

[Smertios]

Ortega has been very friendly to foreign business and markets and whatnot.
In fact I'd say that all those leftist regimes in latin america are friendly towards markets. Of course, there is state responsibility to prevent market failure and negative externalities.

But, the point remains that ortega has the support of the rich in nicaragua.

Whether he has the support of the rich or not is irrelevant. His foreign policy and international discourse make the country risky. It is not a matter of an opinion. All economic indicators say so.

For example: http://www.euromoney.com/Article/2851638/Countries-included-in-the-Euromoney-Country-Risk-Results.html

Compare Nicaragua's country risk score with the neighbors and other Latin American countries:

Nicaragua: 32.59
Honduras: 42.89
Belize: 38.03
Guatemala: 39.02
El Salvador: 46.40
Costa Rica: 50.32
Panama: 58.59

US: 82.07
Mexico: 58.66
Canada: 87.24

Venezuela: 41.50
Bolivia: 38.17
Ecuador: 31.22
Colombia: 59.84
Peru: 55.76

Brazil: 62.34
Paraguay: 44.02
Uruguay: 49.64
Argentina: 43.03
Chile: 74.44

Guyana: 28.30
Suriname: 33.57

As you can see, there is a clear pattern there. Venezuela is quite rich, mainly due to oil, so they don't get all the political backfire, unless there is another country competing with them in the oil market (which Brazil will soon be, anyway). But the low scores of Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia compared to their neighbors are no surprise, given hat the policy of their governments presents high risk. You can't have your government have an anti-American discourse and expect American investors to invest in your industry, for example...

Banana republics are only that because they have crappy governments, after all...

No. It did not develop because there was extreme unequal distribution of resources/slavery.
Those in power who supported this enslavement system prevented real development as their only goal was exploitation.
Coups and such things happened when leftist regimes came to power. These leftist regimes had serious plans to develop the economy and improve the living standards and socioeconomic conditions. The coups and bad things that followed are a response from the US, as the US has been responsible for continual intervention that destabilized the region and enforced banana-republic status. The foreign imperialists prevented stability. Now that they have stopped interfering the region is finally allowed to democratically procede and develop... aka to be leftist and develop.

This is complete bullshit. Both Brazil and the US in the 19th century were just as unequal as the Hispanic nations, and both countries managed to keep stability and grow steadily. The US had no power back in the 19th century at all. And most Hispanic countries were already banana republics back then. So no, it has nothing to do with foreign intervention at all.

In fact, it was because of the Brazilian intervention in Argentina, in 1851, that the country managed to develop so fast up to 1900. We successfully took down a rightist caudillo and enforced a liberal democracy there. The same with Uruguay and Paraguay.

Yet you do not respond to what I said...
..."He has gone far in improving socioeconomic conditions. How is that bad?"

Brazil: 1964-1973. We were in the middle of a military dictatorship. There was no democracy and lots of repression. Yet the government managed to improve socioeconomic conditions. The economy was growing up to 10% every year. There was security and order in the streets. The education was 10 times better than now. My father's salary as an assistant/secretary in a factory, for example, was enough for everyone to consider him rich. Yet I ask you: was it worth it? Hell no!

Because they're leftist? Brazil is led by that same kin. Throw in Argentina, Urugay, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and whoah WHOA HWHOAH WHOLE REGION OMG NOES ?!?!

Ehh, learn to read?

If you analyze the last 2 centuries, you will see that the reason why the Hispanic world never prospered was due to several caudillos, coups, constitutions changing etc, which caused the countries to become politically and economically unstable. Juan Manuel de Rosas, Francisco Solano Lopez, António Lopez de Santa Anna, Simon Bolivar, Augusto Pinochet, Alfredo Stroessner, Juan Peron, Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega, Rafael Correa etc are pretty much the only reason why this region has been so chaotic for the last 2 centuries.

I listed more right-wing caudillos than left-wing ones there. They are all the same kind of crap. I have nothing against moderate leftists, just like I have nothing against moderate rightists. But caudillos, dictators etc, are all a bad thing for any country.

The fact is that the leftist path is the only real choice for development and prosperity.

So, how come the most developed country in South America is also the most liberal one, led by a conservative party?

In fact, if you count all leftist regimes in the world, you will see that most of them are in underdeveloped nations. The developed world is all composed by liberal democracies, not socialist dictatorships of the proletariat...

[Social_Critic]

Smertios, that Euromoney risk analysis is too coarse. They lump together direct investment with investment in sovereign bonds. And those two are quite different. There's also a difference between industries. For example, if you invest in Venezuela's oil industry, you are toast. The investment doesn't make any sense. The last time I was asked by a client to rank Venezuela I told them Gas to Liquids in Yamal made a lot more sense than investing in Venezuela's oil.

On the other hand, say you have a potato patch in Cucuta, Colombia. Investing in a Venezuelan truck you can use to ship potatoes to Maracaibo may be worth your while. It's a low cost investment and thus far the Venezuelan government leaves individual truckers alone. You, of course, would already be in a high risk environment in Cucuta, which happens to be crawling with FARC. So since you are already in gators up to your neck, what's another truck?

In Nicaragua's case, I'd say the investment risk would be lower as long as you got a local party hack as your partner. Same in Cuba. Those are fascist type mafia governments, and they play ball if you play ball.

[Smertios]

It is one out of several risk analysis that say pretty much the same thing, though...

[Social_Critic]

OK, OK, Smertios. But they are all lumping too much in one ranking number. I'm not that familiar with Nicaragua, I do hear they seem to be moving towards the same type of fascism Raul Castro wants to implement in Cuba. Did you see the stuff I wrote for ben, the Chinese guy, about the way Cuba represses dissent? It seems ben accepts ton ton macoute type repression because that's acceptable in China. They are all using the same model.