Bolivia on the verge of revolution?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman
Regarding gas industry nationalisation, all the main left-wing parties have stopped short of actually demanding it. It's popular on the street, but not amongst politicians. A bit like rail nationalisation in Britain.

MAS (Movement Towards Socialism) is the only one which has not called for outright nationalization of all foreign owned companies in the energy sector. MAS says the foreigners can stay if the royalities are raised fron 18% of gross revenue to 50% of gross revenue. That would be instead of the current 18% tax on gross revenue and a 32% tax on profits. The foreign companies (BP, Total, Petrobras, Repsol) have said that would result in their operations being unprofitable thus requiring them to be closed.

http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=28824

The law is also opposed by indigenous and labour organisations that backed Mesa in the past. They do not want the foreign companies to continue exploiting Bolivia's natural gas, and most of them are demanding the outright nationalisation of the industry.

Only the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), the strongest opposition party - led by indigenous lawmaker Evo Morales, the leader of Bolivia's coca growers - says it would accept the continued presence of foreign oil companies, but only on the condition that the transnational corporations pay a 50 percent direct royalty.

[Velociryx]

Twenty years of free-market policies have done precisely nothing for the majority of Bolivians. Or was it not really capitalism?

What you're witnessing in Bolivia is not a failure of market economics, but a variety of political failings.

Sure, it's easy to blame the market, and something that the reds get a charge out of, but the market didn't fail the rank and file Bolivians, their "elected" leaders did. Fix what's broken, keep what works, and you get a winner.

-=Vel=-

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
Twenty years of free-market policies have done precisely nothing for the majority of Bolivians. Or was it not really capitalism?

Optimal policies would probably be ones that embrace the market, but take a reasonable tax share, and use that for social policies. More or less Lula policies. I dont see that as what Morales is offering.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman
Twenty years of free-market policies have done precisely nothing for the majority of Bolivians. Or was it not really capitalism?

The Bolivian government hasn't exactly been working towards a free market for 20 years and it is disengenious for you to claim other wise. Until 1993 the country was run on a traditional Latin American statist model where high tarrifs blocked foreign competition and government owned companies controlled the economy. They only begun transitioning to a freer market model because the government was in danger of defaulting on its national debt and they went to the IMF for help.

Since the state controlled economy was failing the IMF prescribed a dose of free market economics which has succeeded in getting the economy moving again. Lowering the sky high tarrifs resulted in improvements in the stanard of living while the privatization of state owned companies freed up government money to be spent on things like education and roads. Previously most state money was sucked up by the bloated state owned industries which seemed to excel at little other then losing money.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Hmmm. So if Euro pressure manages to get the US to sign Kyoto, and coal miners lose their jobs due to carbon taxes, etc you will sympathize with them?

Yes.

Look, if coca had never hit the global market, and was just something grown on the side, would these coca farmers be complaining so loud?

Likely not. But the reaction woud, no doubt, still have been fierce, since coca is very widely consumed down there.

would there even be such a thing as a "coca farmer" as opposed to a potato farmer who grew a little coca on the side?

I don't know. I've heard references to coca farmers in colonial times, but I'm not sure if it means one who mainly grows coca or just any that grows coca.

You want sympathy for your traditional way of life, you have to pursue a traditional way of life. Not a thoroughly modern, global market dependent way of life that happens to be based on a traditional crop. I fell no more sympathy for these guys than i do for folks who work at Phillip Morris.

If tobacco were outlawed tomorrow, the employees of Philip Morris would be in an unpleasant position thru no fault of their own. That's something I can sympathize with.

Every time the rules circumscribing the market change, someone is hurt. Frequently that person is not personally at fault - why should we then not sympathize with his or her plight? This, of course, doesn't mean that the change might not be necessary for the greater good.

[Agathon]

Meanwhile back in Bolivia....

[Last Conformist]

... coca shouldn't be outlawed. They've got programmes for legal, controlled growing of the stuff in Peru - the same should be implementable in Bolivia.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang
It wasn't. It was kleptocracism.

Because the free market is forced upon the population? Sorry, that's capitalism at gun point.

[Last Conformist]

@Kid: Why don't you try making sense for a change?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@Kid: Why don't you try making sense for a change?

Why don't you start using sense for a change?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by pchang
It wasn't. It was kleptocracism.

That's not even a word.

What you're witnessing in Bolivia is not a failure of market economics, but a variety of political failings.

Sure, it's easy to blame the market, and something that the reds get a charge out of, but the market didn't fail the rank and file Bolivians, their "elected" leaders did. Fix what's broken, keep what works, and you get a winner.

In what way did their leaders fail? They certainly didn't fail to deliver free-market reforms ('shock therapy').

Optimal policies would probably be ones that embrace the market, but take a reasonable tax share, and use that for social policies. More or less Lula policies. I dont see that as what Morales is offering.

Fair enough. But to some here, there's no such thing as a reasonable tax share.

The Bolivian government hasn't exactly been working towards a free market for 20 years and it is disengenious for you to claim other wise.

Nope, they started their free-market reforms in 1985.

Link 1

Link 2

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman



Fair enough. But to some here, there's no such thing as a reasonable tax share.

there are extremists here in both directions. And some who dont really care about tax share, theyre just rooting for anyone who will trash the US.

[Last Conformist]

Kid:

Why don't you start using sense for a change?

Please point out what nonsensical things I've said in this thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


That's not even a word.



In what way did their leaders fail? They certainly didn't fail to deliver free-market reforms ('shock therapy').



Fair enough. But to some here, there's no such thing as a reasonable tax share.



Nope, they started their free-market reforms in 1985.

Link 1

Link 2

from your links

"These "shock therapy" measures succeed in reducing record inflation and bringing about slow but steady economic growth. Success comes at a high social cost.

IE unsustainable inflation was brought under control. If there were no FM policies, there might have been negative consequence for the poor.

1989-1993: Jaime Paz Zamora, Paz Estenssoro's nephew, is elected president. He continues his uncle's neoliberal reforms, maintaining slow economic growth. Cocaine trafficking contributes illegally to the economy. Social tensions explode in a series of forcefully suppressed strikes for higher wages and against privatization. Sánchez de Lozada, architect of the shock therapy program, is elected president.

No link here between the specific policies and the tensions, and whether the poor were becoming better off or not.

1994-1997: Sánchez de Lozada enacts political decentralization, granting municipalities more control over revenues. Heeding international concern for the environment, the government implements a coca-eradication program. Capitalization of several state enterprises brings economic growth in capital-intensive sectors. Banzer returns as president after more civil disturbances, promising greater social equity.

Again, no clarification of effect on poor.

1998-1999: The Brazilian and Asian financial crises bring Bolivia's slow economic growth nearly to a halt. Income per capita falls further as unemployment rises. Bolivia participates in a World Bank/International Monetary Fund debt reduction initiative for heavily indebted countries.

Income falls due to crises in Bolivias main markets. Not clear how avoiding FM policies would have prevented that, other than by avoiding earlier income increases.

2000-2003: Economic stagnation takes hold in the wake of the Asian crisis and amid global slowdown. Frustration grows at the apparent failure of market reforms to relieve poverty. The government deploys soldiers to stop protests. Indian and coca growers' movements gain popularity. An ailing Banzer resigns; his vice president takes over. Former president Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada returns to the office in 2002.

back to top

"

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Kid:

Why don't you start using sense for a change?

Please point out what nonsensical things I've said in this thread.

That's not what I was implying. You jump to the conclusion that I am not making sense. I'm making perfect sense. The problem is with you. It seems that no matter who the people elect the president ignores his mandate. I call that capitalism at gun point. What is your problem with that?