Bolivia

[Gangerolf]

but, I love poland. even been there like 4 times.

[Barnabas]

I just wanted to add that Bolivia does not claim back all the territory it lost, just a fricking seaport

Chile can keep all the copper mines, you know, those that produce over 50% of their exports..

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
What would be funny, would be Chile giving Arica and a corridor to it to Bolivia, it would mean that Chile no longer has a fronteer with Peru (the main war hypothesis for chile), and that Bolivia would now own the territory Peru lost to Chile in the war.

Chile could kick south American butt again if it had to. Chile has zero incentive to give up land. No country has, because once you start that, it never ends. Bolivia has a navy, that's a good thing, but it really shouldn't count on getting a sea port.

Instead it should bite the bullet, let foreign companies back in, trade with the devil if need be - anything to promote economic growth.

Data from IQ and the Wealth of Nations suggests an IQ for Peru of 90. If we take Bolivia to be similar, it should be much richer than it is.

But no way socialism can help it. Hard core capitalism is the only way to go.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Hard core capitalism is the only way to go.

Umm, yeah right...

Hard core capitalism has screwed over practically every country in Latin America.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Heresson
Bolivia should be given access to the sea.
But some chilean province should be left on th other side of this Bolivian corridor, just for fun.

Well one of the unofficial plans is to have an exchange of territory, Bolivia getting a seaport and Chile getting a piece of Bolivian territory bordering it which is likely rich in a number of resources.

So far Chile has found that unacceptable.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Master Zen
You should, however, mention the backstory about how Bolivia "lost" (perhaps "stolen" would be a better word) its sea access in the 1879 war by Chile's economic ambitions in the disputed region and how any excuse was a valid pretext for war. It has always struck me how much that war parallels the US-Mexico war of 1846.

There are some parallels with the Mexican-American War but ultimately the Mexican government was stupid enough to step into a big bear trap and it doomed their nation in that war.

Ordering Mexican soldiers north of the Rio Grande to claim the land between the Nexus and Rio Grande was stupid but ordering Mexican soldiers to shoot at American soldiers was insane. If the other guy is a giant then you don't pick a fight with him especially if he's already arranged all of his forces for an invasion and they're just waiting for an excuse.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Mexico seems to've quite successfully forgotten 1846.

Not all of them. In any event there were very, very few people in the southwest when Mexico ruled it while the heart of Mexico was always to the south. Plus Mexico has found relative success since the war of 1846 while Bolivia has not thus Mexico has mostly moved on but Bolivia dwells in the past blaming the evil foreigners for their breakfest not being cooked right (and what ever else happens to come to mind).

The Bolivian government keeps this claim about the evil foreigners alive for the same reason Arab dictators keep the claims that Israel and the US are responsible for every ill in the Arab world; namely, they want the people to blame someone else instead of the government for how screwed up the country is.

[Barnabas]

Anything Mexico could have done would have been irrelevant

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Anything Mexico could have done would have been irrelevant

Pretty much. Any excuse would have ultimately sufficied. The US wanted that land and was willing to do anything to get, no matter how sleazy or otherwise.

[Heresson]

I think he's ment something else

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Mexico seems to've quite successfully forgotten 1846.

There's not a single person in this country who has forgotten it. In fact, it's pretty much THE reason our image of our northern neighbors is so negative (that and countless other crap which I won't bother to mention).

However, it was not as traumatic as it could have been in other circumstances since that territory was virtually unproductive at the time it was stolen. There were no major cities, just a few dismally small ports and missions in California, Texas and New Mexico. In fact, I doubt most Mexicans at the time acutally had an idea of the dimension of the loss precisely because it was so irrelevant to the economy and to politics. I doubt there was anything more than 50-100,000 people living in that whole area at the time and with hardly any resources worth exploiting.

Thus, Mexico wasn't actually weakened in the short term by the loss although in longer terms it was quite significant (especially considering the value of places like California and Texas for agriculture). If all that space had been as productive as the rest of the country, we very much would be in the same place as Bolivia right now in terms of wanting it back at all costs.

In any case, any look at the demographics of that territory is proof enough that we are actually doing far more than the Bolivians to get our land back.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Umm, yeah right...

Hard core capitalism has screwed over practically every country in Latin America.

I am interested in economic history, so I am familiar with Chile's troubled experiments under Pinochet, Argentina's crises and so on.

However, I still think hard core capitalism is the way to go.

What the Latin American countries need is responsible governments who won't go into debt to cover paychecks of overgrown bureaucracy (Argentina), nationalize industries (Chile, Bolivia) print money to cover expenses (practically everyone at some period).

Capitalism needs proper institutions and proper governance to work. Socialism encourages immoral behaviour, corruption, nepotism, free riding etc. It can only work in ethnically and culturally homogenous countries like Sweden, where 90% of population look the same, think the same, and are the same

In hetereogenous countries, the only way to get rid of corruption and power abuse is to remove the control of the economy from the state and give it to the market.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion


I am interested in economic history, so I am familiar with Chile's troubled experiments under Pinochet, Argentina's crises and so on.

However, I still think hard core capitalism is the way to go.

What the Latin American countries need is responsible governments who won't go into debt to cover paychecks of overgrown bureaucracy (Argentina), nationalize industries (Chile, Bolivia) print money to cover expenses (practically everyone at some period).

Capitalism needs proper institutions and proper governance to work. Socialism encourages immoral behaviour, corruption, nepotism, free riding etc. It can only work in ethnically and culturally homogenous countries like Sweden, where 90% of population look the same, think the same, and are the same

In hetereogenous countries, the only way to get rid of corruption and power abuse is to remove the control of the economy from the state and give it to the market.

Arguably the most succesful county in Latin Ameica right now is Brazil, which under Lula is combining a market-capitalist approach with a serious (but sane) commitment to social justice and the welfare state. What say you to that?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Master Zen
In any case, any look at the demographics of that territory is proof enough that we are actually doing far more than the Bolivians to get our land back.

We will happily take any hot Mexican women who would like to come north but I'm afraid the ugly ones must stay in Mexico.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Arguably the most succesful county in Latin Ameica right now is Brazil, which under Lula is combining a market-capitalist approach with a serious (but sane) commitment to social justice and the welfare state. What say you to that?

Essentially, that is Clinton's Third Way approach. Meaning that the government should free the markets to work properly but also assist people who are negatively effected by market changes.