terry -
i don't know anything about tambogrande's shangri-la rating, but i would guess the average peruvian doesn't "live on" $1.25 a day: they probaby live on a mixture of subsistence gardening/farming and barter, and supplement any official income they have with informal/black market earnings.
measuring "poverty" in terms of recordable and disposable income makes no sense outside of an essentially bureaucratic wage-earning economy. that doesn't mean that the people of TG are happy, or don't want something different from what they have. but there's no reason that what they DO want should necessarily be something they can buy with Manhattan's money (larger formal wage economy, new houses 500m south of their present houses, cars/TVs, e.g.). it might be what they really want is more democratic local government, more of an ownership stake in the limes and mangoes, shorter working hours, cleaner water, who knows?
so the hypothesis that Mahattan can buy them off remains just that - a hypothesis.
to me, the overwhelming majority in the recent vote suggests one of three scenarios going forward:
1. the local scene is so corrupt, Manhattan will be able to buy them off, but the price may be quite high;
2. the peruvian government will strong-arm them into the mine, whether they want it or not;
3. they really don't want the mine, and no one will be able to make them change their minds - neither the government, nor MAN.
ascribe risks to these as you wish. IMO, tho, there are probably ways for us to make money as investors which are (both morally and financially) simpler than investing here.
my 2 cents (European):
peter |
