The problem in Bolivia is two groups are after the gas, and one group is seeking to hold on to its money, whilst the other is after that same money and eventually the gas.
The rightist, or land owning group of the east, who also live where the gas is located, want to secede from Morales government as he intends to take most of their money in punitive rob the rich taxes, and garner votes with handouts to the poorer western highlanders. He also wants to divest the rightist eastern lowlanders with any access to the gas by virtue of their living on it. If it were the other way around and the indigenous people lived in the gas rich areas, they not being given rights to any royalties to this resource, of course their would be rebellion in a New York millisecond.
A "non approved" referendum was held and it was passed by 85% vote to back secession from Morales rule. Now according to some sources that represents only 85% of 70%, as 30% did not vote. However this ignores that most election results are based on similar turnouts worldwide. In fact 60% of the people don't want to live under Morales dictums or confiscation.
Is this plain pigheaded greed on the part of the have-Bolivians? Well let's come home for a minute and look at it. Suppose a left wing democratic candidate, let's call him Barry K. O'Bamion, decides one day to tax all financial transactions on Wall Street off the top at 15%, and brings the resulting barrelfuls of cash down to Harlamtown, Appalachia and says to the poh folks standing around, finger up nose in their farmer Johns, "Why, jes look at all this loot boys! Dive in and take what you need! There is more coming!"... Now how long do you think that grab-and-give program would work.. when it is close to home? Sure those poor dispossessed wretches whelping out coal-mining brats deserve a break in this world, but breaking down one bank to serve the needs of the indigents by merely handing cash out is not the solution. It never was and it never will be. It is not the easy solution to poverty to merely reward its existence by temporarily erasing it. It merely creates a different class of poverty. The poor who do not need to work.
All over the world, socialist politicians have been trying to make up for regional and ethnic inequities in wealth and employment disparities by simply taking cash from hardworking more well off middle class people and just shoveling it out to out of work fisherman, farmers with overproductive land, federal advertising agencies, expensive and often unwarranted development projects in poorer areas, people who can't find jobs, relative who work for the government, idealistic agencies intent on solving imaginary social and economic problems, etc. etc.. etc.. it is called the monstrous waste of government. Far be it from these politicos to actually put industry to work to get the economy of these areas back to an acceptable level. Oh no we can't do that! But how else can one do it.. sustainably? If no one on earth will work for a buck to see 75% of it go to someone else who does not have to, then it is obviously not sustainable to work a cash-flow scheme from the rich to the poor. Politicians of our modern societies just don't get it. If you want the poor of New Brunswick, Appalachia, inner cities, Western Bolivia to rise up to their capabilities then you must let industry find them work. That means a financiers, investors, a business, engineers, technicians, skilled labour etc. who must plow the furrows to let that farm produce. And they are not going to do it for gratis. Life is too short. They will do it for a profit or they won't do it at all. They might get "rich" doing it, but it from knowing how, and working hard. In the end everybody benefits. Look at Europe and North America. Probably not totally fair everywhere, but who does better? And frankly there is far too much cash grab here for most people's taste.
Wealth redistribution schemes are a crock of shit. It did not work in Rome and it will not work here today. So are government run industries. The latter all run at the most inefficient level, which guarantee that the least harvesting of resources will occur. Will government-run resource-harvesting schemes find more ore, or pollute less? No. For a 1000 reasons why, too deep to go into here.
Morales and his crowd want hands on all the taps that pour real money. Any money in the hands of people they want to grab and send to their friends who will continue to vote them in. With secure seats in government their families become rich. Power is their intoxicant, money is their bread and butter. They beat the drum of inequity of the impoverished inheritance of their own ancestors. Fair enough. But will every man woman and child of Western Bolivia rise like shining star if they make every single man in Eastern Bolivia a pauper? No, I am afraid not. If Morales succeeds in raising the standard of living of the WB indigent by 15% in ten years I would be shocked. No socialist has succeeded in doing that in the last 100 years in SA. One dictator of the extreme right managed to do more than that in Chile in less than 15 years however. I am not suggesting that you have to be Pinochet to get an economy running. I am merely saying that good intentions are not enough.
Government is evil. In all cases it should be limited and controlled so that it serves the needs of all in fair manner, but plunder no one's pocket in the name of motherhood and the lord. As Jesus Christ observed 2000 years ago, or thereabouts, "There will always be poor". He mean that there is no sure way to cure poverty. He also said in the realm of statistical thought, "some will fall upon thorns..", meaning shid happens and there is no predicting it. Politicians who thump bibles and other tomes of religious idolatry to further their cause take heed. Your most socialist iconic conscience told you long ago that it was pointless to seek to perfect the world.
EC<:-} |
