LATAM need to charge a premium for its political stability.
And who will pay for it?
And what political stability, exactly?
You really amuse me sometimes, elmat, with statements like that. I take it you are not serious or are trying to provoke discussion.
From a historical standpoint, LATAM has been incredibly but incredibly unstable. Colombia with its caroussel of tinpot dictators and never-ending guerrilla wars, drug trade, Chile under its strongmen, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, don't even get me started about Central America.
I'l admit that things are recently getting better but this is a like a single drop of stability in an ocean of violence, repression, instability, dictatorship, etc., that has affected each and every nation in LATAM during the last few centuries....with the possible exception of Costa Rica, a tiny and insignificant exception.
I don't consider Mexico all that stable at present thanks to the incredible power of the narcos. Thousands of police killed in the last year - yes, thousands. The Mexican government hardly has control over the northern half of the country and the violence is spilling over to the US. I don't consider that a particularly stable state of affairs.
And Cuba has also been 'stable' under Castro but only because he murders his people when they get out of line. Who the hell would like to a Cuban under the Castros? Only masochists, I should think.
My take on LATAM is this: show me stability that is long-lasting for temporary 'stability' is no stability at all. |
