Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (13277)	10/21/2003 6:01:51 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793690

A little more "In Depth" on Boliva than we get from the Major Media. "Reason" _______________________________________ October 20, 2003 Bolivian Revolution The most important "market reform" isn't on the table Jesse Walker Bolivia's president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada was deposed last week because of his commitment to Market Reform. Or so I read in The New York Times, which reported that before the recent uprising, Bolivia had "embraced the free-market model." And The Washington Post, which mentioned the president's "privatizations of state-run businesses and other free-market reforms." MSNBC said the unrest was "rooted in years of free market reforms," and the Associated Press noted "deep discord with Bolivia's decade-old free-market experiment." If you unpack Market Reform a bit, you will find some actual market reforms: Bolivia has reduced its tariffs, for example, and has moved to a quasi-private pension system. You'll also find some anti-market reforms: An earlier wave of riots, in February, followed the president's proposal to increase the personal income tax. You will find measures that look like market reforms at first, then change shape when you peer more closely. The city of Cochabamba's infamous water privatization of 2000, in which Bechtel provoked protests and then a violent crackdown after it raised rates by anywhere from 10 percent to 60 percent, would be a more credible example of the free market in action if there were a competing private company on the scene, rather than a single corporation with a government contract and a guaranteed rate of return. And you'll find the war on drugs. It's a strange species of doublethink that allows the Bolivian government to say it is introducing "market reforms" while simultaneously carrying out a brutal and expensive crusade to wipe out one of the country's most successful markets. I'm not playing word games here. While the proximate cause of the uprising that just brought down Bolivia's president was nationalist opposition to the export of natural gas, a deeper source of both this and other recent revolts is the war on coca cultivation. Before last week's protests, the most significant conflict in 21st-century Bolivia was probably the fight in 2001 over the military's invasion of the Chapare region, launched to destroy the coca fields and interrupted after tremendous protest. Coca itself is not illegal in Bolivia: The law has allowed farmers to grow up to 13,000 hectares for domestic consumption. (Cocaine is prohibited, but Bolivians may chew the coca leaf, drink coca tea, and ingest the plant in other manners more mild than white powder.) The state's efforts to eliminate all other production of the crop—with the U.S. pushing to eradicate it altogether—has been a human rights disaster, with soldiers assaulting peasant lands and paramilitary forces assassinating activists. And while there is a carrot dangling next to that stick, it hasn't impressed the farmers. To quote the Andean Information Network, which tracks the drug war's effects: At its core is a gradual transition away from providing compensation to farmers for the coca plants they eradicate. This process involves moving from individual to community compensation, then, within five years, to the complete elimination of compensation....The elimination of individual compensation has a high price for the farmers of the Chapare. Coca farmers were never consulted in the formulation of a new system of compensation and their reaction has been fear and distrust. They fear that they will have to completely eliminate the only crop that gives them a steady income without the security of a marketable replacement crop. And they believe that the compensation money they once used for starting up another income source will instead be diverted to the government's alternative development fund, leaving the individual farmer without a means to provide for his family. The government has done nothing to dispel these fears, and no new alternative crop programs are in the offing. Meanwhile, it was a short jump from trampling the liberties of the coca growers to trampling other people's freedoms as well, with Amnesty International condemning the use of "excessive force" against demonstrators over the last month. Like, say, shooting them. On October 12, troops fired on protesters in the city of El Alto, leaving at least five dead. In this way, the war on drugs has undermined not just peasant property rights but the rule of law. Drugs lurk in the background of the news coverage, yet we hear so much more about Market Reform. Well, Bolivia could use some market reforms— not tax hikes and "privatized" monopolies, but a war on the red tape that strangles new enterprises (according to a World Bank study, it takes 67 days and $1,500 to start a small business in Bolivia) and the institutional corruption that has made ordinary Bolivians so suspicious of privatization and foreign investment. But the most important market reform, the most important reform of any kind, is still off the table. It's hard to imagine the country's poverty and social unrest coming to an end until the drug war has ended first. reason.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (13277)	10/21/2003 3:56:05 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793690

That can' be, Karen. All 3, Clinton, Carter, and Bush are Evangelical.....or at least what I would call Evangelical. Look and you will also note they are all from the South. And Baptist, I believe. I think after 9-11, the media, and at the same time, the Bush haters, started to scream in high C....forgetting that Carter and Clinton were MUCH more open about their religion, and much more vocal about. Can you even imagine what would be said if Bush went to church with (pick someone...any minister...any race) the Sunday before the election, and suggested strongly who the folks should vote for??? Remember Clinton and Jessie Jackson on the Sunday before the election, went to a DC ME church, and was part of the service, telling the folks to vote for Gore....Remember that? The link was posted here on SI at the time...I was SHOCKED! (BTW, the Bush haters were among us even before the election....and we can even check that out here by going back on SI) Idon't think it's because the media became hyper-PC. The difference is that there was no threat from Carter and Clinton. They were just doing their thing, either being personally religious or kissing babies in churches. Bush, OTOH, represents a movement to religicize, if you will, what they see as the secular sphere.