Evo Morales - can he do it?

[chilango]

The best shit is from the Yungas region "It helps with the altitude, honest officer"

True though. We use it when climbing here.

How legal/illegal is the maté in places though?

 

[Fingers]

Mate is legal or at least tolerated in it's drinking form. To put the quantites into perspective you need an entire van load of Cocoa leaves to produce one gram of cocaine.

Even in the North of Argentina cocoa mate is tolerated (not strictly legal) out of respect from the indiginous argentinians that live up there and live off the stuff, I have even bought it from markets as far south as Salta.

Personaly it did not do much for me when chewed with the stone (can't rememebr the name) Made my mouth go a bit numb though and I still cannot work out whether it helped out with the altitude as I didn't have much problems with it in the first place, the worst thing about it waas making you beer fizz everywhere.

 

[mk12]

Where has Mears gone?

 

[Fingers]

Where has Mears gone?

He has probably gone and overdosed on mate when he saw the results.

 

[lewislewis]

Haha superb.

What does Morales mean when he says he won't 'extort foreign companies'?? Can't be bothered to link but it's on the news.bbc.co.uk report.

 

[Piers Gibbon]

yay well done Bolivia I reckon!

I'm very interested in his pledge to legalise coca growing again, and damn right too...coca es sagrada no es droga (sp?)

We did a programme on cocaine and we'll be covering the Bolivian news in Thursdays show I reckon

http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/radio

 

[purves grundy]

Bloody fucking brilliant - I never thought he'd win in the first round! I'm sure he'll deliver on his pledges, and quickly. Morales is no Lula, and MAS aint no PT.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

 

[Random]

Anyone know what impact this will have on the occupied enterprises and communes that were set up during the recent protests?

 

[TeeJay]

Mears you're incorrect.

The countries the world is an awe of, the only countries that are truly prosperous, are those that offset the market system with a healthy dose of social spending and huge welfare systems.

Scandinavian social democracy is the only way capitalism has been made succesful, by redistributing wealth through progressive taxation, and by providing free social care, healthcare and education from birth to the grave. That's why the top of the world league table in living standards is graced not by the USA, Taiwan, Germany and Switzerland, but by Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland.

I don't think you are right about that. Here's the list of countries by Human Development Index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

The top 20 countries has a whole mix of types of government/economy/etc if you are comparing them like you have above. On the other hand they aren't really that different globally speaking, they are all fairly "free market" and all "liberal democratic" as well. The biggest differences are between these countries and those at the middle and bottom of the index.

Edit: having said that - best of luck to Morales...

 

[Streathamite]

err...of those 6 countries 5 have "a healthy dose of social spending and huge welfare systems". Even the odd man out - canada - has an NHS.

 

[TeeJay]

There were 8 countries mentioned.

 

[Streathamite]

I meant the top 6 in the HDI

 

[TeeJay]

So you cut it off at 6 and miss out 7 - 11 (Switzerland, Ireland, Belgium, United States & Japan)? In fact there really isn't that much difference between the countries at the top of the index. The top 20 range from 0.963 (Norway) to 0.930 (Germany) whereas the bottom 20 range from 0.453 (Nigeria) to 0.281 (Niger).

Bolivia on 0.687 is about halfway in the index.

The relevant discussion here isn't arguing the toss about the small differences between very similar countries right at the top of the index, whose slight differences are due more to demographics and geography then to having vastly different governments or economies in any case.

 

[slaar]

You can't compare countries at the top with those in the middle or bottom in terms of democracy or social spending, as the two tend to go together with wealth. More interesting is the top 20, or middle 20 say, as Teejay suggested. The top do seem to be predominantly with a healthy degree of social spending.

 

[Streathamite]

<wearily.
yes, teejay, all well 'n' good, but the OP actually said

the top of the world league table

as he put it - above the USa and Germany (tho' he got switzerland wrong).
and that was the point you challenged him on.
whichever way you slice it, those are the top 6.

 

[TeeJay]

<wearily.
yes, teejay, all well 'n' good, but the OP actually said

as he put it - above the USa and Germany (tho' he got switzerland wrong).
and that was the point you challenged him on.
whichever way you slice it, those are the top 6.

Before we get sidetracked into complete irrelevance, let's remind ourselves of the original discussion:

So you think Venezuela is a model of socialist success? Is that really because of socialism or the price of oil? You think Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Mexico and Nicaragua can achieve this success without the natural resources by implementing a socialist system? Come on now

Countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Germany and Switzerland prosper without plentiful natural resources because of their economic and social systems. All represent capitalist countries with high standards of living and few commodities to sell on the open market. They are a testament to the success of free markets.

"regulation of the market and nationism of key sectors" still contains free market principles. As long as people can open a business, own land and buy securities for instance, they still live in a free market system. That system we have in North America and Europe, our countries which are the envy of the world.

Mears you're incorrect.

The countries the world is an awe of, the only countries that are truly prosperous, are those that offset the market system with a healthy dose of social spending and huge welfare systems.

Scandinavian social democracy is the only way capitalism has been made succesful, by redistributing wealth through progressive taxation, and by providing free social care, healthcare and education from birth to the grave. That's why the top of the world league table in living standards is graced not by the USA, Taiwan, Germany and Switzerland, but by Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland.

Jezza, rather make condescending comments about "wearily" replying to me like I am some kind of fucking moron, maybe you'd like to explain how splitting hairs about the countries crowding the top of the UN Development Index shows anything about which way Morales should be taking Bolivia and its economy?

All the countries at the top of the UNDI have open, free market economies. Some of them have natural resources (eg oil rich Norway) and some don't (eg oil poor Japan) and they vary widely in terms of demographics (for example compare Luxembourg with the US) - both factors influence on their exact positions, alongside the details of welfare systems and tax levels etc. Nitpicking exact rankings at the top here doesn't prove anything much about what policies Morales should be implementing in Bolivia - in fact all these countries have open economies, free markets and are business friendly, so I doubt that a socialist such as yourself would really want to use them as role models. In any case Bolivia isn't in any position to put in place a European style welfare state.

A more intelligent analysis would look at the *whole* index - from top to bottom - to draw conclusions. A more useful approach concerning policies that Morales could be trying would involve looking at countries that are in a similar situation to Bolivia.

I don't really know which way you "slice it" Jezza, but if you are going to do your 'weary sighing' at me then at least make a bit more effort.

 

[slaar]

None of them were free market, open economies when they started getting rich though, which is the main argument against neo-liberalism.

 

[TeeJay]

Fine - but we still come back to looking at Bolivia with other countries that are in a similar situation, and trying to compare their policies and approaches.

 

[lewislewis]

I don't think you are right about that. Here's the list of countries by Human Development Index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

The top 20 countries has a whole mix of types of government/economy/etc if you are comparing them like you have above. On the other hand they aren't really that different globally speaking, they are all fairly "free market" and all "liberal democratic" as well. The biggest differences are between these countries and those at the middle and bottom of the index.

Edit: having said that - best of luck to Morales...

No I think my point holds, seeing as Norway and Iceland (two of the examples i quoted) are the top 2 ! And Sweden is at 6 ! Of Mears' gang, Switzerland and USA are both below the three examples I suggested.

 

[lewislewis]

TeeJay can you please withdraw your criticism of my analysis then? I was right in saying that the free market countries don't dominate the world in terms of UNDI, the social democrat countries do.

 

[TeeJay]

TeeJay can you please withdraw your criticism of my analysis then? I was right in saying that the free market countries don't dominate the world in terms of UNDI, the social democrat countries do.

But they *are* free market countries, they don't "dominate" (there is hardly any difference between the top ranked countries and their ranking also depends on other factors) and there is limited relevance for Bolivia and Morales in pointing to them rather than pointing to medium-income and developing countries that have done well (or not done well) over recent decades.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Morales pledges to join 'axis of good'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4576972.stm

"This movement is not only in Bolivia; Fidel in Cuba and Hugo in Venezuela are logging triumphs in social movements and leftist policies."

Earlier, Mr Chavez said the two men were building an "axis of good".

"The axis of evil - do you know who the axis of evil is? Washington - that's the axis of evil. And their allies in the world, who threaten, who invade, who kill, who assassinate," he said.

"We are creating the axis of good, the new axis of the new century."

 

[JoePolitix]

Another World is Possible

Morales pledges to join 'axis of good'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4576972.stm

"The Axis of Good" - mutual aid and solidarity replaces dependence and exploitation:

Chavez promised that Venezuela would supply Bolivia with the country’s entire diesel fuel needs, 150,000 barrels per month. In exchange, Venezuela would not ask for hard cash but for an in-kind payment of Bolivia’s agricultural products.

Also, Chavez said that Venezuela would provide Bolivia with a $30 million donation for social projects, to start off his presidency. Exactly what projects the new Morales government would use the money for was not explained.

Joking about Morales’ earlier stop-over in Cuba, where Fidel Castro offered to provide 5,000 scholarships for Bolivians to study in Cuba, Chavez said Venezuela would offer 5,001 scholarships. "Evo Morales will have to study the offers and decide," joked Chavez.

More here.