Riz Khan - Evo Morales vs US - 24 July Part 2
Top Comments
All Comments (35)
-
@deadshepherd666 Yes, unfortunately it's really hard to keep political stability. The current situation proves this, as several unions are protesting against Morales with irresponsible demands (15% wage increase for the PRIVATE sector, and not just the minimum!! The 10% Morales offered is irresponsible as it is). I think the only solution for Bolivia's social issues is to have a big government, but a responsible big government, which unfortunately is really hard to find, even in the First world.
-
@CoonAndFriends2 Yes you're right, as it is difficult to sustain a largely nationalized economy in an competitive environment it would have been better decision making for Morales to have immediately reinvested profits into YPFB. You can see why he spent it on social programs though and has to resort on foreign investment, just because of popular demand and keeping his critical support base happy. It does certainly mean a longer road to equity for Bolivia though :/
-
@deadshepherd666 Brazil has a state-run oil and gas company as well (Petrobras), the big difference with YPFB is the responsibility of the people in charge of its management and the willingness of the Brazilian government to sacrifice short-term political gains for economic independence and sustainability.
-
@deadshepherd666 Actually I don't disagree with his decision to nationalize, only the way he spent the revenues of nationalization. If he would've done what he said he would (investing in YPFB instead of seeking foreign investors willing to do that for him) then the gas industry would still be sustainable. Yes, that would mean less money for social programs, but at least his economic model would be sustainable instead of facing a possible shutdown and massive inflation (10% today).
-
@CoonAndFriends2 Yes, unfortunately in terms of raw economic decision nationalization was not the best decision. However, the alternative would be what, cut oil subsidies, social programs and bring back oppressive foreign economic intervention? Thats what Bolivia was doing for the last 50 years. Hopefully, in the next years other Latin American countries will strive for equitable economies so maybe instead of just the rise of Brazil. maybe the next 20 years will see the rise of Latin America.
-
@deadshepherd666 A hard road ahead indeed. However I think Evo Morales should face responsibility for his own actions. On one hand he has been asking the US to relieve Bolivian exports from paying import duties and tariffs, and on another he has been blaming the US for everything that went wrong during his mandate. After nationalizing the gas industry, he has used all the revenues for social programs and didn't reinvest to keep the revenues coming. Now the gas reserves have fallen by almost 2/3.
-
Unfortunately, in a world with few friends, Morales' Bolivia is facing a hard road ahead. Like the ambassador said, Brazil is actually the largest stakeholder in Bolivia's resources. I still think that the worldwide far left revolution is beginning and relies on the third world,but first world countries also need to start coming to their senses to help these insecure countries. Americans: I know a leftist US change seems impossible but we have to try to change our country to be a force of good
-
I am willing to bet that the only people who oppose Evo Morales are the rich white minority that like being in power and think that they are the most important people in Latin America, when in fact they are the worst people of us all. Because they are racist and discriminatory towards their own brothers, the whites always think they are better and deserve more than others. Not anymore, we have Evo Morales now, the symbol of democratic social justice in Bolivia.
-
that embassador's English is terrible, what a horrible accent, why is that Spanish (from Spain obviously) descendants can not speak a proper English. Long live Evo Morales and Bolivia.
-
the usa media is shame is a lafe. it is incradible i personaly in the past belived tha usa people wre civilise an clever. what a disapintment. now i have onother pinion. the mayoriti of usa people are blind as the butts. pore people are manipulated by btheir media their neuw are cpmplity censure and the education is of the third worl ofcoorse not oll people.exist still alot that have critical analises and is my which you still recist an multiply. long live the truth. peru 2011 ollanta
AParicio is part of the conspiracy that United States, has created against Evo Morales.
Right now the CIA, are giving money to the opposition, to overtrown Evo Morales.
The mayority of the people in Bolivia in Santa Cruz, Pando, Beni, Cochabamba, Tarija supports Evo morales, The opposition lie every time to the international news channels, saying that the half of the country support morales, that's a lie. The Mayority supports Evo Morales.
Camba007 3 years ago 7
In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state. What do you call American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico? They are not states. They are territories. So the US is an imperialistic power.
The US still sponsor a slew of dictatorship around the world, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan come to mind. So by your own definition, we are a Neo-Imperialistic power.
Who said imperialism, neo-imperialism and hegemony are mutually exclusive. We can be all three.
mengwise36 3 years ago 5