MAR DEL PLATA, Argentina

More than 1,000 adoring citizens greeted president Bush by setting a bank ablaze Friday as the Summit of the Americas opened.

They showed thier appoval by shattering shopfront windows with wooden clubs and throwing rocks in appreciation

To cap off the festivites, scores of costumed riot police with plastic shields responded with tear gas.

The lively party capped a day of celebrations by more than 10,000 demonstrators who paraded through the streets shouting viva la Bush.

Indeed. :)

Nice batch of news on that today too:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/americas_summit_43;_ylt=Ar63T8Gcv8n4.fbM0q2cHDf.uc sA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/argentina/note.jsp?idContent=221843&hideIntro=true

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4408804.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4402026.stm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/americas_summit;_ylt=AgNBc52lK1GDR8XOWNTOkWe9IxIF; _ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

Summary: "Demonstrators took to the streets hours before the summit started, shouting insults about Bush and chanting "Fascist Bush! You are the terrorist!""

I hate Bush, but these people are so predictably stupid.

I hate Bush, but these people are so predictably stupid.

Agreed. Its become so predictable it shouldnt even be news anymore.


Yea, we get it, You dont like Bush. Now go back to work!!

So it's Bush's fault that some failed nation's citizens behave in a barbaric fashion?

:rolleyes:

It's hysterical when people burn down their own crap because of all that pent up anger. They should be targeting Bush personally with RPG's and small arms fire. This ban burning stuff is so childish.

Everything is Bush's fault.

Everything is Bush's fault.

It's insane isn't it? On one hand he's a miserable president and I hate him for it, but on the other hand he's Hitler and Stalin reborn, WTF?

So it's Bush's fault that some failed nation's citizens behave in a barbaric fashion?

:rolleyes:


Um....yeah?

Now, if they had done this in response to a visit by, oh, say, Wilford Brimely, I might have thought that there was something wrong. :D

It's insane isn't it? On one hand he's a miserable president and I hate him for it, but on the other hand he's Hitler and Stalin reborn, WTF?

No, he's not Hitler and Stalin reborn, (although the same might not be said about some of his cabinet), but he is a miserable President.

It's more Monroe's fault, and Roosevelt's, oh, and Regan and Nixon's. Pity the Alliance for Progress got turned into a military thing, eh?

I'll say one thing for the Argentine people. They have got huge balls.

Of course he is a miserable president. I used to think Clinton was Lucifer in carnate but this fellow pushed panic buttons in my mind that I didn't know existed.

Nevertheless, screwing up your own country because you have no other way to vent your paranoid anger is pathetic.

I'll say one thing for the Argentine people. They have got huge balls.

Any moron can gain courage from a mob or maybe you were making a subtle reference to the Faklands as well?

Not just that. The entirety of the nation's history seems to have involved macho males doing very brave things which may or may not be remotely intelligent. Any country which can live through decades of state terror and still have political riots has cojones.

Fun stuff, I think it would have been better if Bush and Chavez got into a straight-out one-on-one fistfight.... couldn't you just see a circle of security personnel surrounding them chanting "fight-fight-fight-fight!" and them going at it? Celebrity-boxing national executive style.

The Argentine people, I have a feeling, are being just as twistedly brainwashed against Bush as the American people were towards Saddam. Yeah, neither of them are getting cannonized anytime soon, but what did Bush do to Argentina that deserves a riot? If anything, his screwed up energy policy is allowing their nation to reap a pretty large economic windfall.

To me, the point is less this or that particular country, or even how those countries protest. The point is that the entire world hates Bush. I mean, that man can't go anywhere in the world that some country doesn't have to put out ungodly sums of money to try to protect him because normal everyday people the entire world over think he's a scum.

Fun stuff, I think it would have been better if Bush and Chavez got into a straight-out one-on-one fistfight.... couldn't you just see a circle of security personnel surrounding them chanting "fight-fight-fight-fight!" and them going at it? Celebrity-boxing national executive style.

The Argentine people, I have a feeling, are being just as twistedly brainwashed against Bush as the American people were towards Saddam. Yeah, neither of them are getting cannonized anytime soon, but what did Bush do to Argentina that deserves a riot? If anything, his screwed up energy policy is allowing their nation to reap a pretty large economic windfall.

I think you're talking about Venezuela.

Bush's appoval in latin america is about 25%

They think he is a throwback to the bad ol days when we propped up military juntas there, they are pissed about the trade agreement he has been trying to sell, they are opposed to the war, they are pissed about Pat Roberson's insane "lets take down Chavez" drivel (without Roberson's support, bush would have lost either election)

There probably are half a dozen other issues they have

I think you're talking about Venezuela.

I stand 100% corrected! You're correct..... I made the leap earlier today while watching CNN, and they were talking about the summit and how Bush said he was going to react to Chavez's being there.

I is dumb.

Yes, and Bush's approval ratings (it was a zogby poll) in Egypt were 4% recently.

I'd wager 80% of Latin America hates Bush, but I'd bet only 2% of have a legitimate reason to do o.

Haha, 86Dude, I'd wager that 80% of Latin America have legitimate reasons to distrust and dislike any American president.

Haha, 86Dude, I'd wager that 80% of Latin America have legitimate reasons to distrust and dislike any American president.

And that would make a good topic for a whole different thread wouldn't it? The dictators, the vacuum left after the cold war etc...

i keep having fantasies that Bush is going to sucker punch Chavez :D

i keep having fantasies that Bush is going to sucker punch Chavez :D

As much as I would enjoy that I don't think he's smart enough. That guy can't take a piss without wetting the front of his pants.

Yup...

Dubya is getting an earful of what people think of him around the world.

It seems like his popularity is slipping in the polls at home as well.

Unfortunately we still have three more years to deal with this turd.

As much as I would enjoy that I don't think he's smart enough. That guy can't take a piss without wetting the front of his pants.
Chavez is a giant of a man and Bush is a dwarf. Bush isn't fit to hold Chavez's jock strap.

The filthy Marxist, Chavez, although similar to Castro, is even more of an evildoer since he controls huge amounts of oil and Castro merely controls cigars. Why either are tolerated makes no sense. But the savagery and hatred of the ignoramouses in Argentina and other "Latin American" countries confirms we have to keep these dangerous people out of the USA.

The filthy Marxist, Chavez, although similar to Castro, is even more of an evildoer since he controls huge amounts of oil and Castro merely controls cigars. Why either are tolerated makes no sense. But the savagery and hatred of the ignoramouses in Argentina and other "Latin American" countries confirms we have to keep these dangerous people out of the USA.


Note: please don't be confused by the quotes; Latin America is a viable entity, not to be confused with, "Geekland" or "Cheeseheadlandia".

The liberal left radicals seem to think the US fights wars for oil. But since Venezuela is a far more relevent target than Iraq for oil, why aren't we going to Venezuela to remove the filthy, evildoing Marxist? We really should actually.

The liberal left radicals seem to think the US fights wars for oil. But since Venezuela is a far more relevent target than Iraq for oil, why aren't we going to Venezuela to remove the filthy, evildoing Marxist? We really should actually.

Because they don't have quotation marks around their name? ;)

Chavez is not a Marxist. He is a clear neo-populist. Snouter, do you assign political labels by playing darts?

Soooo.....based on what happened in Seattle and Quebec the people of Canada and America really hated Clinton didn't they?

No Joey, Chavez is clearly a Marxist attempting to align himself with other Marxist nations, financing Marxist groups in the Western Hemisphere, and trying to establish a global Marxist network of nations against the West and apparently supports Islamic Terrorism.

The filthy Marxist, Chavez, although similar to Castro, is even more of an evildoer since he controls huge amounts of oil and Castro merely controls cigars. Why either are tolerated makes no sense. But the savagery and hatred of the ignoramouses in Argentina and other "Latin American" countries confirms we have to keep these dangerous people out of the USA.


Haha, see! This is Snouter on his A-game. Assigning relative levels of evilness by the amount of resources one controls.

No Joey, Chavez is clearly a Marxist attempting to align himself with other Marxist nations, financing Marxist groups in the Western Hemisphere, and trying to establish a global Marxist network of nations against the West and apparently supports Islamic Terrorism.

How is he a Marxist?

He continues to hold farcial elections, yet pushes policies in through presidential decree. He uses inclusionary state corporatism to mobilise a broad spectrum of society in support of a nationalistic economic project. Moreover, his leadership style is highly charismatic.

Chavez owes more to Vargas, Peron and their ilk than Marx. Although not a true Latin American populist - as populism fell in the 1960s and his economic project is no longer easy import substitution industrialisation - Chavez is a clear example of a neo-populist.

Which other "Marxist" nations is he allying with?

How is he a Marxist?

He continues to hold farcial elections, yet pushes policies in through presidential decree. He uses inclusionary state corporatism to mobilise a broad spectrum of society in support of a nationalistic economic project. Moreover, his leadership style is highly charismatic.

Chavez owes more to Vargas, Peron and their ilk than Marx. Although not a true Latin American populist - as populism fell in the 1960s and his economic project is no longer easy import substitution industrialisation - Chavez is a clear example of a neo-populist.

Which other "Marxist" nations is he allying with?

Import substitution is "easy". In what way? Do you mean that it is the path of least resistance or that it is easily accomplished?

Clearly the cases of the Asian Tigers, the Celtic Tiger and the Indian case demonstrate that ISI is a failure.

Chavez is much closer to Marxism than fascism isn't he?

He is allied with Cuba, no?

He is trying to "export revolution" is he not?

In reality he is much closer to Allende than to the failed rightists of the Southern Cone.

Import substitution is "easy". In what way? Do you mean that it is the path of least resistance or that it is easily accomplished?

No, I mean that there are two categories of ISI. Easy ISI is the easier of the two, as it focuses on consumer goods industrialisation.


Clearly the cases of the Asian Tigers, the Celtic Tiger and the Indian case demonstrate that ISI is a failure.

Well, yes. You could see the failures of EISI more simply in the 1960s fall of the LAtin American populists.


Chavez is much closer to Marxism than fascism isn't he?

I did not compare Chavez to facsism, although I grant you that the populists modelled themselves at least in part on fascist Italy. If Chavez is Marxist, please demonstrate this. Indicate how he is advocating structural change.

He is allied with Cuba, no?

Certainly, although if all nations allied with pseudo-socialist authoritarian regimes are Marxist, then clearly the US was for much of World War II, and, for the other half, the fascists were...which is laughable.

He is trying to "export revolution" is he not?

And how is he doing that? Moreover, how does an elected leader have a revolution to export?


In reality he is much closer to Allende than to the failed rightists of the Southern Cone.

Allende's rise to power was a test-bed for the moderate holistic dependancy theorists. His politics were clearly socialist and he was an avowed Marxist. He engaged in large-scale economic nationalisation and land reforms.

Simply put, Chavez hasn't. Chavez's economic program is not so much restribution as simple nationalism.

Moreover, describing the populists as rightists is hardly accurate. Firstly, it falls into the dull and terrible over-simplification of the "political continuum", which is a useless device. Secondly and most importantly, it is, in large part, incorrect.

The populist regimes were certainly nationalist and in many ways conservative. However, they were inherantly mobilisational regimes, and their reliance of inclusionary state corporatism was almost absolute. State corporatism is inherantly bifrontal, and very often those on the favoured front were the urban middle and lower classes, and even, in a few cases, the rural poor. Compared to the previous oligarchical landowners' limited democracies, these policies were radical and 'liberal' (calling an authoritarian regime liberal is oxymoronic, but you understand the point). Goulart, for example, Vargas's successor in Brazil, fell when he chose to support strikes within the military's enlisted men, and had, prior to that, been labelled a communist by many industry leaders. They were dead wrong, of course, but he was certainly not simply a "failed rightist".

Moreover, compared to the military bureaucratic regimes that followed, the populists were positively centrist, not to mention far less excited by the thought of state terror and so on.

[QUOTE=JoeyNormal]No, I mean that there are two categories of ISI. Easy ISI is the easier of the two, as it focuses on consumer goods industrialisation.



Well, yes. You could see the failures of EISI more simply in the 1960s fall of the LAtin American populists.


QUOTE]

What is EISI? Easy import substitution?

Yes, Easy Import Substitution Industrialisation.

Yes, Easy Import Substitution Industrialisation.

Funny. I can't find anything about "easy" ISI anywhere.

Is that a term that is yours? If so, what broader area of ISI is it dealing with?

I am not being difficult, just haven't heard of it and I am a student of economics.

Odd. In political studies, Easy ISI refers to ISI for the purposes of consumer goods industrialisation, whereas Hard ISI is for capital goods industrialisation. They are both terms widely used in the security studies and comparitive politics classes at my university, and I presume that economics has a similar conceptual divide, even if they don't use exactly the same terminology.

Odd. In political studies, Easy ISI refers to ISI for the purposes of consumer goods industrialisation, whereas Hard ISI is for capital goods industrialisation. They are both terms widely used in the security studies and comparitive politics classes at my university, and I presume that economics has a similar conceptual divide, even if they don't use exactly the same terminology.

That is strange. Too bad there isn't more synthesis, when possible, amongst the disciplines. It would certainly make communications easier.

You know, I didn't see that you were from NZ until just now. That probably has more to do with it than anything else. I was looking through Krugman, and Obstfeld, and Perkins, and Snodgrass, and Radelet, and Roemer, and Mankiw texts trying to figure out what you were talking about.

I should have remembered that this is an intl medium.

I needed a review anyways.

The idea though is that they protect the infant industries and don't really make a distinction between capital and consumer goods. Although the more capital intensive industries are much more likely to have used ISI for obvious reasons. The owners wanted insurance that if they built it they would come.

Actually, in political studies, especially in the Latin American context, the dinstinction is crucial.

You see, the populists, by and large, didn't use ISI to create national infrastructure or independant heavy industries. Instead, they bought capital goods from overseas and used these to create massive urban light industry. To use one lecturer's example, every household in Argentina had an Argentine-made toaster, but all the machinery used to build the toasters was purchased from overseas.

As such, the illusion of development was even more fragile than usually under ISI. These nations were agro-exporters with urban light industry using capital goods from overseas to produce consumer goods. These local light industries were, of course, protected by huge tariff barriers.

They couldn't adapt their industries to new technologies or products rapidly, so faced huge problems of market saturation. Everyone had a toaster, and they couldn't sell their toasters overseas, because they were poorer quality and more expensive than overseas. Moreover, they were still dependant on capital good imports, and on foreign cash for their export revenue.

Now, predictably, foreign countries didn't like this situation very much. They couldn't sell their toasters (...and other consumer goods) in the Latin American populist countries, because of the tariffs, and so were not exactly happy. Their response was, of course, to pay less or go elsewhere for agricultural imports and charge more for capital goods.

So, now the populists couldn't sell their foodstuffs overseas, couldn't buy their capital goods from overseas and couldn't sell their people any more damn toasters.

The government bureaucrats and technocrats (remember, this is state corporatism...huge bureaucracy), of course, recognised this problem. The populist leaders themselves simply could not deal with it without losing their support and letting the illusion of prosperity vanish and therefore falling. As such, they relied ever more on mobilisational nationalist rhetoric. Strikes resulted, and - being as this was the 1960s - the military reacted to their governments' being 'soft on communism' (a real fear, just after Cuba's revolution).

And, then, with very few exceptions, foreign capital, corporatist technocrats and the military formed a rough alliance, executed a coup, demobilised the populace through exclusionary state corporatism and state terror, and then set about either Hard ISI or one of the many other development tactics advocated by obscure sub-schools of modernisation theory.

Basically, Latin American economic development skipped straight from agricultural near-feudalism to urban consumerism without creating effective national infrastructures or heavy industry. This was, naturally, untenable. An economy must balance consumer and capital goods. The opposite failure could be seen in the Soviet bloc.

EDIT: Something I missed. EISI is a brilliant tactic for building popular consent. People don't see the underlying structural problems. What they do see is that for the first time in their lives (and their parents' lives, and their grandparents' lives, and...) they have a toaster. This makes them happy, so they support the regime. These leaders are called populists for a reason. Then, of course, when the military bureaucratic authoritarian regime takes over, and suddenly the price of toasters flies up to the true market value, the people of course blame the new regime. A lecturer of mine who once fought in Peronist militia quoted an Argentine saying of the time: 'Peron [populist] gave; now the government [MBA] takes'. Of course, the MBAs had no choice but to take away the illusion of prosperity, but it didn't make the people happy. Far from it. As a result, state terror wasn't just used to undo the populist mobilisation, but to quash new revolutionary movements who want that false prosperity back...

Who cares what a bunch of commie led scummy poor people think? Allow me: no one.

Who cares what a bunch of commie led scummy poor people think? Allow me: no one.

LOL, Wow.

If the company Chavez keeps is any indication then Chavez might be a commie.

Who cares what a bunch of commie led scummy poor people think? Allow me: no one.

hey ... thats an amazingly insightful and erudite grasp of South American geopolitics

Are you going to be the keynote speaker at the Kennedy Center Honors this year rube ?

If the company Chavez keeps is any indication then Chavez might be a commie.

Did you read the last three pages?

I know Contra didn't...ironic, given his name.