The other significant election (America, organizations, science, Zen)

[Radio Frequency X]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Perhaps.

The other significant aspect of Ortega's victory is that he is closely allied with (and largely funded by) Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. This gives Chavez yet another ally against the U.S. in Latin America, and underscores yet another miserable failure in foreign policy by the Bush Administration.

Who cares? Socialism in Latin America hurts people in Latin America. It doesn't hurt us. If anything, it means (in time) more jobs for Americans, as jobs tend to flock to capitalist markerts. Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and Castro have big mouths, but they have no real power. They can't go to war with us, so what does it matter what kind of government they have?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

Who cares? Socialism in Latin America hurts people in Latin America. It doesn't hurt us. If anything, it means (in time) more jobs for Americans, as jobs tend to flock to capitalist markerts. Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and Castro have big mouths, but they have no real power. They can't go to war with us, so what does it matter what kind of government they have?

Well, for starters, all that bungling creates political instability in our hemisphere which creates a number of problems for the U.S. by itself: including the lack of a regional trade bloc to counter the EU or the "Tiger" economies of Asia. "Strongman" governments in Latin America are also a big aspect of the trade in illicit drugs and illegal immigration, both of which have significant impacts in the U.S.

Aside from that, a growing, reasonable capitalist economy is not only a better trading partner, but also more inclined to respect international accords (so long as it doesn't consider itself the world's only "superpower" ). We should be working to suppor the growth of indigenous business in these places and offering a better alternative to Chavez and friends. Instead, powerful business interests have used the World Bank and the Trilateral Commission to enforce a sort of international debt peonage that will ultimately cost us all a lot more.

[BUDDY]

Booo socialism. But, the people of this country made there choice. I may not agree with it, but I have to respect their right to make their own decisions. It won't work, and the US will be blamed, and blah, blah, blah. Same old song and dance. Different verse.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by BUDDY

Booo socialism. But, the people of this country made there choice.

What are you talking about?

[Radio Frequency X]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Well, for starters, all that bungling creates political instability in our hemisphere which creates a number of problems for the U.S. by itself: including the lack of a regional trade bloc to counter the EU or the "Tiger" economies of Asia. "Strongman" governments in Latin America are also a big aspect of the trade in illicit drugs and illegal immigration, both of which have significant impacts in the U.S.

Aside from that, a growing, reasonable capitalist economy is not only a better trading partner, but also more inclined to respect international accords (so long as it doesn't consider itself the world's only "superpower" ). We should be working to suppor the growth of indigenous business in these places and offering a better alternative to Chavez and friends. Instead, powerful business interests have used the World Bank and the Trilateral Commission to enforce a sort of international debt peonage that will ultimately cost us all a lot more.

It's not really our job to force free-markets; the idea is to set an example worth following, and we aren't doing that. We need to set a good example for the rest of the world. People do follow ideologies, but more than that, they follow actions. If we set an example for free trade and limited government, others will follow. But we preach free trade while putting tarriffs on foreign goods. We preach limited Government while passing more laws and putting more of our citizens in jail than any other industrialized nation. Our hypocrisy is are biggest fault.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

It's not really our job to force free-markets

No doubt.

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

the idea is to set an example worth following, and we aren't doing that.

And to not follow policies that are all but guaranteed to make the growth of indigenous free markets impossible.

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

Our hypocrisy is are biggest fault.

I concur.

[Radio Frequency X]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

And to not follow policies that are all but guaranteed to make the growth of indigenous free markets impossible.

The International Community, not the United States, is responsible for that though: The World Bank, IMF, WTO, and UN. As long as these organizations have any actualy power, then it is in our interest to use them to protect our interests (given that the alternative is to allow them to work against our interests).

[CanuckRasta]

Last time I checked the IMF and World Bank were not there to serve American interests, but maybe to provide debt relief and economic counselling to poor countries *gasp*.

One of these days, the USA's economic policy of protectionism is going to blow on them. When American citizens are losing jobs to cheaper labour markets, they can only blame themselves.

To any who doubt it, El Jefe Hugo has clout. 1/9 of American oil imports come from Venezuela. That is a fair bit when you take a look at the soccer moms in their gas-guzzling SUVs. $24 billion is projected value of Venezuelan oil imports alone this year.

Venezuela is also a voting member of OPEC.

The USA can go on thumbing its nose at leaders from "backwards" countries. But, to be blunt, the American foreign policy is an absolute farce. I am a first year political science student, and I could make a better policy.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by CanuckRasta

One of these days, the USA's economic policy of protectionism is going to blow on them. When American citizens are losing jobs to cheaper labour markets, they can only blame themselves.

How would eliminating protectionist policies slow the flow of labor to cheaper labor markets? If it costs ten cents an hour to build widgets in Honduras but $5.85/hr to build it here, then with complete free trade, the jobs will go to Honduras, the widgets will be produced there and imported here tariff free - thus lowering the price/increasing the profit for the producers.

If there's a tariff or labor conditions or environmental standards imposed on "foreign" produced goods, that adds back the value of protected labor and environmental protection as part of the costs of production effectively leveling the playing field by preventing the producer from sloughing off a significant part of the production costs on the indigenous residents of some third world country.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

What are you talking about?

He's talking about the Nicaraguan people voting the Sandanistas back into power. Remember the OP that you posted?

I'm just tickled pink that this happened as a result of an election.

Originally Posted by buddy

I may not agree with it, but I have to respect their right to make their own decisions. It won't work, and the US will be blamed, and blah, blah, blah. Same old song and dance. Different verse.

Well maybe if we actually did respect their rights to make their own decisions and stopped meddling, we wouldn't get blamed.

There are a lot of things wrong with socialism and a lot of things right with it. Why is it that Cuba can offer universal health care coverage to its citizens despite our ongoing crippling embargo against them and we can't? I don't think pure socialism would work either. But I am curious to see what will come of this.