|
dead comedy forums posted:why I am not surprised with this post coming up from a rightward chilean China is a capitalist state that has largely given up on communism, except on their love for repression and executions. Edit. As for Bolivia, both the Chilean right and left (with few exceptions) have told them to go gently caress themselves regarding the pacific. Redrum and Coke fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Dec 20, 2017 |
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
tekz posted:Perhaps governments could get better revenue streams by, say, raising taxes on the upper classes and nationalizing things. A lot of people on the left here like to talk about Norway and the problem is that Norway is 1) much richer per capita, 2) much smaller and 3) culturally distinct from Chile. Trying to implement nordic socialism in Chile results in Latin American socialism instead, which is a total poo poo show without exception. Chile HAS a soverign wealth fund that could eventually, if the copper holds out and it gets invested profitably instead of spent, fund a welfare state. But the first is a big if and the second hasn't happened, at least so far. tekz posted:Perhaps governments could get better revenue streams by, say, raising taxes on the upper classes and nationalizing things. More likely those governments could run those busiensses into the ground, provoke capital flight, and destabalize their economies. Like...pretty much what has happened all throughout latin america when that has been tried. edit: IMO class animosity is a lot of what is different between latin america and the nordic countries. In Norway they understand that you can't kill the goose that lays your golden eggs if you want to keep harvesting eggs. Here everyone wants to eat goose. =/ wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:edit: IMO class animosity is a lot of what is different between latin america and the nordic countries. In Norway they understand that you can't kill the goose that lays your golden eggs if you want to keep harvesting eggs. Here everyone wants to eat goose. =/ I think it's much more that Norway is very well-developed, happy, and stable. Rich people don't really want to leave even if they have to ~suffer~ high taxes and fines. It's a great place to live and worth the progressive taxation (because it uses progressive taxation to fund things that make everyone's lives better). Not to diss Latin America or anything but if, say, the Brazilian upper class starts getting taxed to pay for things, they can just fly somewhere else, and probably will because there's plenty of places that are just as nice as Brazil or better where they won't get taxed. Not to say there isn't definitely class animosity in LatAm. But if you think the Norwegian rich don't cry about their equivalent ~40,000 peso speeding tickets, they do. The Norwegian poor just don't hate the rich so much because they aren't being actively and aggressively hosed by them like everywhere else is, because they're already harvesting eggs instead of trying to start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
More poo poo from the "violent protesters"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:edit: IMO class animosity is a lot of what is different between latin america and the nordic countries. In Norway they understand that you can't kill the goose that lays your golden eggs if you want to keep harvesting eggs. Here everyone wants to eat goose. =/ In addition to what Cup said, Norway also doesn't have the same level of inequality that Latin America has. Our class animosity goes all the way back to the royally appointed landowners and slavery of colonial times and in many parts of Latin America the legacy of that still informs economic and social relations. While we have our entrepeneurs and successful businessmen, a lot of the wealth in Latin America is still concentrated in traditional families that have been here for centuries and, I can mostly speak of the experience of Brazil, these entrenched oligarchies mostly use the government to maintain their power, sometimes through laws that benefit themselves and their allies, but also often through corruption. All this feeds into a sense of revolt and is a tangible reality in the geography of many Latin American cities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Also obligatory "the rich don't lay golden eggs they just steal them from the workers and hoard them"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:it sounded like the election in Chile was between the right and a rather milquetoast social democrat...so any comparison with the PSUV is just a smear. I'm shocked that right wingers would do this. A lot of people here wouldn't sound out of place in the US tbh, welfare can't be done here exceptionalism followed by 'therefore we must vote in obligarch stooges to redistribute more wealth to the rich instead'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
tekz posted:I'm shocked that right wingers would do this. That's not even remotely the discourse of the right wing in Chile though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:In addition to what Cup said, Norway also doesn't have the same level of inequality that Latin America has. Our class animosity goes all the way back to the royally appointed landowners and slavery of colonial times and in many parts of Latin America the legacy of that still informs economic and social relations. While we have our entrepeneurs and successful businessmen, a lot of the wealth in Latin America is still concentrated in traditional families that have been here for centuries and, I can mostly speak of the experience of Brazil, these entrenched oligarchies mostly use the government to maintain their power, sometimes through laws that benefit themselves and their allies, but also often through corruption. All this feeds into a sense of revolt and is a tangible reality in the geography of many Latin American cities. It's similar here in Chile though (probably?possibly?) with less overt corruption. The problem is, that is really unhelpful when it comes time to actually implement an agenda and run a country. The left takes power and tries to attack the business sector because through that ideological lense business is the enemy, but in doing so they gently caress up the engine generating the wealth that they depend on to fund their social priorities and that the citizens who aren't oligarchs depend on to fund their daily lives. That is why Piñera won instead of Guiller who was the most natural inheritor of Bachelet's agenda Incidentally it's also why the unemployment rate is up. If you want to turn the ship of state in a new direction, and I'm not saying it's a bad idea, you have to do it without punching holes in the bottom. Cup Runneth Over posted:Also obligatory "the rich don't lay golden eggs they just steal them from the workers and hoard them" The sooner marxism dies as an ideology in Latin America the better off everyone will be, jfc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
It seems like the problem with Latin America is less "left" and "right" and more Latin America being exceptionally bad at any sort of government... That seems like a much harder problem to solve, unfortunately... GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
ArfJason posted:so a vote passed to lower pensions and people went out on a gigantic protest It's incredibly embarassing that Macri's reform is weaker than Temer's yet unlike us the Argentinean people actually have a pair
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's similar here in Chile though (probably?possibly?) with less overt corruption. The problem is, that is really unhelpful when it comes time to actually implement an agenda and run a country. The left takes power and tries to attack the business sector because through that ideological lense business is the enemy, but in doing so they gently caress up the engine generating the wealth that they depend on to fund their social priorities and that the citizens who aren't oligarchs depend on to fund their daily lives. That is why Piñera won instead of Guiller who was the most natural inheritor of Bachelet's agenda Incidentally it's also why the unemployment rate is up. If you want to turn the ship of state in a new direction, and I'm not saying it's a bad idea, you have to do it without punching holes in the bottom. A functional welfare state requires a large public sector with decent revenue streams im order to work. Going hat in hand to obligarchs that control major strategic resources in order to beg for a small portion of it in taxes is just bizarre when you can take it all. There's a reason oil, in particular, was nationalized in so many countries, most of which were capitalist. You don't need to go full USSR, just have enough revenue to actually take care od your citizens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
tekz posted:A functional welfare state requires a large public sector with decent revenue streams im order to work. Going hat in hand to obligarchs that control major strategic resources in order to beg for a small portion of it in taxes is just bizarre when you can take it all. There's a reason oil, in particular, was nationalized in so many countries, most of which were capitalist. You don't need to go full USSR, just have enough revenue to actually take care od your citizens. You're locked into ideas that have already failed. Chile has nationalized copper, for example, but hasn't invested the revenue. Codelco, the state copper company, has become so bloated that it can't turn a profit unless copper is over $3/lb. The company is so broke it has to beg money from foreign concerns to do upkeep and expansion. Venezuela has oil wealth and HAD accumulated physical and social capital that made Chile look like a poor cousin and none of that stopped the country from imploding. Argentina was a developed and wealthy country and could have been the richest country in South America but pissed away decades of progress following the same bad ideas the Latin American left still idolizes today. Revenue is not the primary problem here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Like... here in Chile a big battle over the last 4 years has been for free education paid for by the state. But the major problem with Chilean education is not that it's expensive - relatively speaking, it's not. The major problem is that the quality of education at all levels of the system is at best mediocre and mostly awful. So to address that you could, for example, invest money in the long-term project of creating high quality public institutions that raise the level of education over a generation. Or you could piss away money and political capital forgiving loans and giving tuition subsidies to students at lovely institutions so that students can feel good about spending someone else's money to get a diploma of no value instead of their own. Which direction does the Frente Amplio want to go? I won't spoil it for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
That's kind of understandable. Sure, improving education is a worthwhile long-term project but students today can't wait however long it's going to take -- they are taking classes now and they need to graduate now. The only people who would benefit from the former are the next generation, and the current generation don't want to pay for a diploma and have it be worthless. Ideally you would invest in education at the same time that you made it more affordable (if not necessarily free, if that would overburden your budget).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You're locked into ideas that have already failed. Chile has nationalized copper, for example, but hasn't invested the revenue. Codelco, the state copper company, has become so bloated that it can't turn a profit unless copper is over $3/lb. The company is so broke it has to beg money from foreign concerns to do upkeep and expansion. Venezuela has oil wealth and HAD accumulated physical and social capital that made Chile look like a poor cousin and none of that stopped the country from imploding. Argentina was a developed and wealthy country and could have been the richest country in South America but pissed away decades of progress following the same bad ideas the Latin American left still idolizes today. Revenue is not the primary problem here. I gave you a concrete example of how it can, and does, work. Revenue IS the goddamn problem, espescially when starving the government of funds to provide services is used for justification to show how it doesn't work and to gut them even further. The biggest failed idea that a lot of the world is locked into is austerity and I would never wish that poo poo on my fellow citizens anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
tekz posted:I gave you a concrete example of how it can, and does, work. Revenue IS the goddamn problem, espescially when starving the government of funds to provide services is used for justification to show how it doesn't work and to gut them even further. The biggest failed idea that a lot of the world is locked into is austerity and I would never wish that poo poo on my fellow citizens anywhere. And I gave you concrete and very local examples of how it didn't, and doesn't work. Maybe, then, there is some confounding factor beyond grabbing revenue. =P Maybe in fact revenue is not the primary problem. Cup Runneth Over posted:That's kind of understandable. Sure, improving education is a worthwhile long-term project but students today can't wait however long it's going to take -- they are taking classes now and they need to graduate now. The only people who would benefit from the former are the next generation, and the current generation don't want to pay for a diploma and have it be worthless. Ideally you would invest in education at the same time that you made it more affordable (if not necessarily free, if that would overburden your budget). Yeah it's understandable, just a bad basis on which to make policy. With unlimited money all the things could be done and there would be no reason not to do them, but in fact there is usually very limited money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Like... here in Chile a big battle over the last 4 years has been for free education paid for by the state. But the major problem with Chilean education is not that it's expensive - relatively speaking, it's not. The major problem is that the quality of education at all levels of the system is at best mediocre and mostly awful. So to address that you could, for example, invest money in the long-term project of creating high quality public institutions that raise the level of education over a generation. Or you could piss away money and political capital forgiving loans and giving tuition subsidies to students at lovely institutions so that students can feel good about spending someone else's money to get a diploma of no value instead of their own. Which direction does the Frente Amplio want to go? I won't spoil it for you. It feels like you're talking at odds with yourself? Raising the quality of education is not in conflict with making it affordable or subsidized for the majority of the population. The 'someone else's money' attitude is loving retarded too. If income inequality and rich people are allowed to exist, part of their money should 100% be used to subsidize the rest of society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
tekz posted:It feels like you're talking at odds with yourself? Raising the quality of education is not in conflict with making it affordable or subsidized for the majority of the population. The 'someone else's money' attitude is loving retarded too. If income inequality and rich people are allowed to exist, part of their money should 100% be used to subsidize the rest of society. They're only in conflict from a budgetary perspective - money spent on one thing can't be spent on the other. If there were unlimited money there would be no conflict, but there isn't unlimited money. And rich people are already taxed to subsidize the rest of society. =P That is fine. I agree that those who have more should pay more. I don't disagree with that premise ideologically. I am just saying that an economy (especially a small one like Chile's) is not a bottomless piggybank and that to have a sustainable social agenda there needs to be a commitment to spend within what that economy can support. edit: ...and like, beyond that, an understanding on the part of policy makers that the bolded actually matters, which is something lacking on the part of at least the Chilean left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
I love to discuss left and right wing budget ideas in corrupt third world countries where 70% of the tax money is pocketed before it gets back to us. Left wing: More tax money, more money to embezzle. More weak underfunded welfare projects that just barely run. Corruption is rampant. Right wing: Let's just get the money straight from the rich guys in exchange for tax breaks. gently caress welfare. Corruption is legal. It's kinda like people arguing whether Brazil should have a death penalty or not considering cops execute thousands of people per year with the support of the population in general. It's kinda weird to think that there's basically no good outcome for the next few years in South America. Death is certain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
If anyone wanted an example of Latin Americans discussing left-right policy as a shallow symbolic exercise as opposed to actual material policies, see the use of "Marxist" in this thread about any current or recent Latin American governments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Looks like the former head of Interpol might shut down the treason case against Cristina:quote:Argentina’s previous government never asked Interpol to drop arrest warrants against a group of Iranians accused of bombing a Jewish center, the ex-head of the police agency said on Wednesday, as the government proceeded with treason charges against the former president. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-argentina-fernandez/ex-interpol-chief-says-ready-to-testify-for-argentinas-fernandez-idUSKBN1EE1M5
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Cant wait ti read clarins take on this
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The sooner marxism dies as an ideology in Latin America the better off everyone will be, jfc. joepinetree posted:If anyone wanted an example of Latin Americans discussing left-right policy as a shallow symbolic exercise as opposed to actual material policies, see the use of "Marxist" in this thread about any current or recent Latin American governments. continent has 300 years of european exploitation, then a 100 years and a couple of decades of rendezvous between landowner oligarchic governments whose only difference was which side of the current boss you are (e.g. Colorados/Blancos, Áulicos/Saquaremas, Unitario/Federal, etc), then a smattering of dictatorships seeking to "modernize" things, finally you have some open elections which give us like a couple or three mandates of sort-of democracy with popular sovereignty to everyone lose their poo poo and ask the americans to save everybody from the communist menace by putting military juntas everywhere in the continent and then when the Washington Consensus policies prove to be an economic disaster to all which have adopted and you get a wave of centre-left governments whose reforms were tepid at best and completely subservient to the interests of the most powerful, the problem is, ofc, marxism this kind of hot take is exactly the sharp political perception that we need to solve all the problems in the neighborhood
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
ArfJason posted:Cant wait ti read clarins take on this Read Natasha Niebeskikwiat's articles there. They keep pushing the same evidence that Judge Bonadio used to prosecute former prez Fernandez. The lawyer of former Foreign Relations minister Hector Timerman (the guy's about to die from cancer btw) is quite a character: Graciana Peñafort isn't just tweeting her rear end off with her defendent's case now but was also jumped to the public knowledge with her participation as the attorney on behalf of the Argentine government during the Grupo Clarin offensive in the Supreme Court against the provisions of the former Media law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:If anyone wanted an example of Latin Americans discussing left-right policy as a shallow symbolic exercise as opposed to actual material policies, see the use of "Marxist" in this thread about any current or recent Latin American governments. As much as you probably high fived yourself over that statement, in Chile there are literal Marxist parties in both left wing coalitions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 10:19
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:As much as you probably high fived yourself over that statement, in Chile there are literal Marxist parties in both left wing coalitions. Marxism is an umbrella term containing everything from social democracy to full-blown Stalin style communism. So yeah, uh, hopefully?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 11:11
|
|
so that means I can be a cheapskate and post about posting instead of having some wit or spending any more on comedy avs for people. Which I'm also incapable of. Comedy.
|
dead comedy forums posted:the problem is, ofc, marxism Yes? That and the persistent belief that none of our failings are our fault or within our control to get a handle on. I would say "grow the gently caress up" but a lot of the Chilean left is old enough now to have done that if it were going to happen. I mean, the entire screed you posted is useless intellectual wanking. The left in Chile has both literal communists and more radical parties represented in congress. They had significant influence in the Bachelet administration as part of her coalition. The ideology of the late 60's and its ignorant inbred offshoots are still alive despite all the chaos and all the progress that has happened since. It's unfortunate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I mean, the entire screed you posted is useless intellectual wanking. my dude, I am not defending this bizarre notion of "marxism", the point I was making is that actual, real "marxist" policies were a minimum part of actual government in latin america. All those issues you have mentioned have existed here waaaay before the communist manifesto, so why it is useless intellectual wanking exactly what is useful for some, however, is perpetuating the notion of marxism as this all-powerful corrupting boogeyman and throw every single notion of social-oriented economic and civic policies into it so to trigger the rabid dog reaction of "COMMUNISM!!!!!!" (and just because of that I am going to do another) so instead of actually having a real engagement on the historical issues of the countries, understanding the massive consequences that start with both colonialism and the massacre of natives, going through the formation of a mindset that the Americas were made only for economic exploitation and nothing else, seeing how loving awful that mindset is for these emerging nations after generations of perpetuation, the formation of a quasi-feudal political structure based on rich landowners whose main interest was "which cash crop/mineral resource Europeans want today?", creating a massive disparity of income and property thus depriving free labor of both (and let's not forget slavery here), leading to pretty much constant instability because every loving caudillo from southern Argentina to Northern Mexico that thought he had a shot for president knew he could raise a ruckus, thus turning the rule of law and creation of strong institutions pretty much impossible independent of actual ideological framework... ...actually hang on I am reading on the capital again here and there is a chapter here which marx himself says "yeah I totally sent a letter to Rosas 'hey create the mazorca and raise taxes on all freemen and imports to wage war against Peru-Bolivia, Uruguay and Brazil' because it will be totes rad"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:my dude, I am not defending this bizarre notion of "marxism", the point I was making is that actual, real "marxist" policies were a minimum part of actual government in latin america. All those issues you have mentioned have existed here waaaay before the communist manifesto, so why it is useless intellectual wanking exactly  It's useless intellectual wanking because a) it's a broad sweeping historical criticism of politics in Latin America that does not address the history and evolution of any particular country and is thus not even coherent enough to be right or wrong while at the same time b) it is totally useless in a discussion of any actual policy - even if we accept that discourse as something worth having for Reasons, how does it help us talk about for instance viable education policies in Chile or approaches to indigenous violence in the Araucania or how to pursue progressive policy in a way that doesn't break the economy because of the sheer incompetence of the policy makers? Literally what is the point you're trying to make? Like are you a latin american studies major at a 3rd tier university in the states or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
phew, I though for a moment that you would use the bad M word again
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
I just got a bingo now marking credentialism, nice!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:'hey create the mazorca and raise taxes on all freemen and imports to wage war against Peru-Bolivia, Uruguay and Brazil' because it will be totes rad"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Literally what is the point you're trying to make? lmao I am brazilian and I studied econ, thx arguments like yours, "what is the reason for this drivel" are exactly what a lot of people in charge around here take bad decisions, something that I listened to pretty much almost every day back at university the glorious motive for my magnificent shitposting is that being reductive like that when talking about the big issues of latin american countries is all about Missing The Point, because the "useless intellectual wanking" portrays the root of all the problems and allows us to try developing a coherent solution for those, instead of thinking "hey if only there was no MARXISM! around we could solve stuff" but then we can go back to the useless intellectual wanking to check our history and see that latin america had the largest pro-market reforms ever made in the history of the West back in the 80s, resulting to gently caress all in terms of actual economic progress because it broke everybody, exploded international debt and for some cases made inflation hilariously worse, but hey cheaper foreign imports (which was what many foreign experts were trying to sell back then "if latin america fixes money supply problems it can't but work forward!" lmao) we could also check and see that even after having a real deal totally legit no joke socialist revolution, Mexico isn't exactly doing hot poo poo well nowadays, so we can go and do some useless intellectual wanking to check what were the conditions to learn about that and inform policy but when you say stuff like "jfc marxism can't end soon enough" you mistake a thing that hasn't been a real deal for quite a loving while in terms of your said primary concern (i.e. "Actual Policy") far more important than worrying about leftism is to check why, after different types of governments and economic experiences in this corner of the world, the same problems that existed since colonial times keep persisting after we did everything that we were "supposed" to do and that is why you get for example the problem of primary education being poo poo since useless intellectual wanking shows that our landowning classes since ever didn't believe in broad education for the public (because of the mentality that I said in my first glorious shining shitpost), and the state can't intervene hard here and push and shove to make it better because it doesn't have the money to do so, because it can't create better taxation systems because the wealthier citizens and the establishment go loving ballistic about it or the indigenous peoples of Araucania or the Amazon or the Cerrado or the Andes getting screwed even nowadays because it is an unsaid imperative that between helping them or loving them over for a quick buck the second is the default choice done and has been justified for over four centuries of different governments, and that helping them costs money, and the state can't push through some timid reform before people go ballistic again, "NO loving MONEY OF MINE IS GOING TO HELP THOSE loving SAVAGES", because of the same mentality and we can do a lot more of that but enough glimmering, shining shitposts for now tl:dr- to tie all of this with a nice bow: the true useless intellectual wanking, the one that makes actual bad policy happens, is things like "if only we could get rid of leftism", "if only we had the death penalty", "if only [this] and/or [that]", without giving any actual effort in how the problems came to be and why so dead gay comedy forums fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Its cool to watch globonews and see people from manhattan connection slam trumps tax reform but praise Temer's stuff
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:Its cool to watch globonews and see people from manhattan connection slam trumps tax reform but praise Temer's stuff Brazilian elite are just temporarily embarrassed Americans
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
It's more that they want to seem cosmopolitan in NY while being a part of the plutocracy in Brazil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:In addition to what Cup said, Norway also doesn't have the same level of inequality that Latin America has. Our class animosity goes all the way back to the royally appointed landowners and slavery of colonial times and in many parts of Latin America the legacy of that still informs economic and social relations. While we have our entrepeneurs and successful businessmen, a lot of the wealth in Latin America is still concentrated in traditional families that have been here for centuries and, I can mostly speak of the experience of Brazil, these entrenched oligarchies mostly use the government to maintain their power, sometimes through laws that benefit themselves and their allies, but also often through corruption. All this feeds into a sense of revolt and is a tangible reality in the geography of many Latin American cities. What exactly do you think Norwegian inequality was like before they implemented a welfare state (which incidentally happened after liberation from the Nazis in WWII up to about 1960 or so)? Most of the population was pretty broke and there were a few rich families and businessmen. And frankly Norway was something of backwards shithole for most people before it. Living in Norway was so lovely for the average person that there was mass emigration - to this day there are more Norwegians living in the US than live in Norway itself, there was just that much leaving Norway. Then once oil was discovered in a big way after the welfare state model was in full swing, the state made drat sure to keep a hold of mass amounts of that revenue to feed into the welfare state. Any Latin American country you'd care to mention, if they'd had the past 50-odd years as a US-backed heavily welfare-state focused country, would probably have way less inequality. None of them had the luxury of being such a thing. (For that matter, Norwegians in particular were helped by the fact that a lot of big time right wing people and parties decided to collaborate too much with the Nazis and Quisling's homegrown fascists during the war, which left a lot of an opening for left parties to push through the welfare state policies before the right wing resurged). (Roughly the period of building their welfare state was 1945-1960, oil gets first discovered in 1967 and seriously commercially exploited in 1969, the state oil company is established in 1972, and the country's a major producer by 1977 or so.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:It's more that they want to seem cosmopolitan in NY while being a part of the plutocracy in Brazil. This is probably the weirdest thing about Latin America and I'm sad that they don't get called out on it more
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:lmao I am brazilian and I studied econ, thx You're being reductive when talking about the big issues of latin american countries, though. =P You're just laying the blame at the feet of colonialism or the US or whatever else instead of dumbass ideology. dead comedy forums posted:but then we can go back to the useless intellectual wanking to check our history and see that latin america had the largest pro-market reforms ever made in the history of the West back in the 80s, resulting to gently caress all in terms of actual economic progress because it broke everybody, exploded international debt and for some cases made inflation hilariously worse, but hey cheaper foreign imports Like, this worse than wrong. It is not even concrete enough to be wrong. It's useless wanking. dead comedy forums posted:we could also check and see that even after having a real deal totally legit no joke socialist revolution, Mexico isn't exactly doing hot poo poo well nowadays, so we can go and do some useless intellectual wanking to check what were the conditions to learn about that and inform policy That might not be useless wanking. If we wanted to talk about mexican economic policy it would probably be pretty useful. But what you did by bringing it up here is just furiously beating your brain dick. dead comedy forums posted:but when you say stuff like "jfc marxism can't end soon enough" you mistake a thing that hasn't been a real deal for quite a loving while in terms of your said primary concern (i.e. "Actual Policy") In Chile this is legit a problem, and continues to be a problem, tho. dead comedy forums posted:far more important than worrying about leftism is to check why, after different types of governments and economic experiences in this corner of the world, the same problems that existed since colonial times keep persisting after we did everything that we were "supposed" to do Again, you would literally have to raise your level of discourse to even be wrong. But staying on the same level I would say that holy poo poo, there has been a ton of progress in Latin America wtf is wrong with you. Problems still existing (as they exist everywhere) does not mean that things have not improved and it is trivial to look at a country like, say, Chile, and see that people are mostly vastly better off than they were a generation ago. In other countries it may be different. It might be a useful exercise to look at what was different between them. dead comedy forums posted:and that is why you get for example the problem of primary education being poo poo since useless intellectual wanking shows that our landowning classes since ever didn't believe in broad education for the public (because of the mentality that I said in my first glorious shining shitpost), and the state can't intervene hard here and push and shove to make it better because it doesn't have the money to do so, because it can't create better taxation systems because the wealthier citizens and the establishment go loving ballistic about it That is a whole lot of reductionism. You're lumping a whole continent together which seems like it would produce some loss of fidelity. dead comedy forums posted:or the indigenous peoples of Araucania or the Amazon or the Cerrado or the Andes getting screwed even nowadays because it is an unsaid imperative that between helping them or loving them over for a quick buck the second is the default choice done and has been justified for over four centuries of different governments, and that helping them costs money, and the state can't push through some timid reform before people go ballistic again, "NO loving MONEY OF MINE IS GOING TO HELP THOSE loving SAVAGES", because of the same mentality I mean, we could talk about the history of land reform and reparations towards the indigenous in Chile. We could talk about the recent violence including burning non-indigenous farmers alive in their homes and other shennanigans, and what the government (non)response has been to that. We could talk about a lot of actual things but no you want to beat your dick. dead comedy forums posted:tl:dr- to tie all of this with a nice bow: the true useless intellectual wanking, the one that makes actual bad policy happens, is things like "if only we could get rid of leftism", "if only we had the death penalty", "if only [this] and/or [that]", without giving any actual effort in how the problems came to be and why so :theironicatthatgetsbiggerforever:
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 15:13
|
|