Correa's and Ecuador's Success drive The Economist Nuts

[PETRUS]

by Bill Black

Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa has the special ability to drive our most elite media nuts. Failures are self-refuting. It is the successful that drive their opponents to distraction, and much of the media can barely contain its eagerness to write that Correa has failed. In 2009, The Economist practically licked it lips in eager anticipation of what it hoped would be Correa’s (and Ecuador’s) failure due to the “country’s acute financial problems.”

<snip>

The problem is that Correa, and Ecuador, refuse to fail...


Read more: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/02/correas-and-ecuadors-success-drive-the-economist-nuts.html

(long piece)

[HooptieWagon]

1. It was Allende's success with Chilean economy

that led to the US backed coup against him. US couldn't allow a leftist economic plan prove successful. So, US backs Pinochet on condition he brings in Chicago school economists. Chilean economy then goes right into the toilet.

[naaman fletcher]

7. I've not read that before.

Do you have any good sources? What I find is things like this:

in 1972 the Chilean escudo had runaway inflation of 140%. The average Real GDP contracted between 1971 and 1973 at an annual rate of 5.6% ("negative growth&quot , and the government's fiscal deficit soared while foreign reserves declined.[7] The combination of inflation led to the rise of black markets in rice, beans, sugar, and flour, and a "disappearance" of such basic commodities from supermarket shelves.[8]

In addition to the earlier-discussed provision of employment, Allende also raised wages on a number of occasions throughout 1970 and 1971. These rises in wages were negated by continuing increases in prices for food. Although price rises had also been high under Frei (27% a year between 1967 and 1970), a basic basket of consumer goods rose by 120% from 190 to 421 escudos in one month alone, August 1972. In the period 1970-72, while Allende was in government, exports fell 24% and imports rose 26%, with imports of food rising an estimated 149%.[9] Although nominal wages were rising, there was not a commensurate increase in the standard of living for the Chilean population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende#Economics

[HooptieWagon]

8. Here is a good read.

http://www.bidstrup.com/economics.htm

Chile was doing better than most South American countries. Pinochet seized power, brought in Milton Friedman as economic advisor, and they took the Chilean economy into the sewer.
BTW, Friedman was my Father's landlord when he was in med school at University of Chicago in early 50s.

[naaman fletcher]

9. Thanks..

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Friedman fan, I just had always thought that the Chilean economy was in a total shambles At the end of the allende era. Anyway, I will give this a read tonight, thanks.

[HooptieWagon]

10. You're welcome.

It's a good read. Chile's economy wasn't great, but it was better than most of South America. Friedman.s perscription to "fix" it reads just out of GOP playbook today....austerity for the poor, more wealth for the rich.
A good friend of mine's father was a student at U of Santiago at the time. Victor Jara was one of his professors, and he marched with him. He fled to Brazil during the coup. He read the article, says it's an accurate analysis of Chile during Allende's time as President. He wasn't there of course during Pinochet.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Tremendous article. You have to know how rare it is to find good informed writing it is

through the tidal wave of spin and crap we usually struggle through regularly!

Have only begun, will relish finishing the whole article at a more leisurely pace later this evening.

Thank you for posting this.

[PETRUS]

4. Thank you.

I do know. It is tiring. I notice you persevere...

[ocpagu]

3. Well...

... I already knew "The Economist" had a tradition of failing in every prediction about Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina... now Ecuador. I don't even know why they bother publishing things about Latin America.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Totally agree! The Economyst SUCKS on Latin America!

But then so do all the other corporate media lapdogs of the rich--the New York Slimes, the Wall Urinal, Slime magazine, the Associated Pukes, Rotters, the lot of them. None of them has a clue what really makes an economy successful, and they are doubly clueless about Latin America. This is WHY I call them by demeaning names--their dis-reporting on Latin America--that's how they earned those names (that and the Iraq War).

I shouldn't say clueless. They are not really clueless. They know exactly what they're doing--LYING! Because they can't tolerate fairness, equity, distributed wealth, good wages and benefits, humane programs of health care, progressive educational programs, inclusiveness, attention to "the commons" and real democracy, and the success that such policies always create for everyone, for the whole society.

They can't stand it. They lie about it.

I'm afraid that the northern countries are in the end-stage of predatory capitalism--the Great Looting. Socialist policies (as per the above) create wealth and opportunity--such as the "New Deal" created here and in post-war Europe--and then the Looters gather like sharks for a feeding frenzy and gobble up all the wealth that the poor and the middle class have created, including even the public programs and infrastructure upon which wealth-creation depends.

The Economyst and all the others are simply shoveling the propaganda crapola of the Looting Class.

One hopeful thought: The thing about "Big Lies" is that they die their own horrible deaths. People get sick of them, and no matter how often, how loudly or how brutally they are hammered into peoples' heads, the human brain is essentially free and ultimately repels "Big Lies," sometimes cataclysmically (not always) but inevitably. People hate lies, and the bigger the lies, the harder do the liars fall. Our Corporate Rulers never learned the lesson of Stalinism or the lesson of the Medieval Church. Instead they are repeating those methods of control and they WILL fail--because you can't really control the human mind. You can subdue it for a time, even for a long time, with relentless brainwashing; you can make it fearful and self-censoring--but you cannot conquer the natural curiosity and experimentation of the human brain or of aggregate human brains in a society.

"Riches for the rich and austerity for the poor" WILL fail. It is completely unviable. It is being "sold" as the necessity for a successful economy and it is a complete lie. The reverse is true. Successful economies only occur when the wealth at the top is curtailed and the wealth at the bottom is improved. When you have the rich stuffing their pockets, you have increasing poverty to the point of social and economic collapse. And we have worse yet--we have devious, highly organized transglobal corporations holding all the wealth and wielding all the power as virtual 'countries' unto themselves, with national governments shunted aside, as mere errand-boys for transglobal interests. This is a VERY difficult problem for democracy to solve.

And I think this is one of the marvels of the leftist democracy movement in Latin America--they ARE solving it. I won't go into how they are doing so--it is a complex story--but I will say that their success at doing so is WHY The Economyst and its brethren are such LIARS about Latin America. They don't want us to know that there are solutions to this problem!

[bemildred]

6. Because it shows they are full of shit. nt