For a concise, readable summary of iTulip concepts developed over the past 16 years and a vision of a challenging next decade and how to navigate it, read Eric Janszen's book "Post Catastrophe Economy".
Join the discussion of today's events with a wide range of professionals with an interest in economics and finance.
Register to join our 50,000 plus member registered community from 78 countries today.
Subscribe to iTulip Select for access to the longest running, deep, accurate, and unvarnished macro economic trends analysis and forecasting available, since 1998.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
President Rafael Correa pelted with tear gas as police angry at new law that cuts their benefits launch chaotic rebellion
Ecuador's president Rafael Correa speaks to a demonstrator during the protest.
Equador's government has declared a state of emergency after police launched a chaotic rebellion over austerity measures that cut their benefits.
Incensed officers shoved President Rafael Correa around and pelted him with tear gas and water when he tried to speak at a police barracks in the capital. Correa, 47, was taken to hospital from the effects of the gas.
The state of emergency puts the military in charge of public order, suspending civil liberties and allowing soldiers to carry out searches without a warrant.
Hundreds of officers involved in the insurrection took over police barracks in Quito, Guayaquil and other cities. They also set up roadblocks out of burning tires that cut off highway access to the capital.
Scores of uniformed men overran the landing strip at Quito's main airport, forcing flights to be cancelled.
Correa challenged the protesters to kill him, according to local media. "I'm not taking one step back. Gentleman, if you want to kill the president, here he is, kill him if you have the guts." The rebel officers responded with shouts, stones and teargas canisters, prompting Correa's bodyguards to spirit him from the scene.
The protests rapidly spread to bases and barracks in three provinces, with witnesses reporting looting, compounding a political crisis that could prompt the president to dissolve parliament and rule by decree until elections.
There was no indication that Correa faced assassination, nor that the government would fall. The head of the armed forces, Ernesto Gonzalez, said troops remained loyal to Correa. "We are in a state of law. We are loyal to the maximum authority, which is the president."
The foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, played down the severity of the protests. "This is not a popular mobilisation, it is not a popular uprising, it is an uprising by the police, who are ill-informed," he told TV network Telesur. The central bank chief, Diego Borja, called for calm.
Ecuador has a tradition of protests but to see about 150 mutinous members of the air force swarm through Quito's Mariscal Sucre international airport was a first.
The action was followed by hundreds of soldiers and police in Quito and the commercial capital, Guayaquil, who blocked roads, lit tyres and fired teargas. "Respect our rights!" some shouted. "Long civil war!" shouted others.
There were no immediate reports of casualties and the president showed no sign of backing down. "They are a bunch of ungrateful bandits. No one has supported the police as much as this government," he told reporters.
The protests were triggered by a law passed by congress yesterday on Wednesday that would end the practice of giving medals and bonuses with each promotion. It would also extend from five to seven years the usual period required for promotions. The law needs to be published before it takes effect.
Correa is a US-trained economist who has tried to slim Ecuador's bureaucracy. His own party, the Country Alliance, opposed the austerity measures, prompting his threat to dissolve congress.
The two-year-old constitution allows the president to declare a political impasse and dissolve the assembly until a presidential and parliamentary election. The measure needs constitutional court approval. "This is a scenario that nobody would want, but it is a possibility when the conditions for change do not exist," said Doris Solis, a minister.
Correa, who has a Belgian wife, was elected in 2006 promising a "citizens' revolution" to spread benefits of oil, gas and other revenues to the poor in Andean mountains, Amazon forests and Pacific coast slums. He defaulted on a $2.8bn (£1.8bn) debt, calling it illegitimate, and boosted spending on education and health.
He was re-elected under the new constition last year but since then public sector workers and indigenous groups, among others, have accused him of breaking promises.
Correa challenged the protesters to kill him, according to local media. "I'm not taking one step back. Gentleman, if you want to kill the president, here he is, kill him if you have the guts." The rebel officers responded with shouts, stones and teargas canisters, prompting Correa's bodyguards to spirit him from the scene.
Hmmmm... Maybe I should cross Ecuador off my short list of potential expat locations.
Oh wait, now I see the problem:
Correa tried to do a chavez like move in Ecuador, he made a new constitution and was suppose to be the voice of the people and indigenous of Ecuador, much like chavez he was a complete failure...
Correa tried to do a chavez like move in Ecuador, he made a new constitution and was suppose to be the voice of the people and indigenous of Ecuador, much like chavez he was a complete failure...
Rubbish. Correa is a centrist trying to stave off radical left wing elements by promoting responsible long-term development (sound resource projects as an example) while also fighting off the old guard Oligarchy that have ruled the country with impunity forever (look at their bond deals.) He is to my mind an extremely admirable figure without any of the unfortunate (but largely irrelevant) quirks of Chavez. In fact I think he's economically savvy in a way that itulipers should recognise.
And you know I think that's pretty f'ing cocky to dare them to kill him. Is there a contemporary western leader capable of that you could name. (Trudeau did that with the FLQ. Good on him.)
I despair at the frankly piss-poor understanding of Latin America in El Norte. Here's a test: why is Lula stepping down with an 80% approval rating. He was a unionist for god's sake. What does that tell you. I've been bombarded with investment prospectuses for Brazil for at least four years. Doesn't this suggest that there's something going on here that's more interesting than bashing the Chavez pinata.
Why is it that Latin American politics seems absurd in a somewhat obvious way whereas there is a patina of rationality and sobriety that is somehow laid over the ravings of McDonnel and Palin, not to mention the completely incoherent "economics" that makes everyday life in the West appear less than insane.
Compared to that Chavez is a badly produced gameshow of really no import. Let him rave. He has the vote. Why? If he's so full of sh!t why don't they vote him out. And if the cause is so righteous why can't they mobilise a legitimate resistance. Because they blew their credibility by not giving a f@ck when everyone lived through an economic crisis and the ruling powers obviously didn't give a f@ck.
Payback (and democracy) is a bitch.
Given this history would I support Chavez? No. I would support a party that was able to propose a less polarised view of the world that recognised that development is not always a net-negative for the population and that development is key to funding investment in health care and education that might allow the country to emerge into a self re-enforcing model of moderate growth...
(Actually I think that's kind of his platform.)
But back to my point: that party would receive precisely zero seats because it doesn't speak to either the privileged that are used to a better a deal always or the general populace that is immune to a succession of politicians that, no matter what they say, end up representing the "base" in Cheney's terms...
So cue Correa: here's a guy who's been able to sell a moderate platform in a very politically traumatised country, a guy who's been savvy enough to play the bond market like a fiddle in order to extract the country from onerous and illegitimate debt, a guy who's willing to stand up to grandstanders on both left and right....
And all you can think of is he's Chavez II?
C'mon.
Last edited by oddlots; September 30, 2010, 10:26 PM.
Rubbish. Correa is a centrist trying to stave off radical left wing elements by promoting responsible long-term development (sound resource projects as an example) while also fighting off the old guard Oligarchy that have ruled the country with impunity forever (look at their bond deals.) He is to my mind an extremely admirable figure without any of the unfortunate (but largely irrelevant) quirks of Chavez. In fact I think he's economically savvy in a way that itulipers should recognise.
And you know I think that's pretty f'ing cocky to dare them to kill him. Is there a contemporary western leader capable of that you could name. (Trudeau did that with the FLQ. Good on him.)
I despair at the frankly piss-poor understanding of Latin America in El Norte. Here's a test: why is Lula stepping down with an 80% approval rating. He was a unionist for god's sake. What does that tell you. I've been bombarded with investment prospectuses for Brazil for at least four years. Doesn't this suggest that there's something going on here that's more interesting than bashing the Chavez pinata.
Why is it that Latin American politics seems absurd in a somewhat obvious way whereas there is a patina of rationality and sobriety that is somehow laid over the ravings of McDonnel and Palin, not to mention the completely incoherent "economics" that makes everyday life in the West appear less than insane.
Compared to that Chavez is a badly produced gameshow of really no import. Let him rave. He has the vote. Why? If he's so full of sh!t why don't they vote him out. And if the cause is so righteous why can't they mobilise a legitimate resistance. Because they blew their credibility by not giving a f@ck when everyone lived through an economic crisis and the ruling powers obviously didn't give a f@ck.
Payback (and democracy) is a bitch.
Given this history would I support Chavez? No. I would support a party that was able to propose a less polarised view of the world that recognised that development is not always a net-negative for the population and that development is key to funding investment in health care and education that might allow the country to emerge into a self re-enforcing model of moderate growth...
(Actually I think that's kind of his platform.)
But back to my point: that party would receive precisely zero seats because it doesn't speak to either the privileged that are used to a better a deal always or the general populace that is immune to a succession of politicians that, no matter what they say, end up representing the "base" in Cheney's terms...
So cue Correa: here's a guy who's been able to sell a moderate platform in a very politically traumatised country, a guy who's been savvy enough to play the bond market like a fiddle in order to extract the country from onerous and illegitimate debt, a guy who's willing to stand up to grandstanders on both left and right....
And all you can think of is he's Chavez II?
C'mon.
Well being as I am latin american, lived in latin america and frequently visit, I dont know how my views could be classified as "el norte"views, but whatever...
Your right about the right ruling oligarchs not giving a shit in Venezuela and now payiing for it, the problem is all of society is paying it. To use chavez as an example is pretty poor choice, his mob rule intimidating tactics are a main reason as to why he is in power that and he has control of the army. Remember there were months of protest in venezuela when people stopped working even yet he is still there.
You in Latin America as long as you have military backing that still counts for a lot.
Correa is a buffoon and far from savy, as I said he has tried to employ the same tactics as Chavez did to try and get firm control of government, including attacks on freedom of speech and the media, government takeovers of private companies etc.
IM not sure what funding investment in Health Care and education would do if you still couldn't afford to eat. The one great lie government's and educators, have sold us is an education is a must for development. It is at a certain level but not at the level Latin America is where large portions of the continent remained undeveloped, legal structures dont work and job creation is non-existant. Lets first try and get people jobs then we can focus on education. Now how that will be done, I still haven't figured out, you have to changed centuries old ways of thinking and then the real reform cant, unfortunately I cant see that happening anytime soon.
I still despair at the frankly piss-poor understanding of Latin America in El Norte even if is not reflected in your views.
(Could you be a little more specific,by the way, about exactly how Correa is a "buffoon.")
The examples are legion. Basically anything good done by the current wave of leftist leaders is passed over in silence. (See Evo's economic record for instance.) On the other hand Uribe was constantly lionised despite having a very dirty past with ties to elements responsible for wholesale murder and intimidation. ("False positives" gets my vote for the most chilling political euphemism ever.) Another example is how easily western opinion was managed to give some legitimacy to the coup plotters in Guatemala. The result: a wave of murders, once the coup was secure, of civil rights activists, gay rights proponents and unionists that seem to interest interest no-one in the US, land of liberty.
But really the fact that you are Latin American by origin or birth only intrigues me further. If you think Correa's a buffoon fine. Details please. I'd also love to know what you think of Accosta and Gutierrez. Any better?
But more generally, what do you make of Lula or Evo? Do you think the project of creating a Latin American community better able to collectively stand up to American power is a good thing or not?
I could guess your answer given the fact that your first and only reaction to an apparent coup attempt in Ecuador against a popularly elected leader was to say he is a buffoon anyway. But you know making presumptions might get me in trouble. So just let us know would you?
In 1995, I spent 3 weeks in Ecuador. Got to speak with a lot of locals who do not speak English (I speak Spanish) and they were a despairing, cynical people back then. They knew their country was run by and for the benefit of a few oligarchs, that the government was corrupt, and that the IMF was pushing policies at the behest of American bankers/ bondholders that exploited Ecuador's resources for the benefit of the U.S. and its local oligarch allies. They were mad and upset, but felt powerless to change things. The majority of the poplulation was poor and the middle class' hold on the crumbs that the oligarchs tossed them was tenuous. It was the epoch of lawyers and doctors who drove taxis (not enough Ecuadorians could afford their services) and significant migration to Spain and the U.S. Ecuador was a truly disfunctional place.
Then I spent 2 weeks in Guatemala in 1996. Same story. 1997 in Peru. Same story.
In 2003, I spent some time in Venezuela. What a difference. The oligarchs had tried to overthrow Chavez via a military coup, it had failed, he was back in office, and while I was there, there was an election that the oligarchs and their allies had managed to wrangle, to recall Chavez and "unelect" him from presidency. I talked to all levels of society, from the very poor to the wealthy. What amazed me was, compared to above countries, how empowered and engaged the whole country of Venezuela was in the political process. ESPECIALLY the poor and lower middle classes, who felt that for the first time in their lives, under Chavez, Venezuelan political leaders were responsive to their needs and attempting to improve their living standard.
I support the wave of political leaders in the 2000's in Latin America who stand up to the oligarchs and the U.S. and whose policies focus on local development and a decent local standard of living. It will, however, be a difficult adjustment for the oligarchs and U.S. bankers/ corporations, who have been used to grabbing Latin America's wealth for themselves.
Final comment, in 1996, in Guatemala, a local woman in Antigua took me driving around the countryside. We stopped to visit a much-admired local church in a small town. "Do you want to see where the massacare was?", she whispred to me in the church. "Sure", I said. We climbed a small hill, and she pointed down an alley. During the middle of the night, paramilitaries had raided the homes of 6 local labor and community leaders, thrown them against a wall, and shot them. The murders were arranged by the local elite, who were allied with the national oligarchs, so nothing was done to capture the perpetrators, even tho the everyone knew the score.
Thanks for the insight. I had a hunch that venezuela's chavez was a rebellion against oligarchy.
Chavez is not perfect but then evrything has it's flaws.
Venezuela is rich in Oil and Gold. Venezuela looks good the way things are going.
But then there is a chance that chavez can be overthrown.
In 1995, I spent 3 weeks in Ecuador. Got to speak with a lot of locals who do not speak English (I speak Spanish) and they were a despairing, cynical people back then. They knew their country was run by and for the benefit of a few oligarchs, that the government was corrupt, and that the IMF was pushing policies at the behest of American bankers/ bondholders that exploited Ecuador's resources for the benefit of the U.S. and its local oligarch allies. They were mad and upset, but felt powerless to change things. The majority of the poplulation was poor and the middle class' hold on the crumbs that the oligarchs tossed them was tenuous. It was the epoch of lawyers and doctors who drove taxis (not enough Ecuadorians could afford their services) and significant migration to Spain and the U.S. Ecuador was a truly disfunctional place.
Then I spent 2 weeks in Guatemala in 1996. Same story. 1997 in Peru. Same story.
Thanks for your input. I find the insight of the locals to whom you spoke fascinating. I would suggest that similar conversations with "locals" here in the U.S. would yield a much different result. How many U.S. citizens are cognizant of the control wielded by the elite in this country? And what percentage could even answer what acronym IMF stands for?
I still despair at the frankly piss-poor understanding of Latin America in El Norte even if is not reflected in your views.
(Could you be a little more specific,by the way, about exactly how Correa is a "buffoon.")
The examples are legion. Basically anything good done by the current wave of leftist leaders is passed over in silence. (See Evo's economic record for instance.) On the other hand Uribe was constantly lionised despite having a very dirty past with ties to elements responsible for wholesale murder and intimidation. ("False positives" gets my vote for the most chilling political euphemism ever.) Another example is how easily western opinion was managed to give some legitimacy to the coup plotters in Guatemala. The result: a wave of murders, once the coup was secure, of civil rights activists, gay rights proponents and unionists that seem to interest interest no-one in the US, land of liberty.
But really the fact that you are Latin American by origin or birth only intrigues me further. If you think Correa's a buffoon fine. Details please. I'd also love to know what you think of Accosta and Gutierrez. Any better?
But more generally, what do you make of Lula or Evo? Do you think the project of creating a Latin American community better able to collectively stand up to American power is a good thing or not?
I could guess your answer given the fact that your first and only reaction to an apparent coup attempt in Ecuador against a popularly elected leader was to say he is a buffoon anyway. But you know making presumptions might get me in trouble. So just let us know would you?
FIrst off, I was born and raised in Guatemala, living 18 years there, and i sitll regularly vist. Anyway... What economic record of evo are you talking about? The same one that made 3 different state's want to become autonomous? Or his nationalization of the natural gas that has yielded nothing for bolivia? Last I checked Bolivia is still the poorest and most underdeveloped country in Latin America...
What coup? You mean the rosenberg case a couple of years ago? When did the coup become secure? There has been a wave of murders for about 6 years now. I have no idea what your talking about with gay rights and unions?
Details of why correa is a buffoon:
1. His rhetoric
2. His illegal takeover of congress
3. Ecuador is still in economic mess with a government that has doubled public spending, even with defaulting on the debt his still managed to mess up things more.
4. WHen your own police held you captive, I wouldn't call that an "elite"revolt
Lula, is far more centrist than he seemes, he certainly doesn't back up leftist rhetoric. Evo is on par with Correa, he is a joke. Finally on Correa, I though he was a buffoon before he got elected. Just because of his rhetoric.
Originally posted by [COLOR=Black
WorldTraveler[/COLOR]]I support the wave of political leaders in the 2000's in Latin America who stand up to the oligarchs and the U.S. and whose policies focus on local development and a decent local standard of living. It will, however, be a difficult adjustment for the oligarchs and U.S. bankers/ corporations, who have been used to grabbing Latin America's wealth for themselves.
Final comment, in 1996, in Guatemala, a local woman in Antigua took me driving around the countryside. We stopped to visit a much-admired local church in a small town. "Do you want to see where the massacare was?", she whispred to me in the church. "Sure", I said. We climbed a small hill, and she pointed down an alley. During the middle of the night, paramilitaries had raided the homes of 6 local labor and community leaders, thrown them against a wall, and shot them. The murders were arranged by the local elite, who were allied with the national oligarchs, so nothing was done to capture the perpetrators, even tho the everyone knew the score.
Lets just clear one thing up:
Are the oligarchs who have immense influence in Latin America bad? yes
Does that mean that just because a candidate opposes them he is automatically good? no
In fact more than likely that candidate aligned himself with at least some of those oligarchs.
You see Latin America as a whole needs a deep rooted reform that changes how things have been done for nearly 200 years.
As for the people you talked to, everyone has that cynical view, I would say they are so politcially in tune just because of that.
And the massacre you talk about, when was that? during the civil war 20/30 years ago? As for unsolved murders, the current rate is 98% of murders go unsolved so regardless of background chances are the murder will go unsolved, the justice system is a sham.
Originally posted by sishya
Thanks for the insight. I had a hunch that venezuela's chavez was a rebellion against oligarchy.
Chavez is not perfect but then evrything has it's flaws.
Venezuela is rich in Oil and Gold. Venezuela looks good the way things are going.
But then there is a chance that chavez can be overthrown.
Venezuela looks good? really? That is why venezuelans are leaving in droves? or why their economy is tanking? why they have sporadic food shortages? Why it has the highest crime rate in Latin America? That is why chavez lost big in the recent parlimentary elections?
Well who knew things were so great in Venezuela!
FINALLY (To ALL): Unfortunately most of the "anti-US" leaders in Latin America only take up useless causes (ie. backing iran, saying bush is the devil) but there is very little substance to what they do. If they had any sort of back bone they would actually try to accomplish something meaningful. Like coming together to end the war on drugs (marijuana, cocaine and heroin specifically), a war for which proves most costly to us in terms of money spent, countless lives lost, millions made by druglords and gangs and what has become the #1 obstacle for justice reform in Latin America. This cause would actually require coming together because of US backlash but they wont do it off course. If we can't even form a common market in Latin Ameica because of ancient ways of thinking when it comes to protectionist measures (measures which btw only help the oligarchs who are usually the beneficiaries of these protectionsit measures, that is how slim helu made his billions in Mexico). IF any of you cared for real change in Latin America supporting and end to the drug war in America would do more good than anything, as the current policy on drugs is the most harmful US policy for Latin America.
Last edited by tsetsefly; October 02, 2010, 03:43 PM.
I was told that the massacre had taken taken about 4 years earlier. That would be in 1992, during the Guatemalan civil war period. I was actually there in late November, early December 1996, around time that the peace accord was signed in Guatemala.
I had another intesting experience in Guatemala. One day, we took the bus from Antigua into Guatemala City, to attend the premiere of a movie about the presidency of Arbenz-Guzman, his attempts to re-distribute uncultivated land to the peasants, and finally the coup that overthrew him. It was a European documentary. The audience was almost entirely Guatemalan and seemed to be middle and working class.
To be honest, I was politically naive in those days and I also had never heard of Arbenz-Guzman. Several things amazed me. 1. A former CIA operative was interviewed during the film and he openly admitted participating in the overthrow of Arbenz-Guzman. I was shocked - holy sh*t, I thought to myself, the CIA really does do that stuff and this guy is openly admitting it. 2. At the end of the movie the audience stood up and starting clapping. It seemed to be that they were glad that the truth was finally getting out. I was told that this movie had not been allowed to play in Guatemala before the peace accord period.
Guatemala is a beautiful country. I've been there twice, have friends that live there, and also a very close Guatemalan friend who lives here in Houston. I only wish the best for Guatemala and all its people. And, of course, now it is a much better place than during the civil war. From what I've saw and have heard, biggest problem is now crime, same types of violent crimes we have in the U.S.
My Houston Guatemalan friend has an interesting story. She was born and raised there, to a French father and American mother who chose to settle in Guatemala (he had spent some there as a young man). Attended school and first marriage was there. in 1990 in Guatemala City, she and her 2 kids were caught in the middle of a shoot-out. Because she has dual citizenship, she said that's it, I'm moving to the U.S.
Another Guatemalan friend, who lives there, told me that during the civil war, around 1989, there was a shoot-out at the university she attended. This shoot-out was associated with politics, not crime.
I'm really glad that the political situation is better in Guatemala now. I'd go back there in a minute, in fact, some day I probably will.
Tweet
Comment