Manifesting Destiny

The problems, possibilities, and peculiarities of the new New World

1. alistairConnor - 11/7/2004 7:11:37 PM

Take it away, Elliott. Sorry for the delay.

Interesting thread. I have no particular knowledge of the subject, but as usual, that will not stop me sticking my oar in.

2. ElliottRW - 11/7/2004 9:21:57 PM

Should Canadian prime minister warm up to the Bush Administration?

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says Paul Martin should act to end what he calls the "chilly relationship" between the Prime Minister's office and the President of the United States.

Harper says until that relationship is fixed, it will be harder to solve complex trade disputes between the two countries.

"A chilly relationship between the Prime Minister and the President has been a problem in resolving these disputes in the past couple of years," Harper told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.

3. ElliottRW - 11/7/2004 9:29:24 PM

How come nobody wants to secede to Mexico?

4. ElliottRW - 11/7/2004 10:49:35 PM

Mexico wants to move up on White House agenda

President George W. Bush, who was re-elected with the support of a majority of Hispanic voters, has promised sweeping immigration reforms since the beginning of his first term in office, when he proclaimed Mexico one of the United States' most important allies. In January, Bush sent Congress a proposal that would give temporary work permits to undocumented migrants working in the United States.

The authorities estimate there are about eight million illegal immigrants in the United States, more than half of them Mexican. They sent an estimated $14 billion back home last year, making remittances Mexico's second most important source of income after oil. This makes them a powerful constituency to President Vicente Fox of Mexico, and he has made immigration reform his chief foreign policy priority.

The United States, however, has so far failed to deliver on its promises for immigration reform.

Anybody think this will happen?

5. ElliottRW - 11/7/2004 10:55:05 PM

Cuba tin pot calls United States kettle black

HAVANA - Cuba struck back at the United States on Saturday, calling it the world's worst human rights offender two days after the U.S. State Department criticized the island nation for continuing to imprison scores of dissidents rounded up more than 1 ½ years ago.

''The government of the United States doesn't have the minimum moral authority to accuse Cuba,'' the island's Foreign Ministry said in an official note published in the Communist Party daily Granma.

''It's the government of the United States that is the worst violator of human rights in the world,'' the note said, pointing to alleged abuses of prisoners in Iraq and terror suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

6. arkymalarky - 11/8/2004 12:12:06 AM

Anybody think this will happen?

I have a Mexican student whose father went back to Mexico. He asked me that question and I told him I didn't think the Republican congress would pass it and that made it easy for Bush to promote an immigration reform plan. This student is a senior and hasn't decided what to do after he graduates, but his father says it's bad there and of course they support Bush's plan. He made convincing arguments for it to me, but I told him I didn't know that it would work anyway because the entire appeal of hiring illegal immigrants is the lack of government regulation on wages and working conditions.

It will be interesting to see how this shapes up, but I'll be surprised if it gets much if any attention now that Bush is secure for four more years. It says a lot about what we need to be looking at wrt elections in the future, though. Latino issues can no longer be ignored here.

7. ElliottRW - 11/8/2004 12:32:23 AM

Arky,

Thanks for the input. For what it is worth, I think the solution to the problem of illegal immigration starts with an invasion of Mexico.

Figuratively, of course. But an invasion even so, of U.S. citizens moving into Mexico, taking with them their civil liberties, their capital, their skills, and most importantly their expectations of efficient, responsible, and transparent governance.

But who wants to go to Mexico? An obvious answer to this question is Mexican-Americans. People with relatives in Mexico. Mexico sends its most ambitious and hardest working people to the U.S.; we should return the favor.

8. concerned - 11/8/2004 1:20:51 AM

Well, parts of Mexico are probably an attractive place to retire, for some. I'm not sure about this, but doesn't Mexico now allow foreign nationals to own property?

9. wabbit - 11/8/2004 11:54:43 AM

concerned, I think you can own residential property in Mexico as long as it is a certain distance from the shoreline, something like 2 miles (and since this is a vague memory from several years ago, I could be wrong). Don't know about business property, but you can probably get away with more if you are a registered business.

10. RickNelson - 11/8/2004 11:54:58 AM

I don't know enough about Mexico. Up here in Minnesoooooota our isolationist local news wont go too much beyond AP world news. Very few reports come from local sources. I get nearly all my news from PBS sources and the net. I could search and read about Mexico, but it's not been a priority. I have much more interest in Bornean, Malaysia than I do in most anywhere else. It's still being deforested and the Penan are still being displaced. Being a nomadic forest dweller will end soon.

Oh, yeah, Mexico and immigrants.

I do know that Minnesota's Mexican immigrant population has soared. During the 90's I noticed a huge influx of population along the Lake Street corridor in Minneapolis. That area has been revitalized by immigrants seeing an opportunity that others were ignoring. It started with Sabri, a realestate developer, immigrated some time ago. He has had some corruption problems, but the good he's done is evident. The new store facades along previously blighted areas of Lake Street warms my heart. There is always hope for the future when people work towards the common good.

I love Minnesota!

11. wabbit - 11/8/2004 11:58:23 AM

Yikes, 30 seconds of googling proves me wrong. From Pacific Coast Travel Information:

...An American (or any foreign national) can acquire land title almost anywhere in Mexico with the permission of the Foreign Affairs Ministry. The only exception in the Foreign Investment Law is that foreigners may not acquire real property in the "prohibited zone".

The "prohibited zone" is the strip of land 100 km from the borders and 50 km from the beach. If a foreigner wishes to acquire land in the prohibited zone, he or she may enter into a trust agreement with a Mexican bank (discussed below)...

12. ElliottRW - 11/8/2004 1:06:46 PM

Nobody has asked me why I think U.S. citizens should move to Mexico. Maybe you are giving me the benefit of the doubt. I'll fill in some more details so that you can properly attack me:

I don't think people should move to Mexico out of the goodness of their hearts. I think the U.S. government, now that it has something that the Mexican government wants, should press for reforms that make Mexico a more attractive place specifically for foreigners to start small businesses.

For example, this 100km-from-the-border hassle has to go. The beach thing makes some small sense, as a conservation measure, but the border regulation is nothing more than a jobs program for Mexican lawyers.

But more important, small businesses need protection from thieves--those wearing masks, those wearing badges, and, most importantly, those wearing expensive suits.

How will this help our immigration problem? For starters it will create good jobs in Mexico. Not only from new foreign-owned business, but from locally-owned business that will thrive in the new environment. Opportunity seekers will stay in Mexico. I believe these to be the great bulk of illegal immigrants in the U.S. today.^*

Will there still be illegal Latin American immigrants to the U.S.? Sure, but they will no longer be viewed with sympathy by millions of voters.

^*_{Note that this includes not only Mexican nationals, but also Central and South Americans, most of whom come through Mexico on their way to the the U.S. If Mexico becomes a good place to stay, many of them will stay in Mexico.}

13. robertjayb - 11/8/2004 1:27:56 PM

The "prohibited zone" is the strip of land 100 km from the borders and 50 km from the beach. If a foreigner wishes to acquire land in the prohibited zone, he or she may enter into a trust agreement with a Mexican bank.

There was some hoorah in the press on this topic a year or so ago. U.S. citizens were being booted off properties their families had enjoyed for years, having made their deals when the land was considered much less valuable and suitable only for crazy yanquis.

There was talk of collusion and corruption.

Imagine that...

14. concerned - 11/8/2004 1:38:41 PM

Re. 12 -

I think your idea is laudable, but my rather uninformed take is that if the Mexican governmental infrastructure is so corrupt that it doesn't try to remedy conditions that induce millions to emigrate illegally, it would seem to be quite capable of (not that it necessarily would be) throwing roadblocks in the way of Yanquis who wish to move their smaller scale business operations to Mexico.

15. ElliottRW - 11/8/2004 1:51:57 PM

According to Transparency International, Mexico is perceived to be have serious corruption problem (in its most recent survey of 146 countries, it ranked tied for 64th, with a score of 3.6 on a scale where 10.0 is the best).

A question asked of respondents: If you had a magic wand and you could eliminate corruption from one of the following institutions, what would your first choice be?

17. alistairconnor - 11/8/2004 2:10:13 PM

(oops)
Snowowl posted an interesting story in the health thread : Better red than dead?

Cuba has developed a promising new treatment for lung cancer, which a biotech company in the US is keen on importing. They had something of a struggle to get permission to import the drug though, because of the embargo.

... but I disagree with her conclusion :

It's pleasing to see that in the end sense prevailed and the drug was allowed in. It's hoped that it may also prove effective in combatting breast cancer and other cancers.

On the contrary, I'm alarmed to see that the Bush administration is behaving inconsistently, and appears to be going soft on Communism. The US government has, quite rightly, saved Americans from being poisoned by Communist sugar for the past several decades. But they seem dangerously unconcerned about Americans being poisoned by Communist cures for cancer.

18. concerned - 11/8/2004 2:23:17 PM

Ooops is right, AC. What's your explanation for the Xlowntoon Administration maintaining this embargo for eight years since it apparently embarrasses you that the detested Bush Administration is willing to be somewhat flexible about it?

19. alistairconnor - 11/8/2004 2:25:19 PM

I hold no brief for any previous administration...

And really, I have no desire at all to hold Clinton's briefs.

20. Ms. No - 11/8/2004 2:25:59 PM

Oh hush, AC, don't you know the man's got a mandate to do whatever the hell he wants to do?

21. ElliottRW - 11/8/2004 2:26:50 PM

Concerned,

I see we cross-posted. What I am suggesting is a shifting of priorities in our policy towards Mexico. We should make institutional corruption explicitly our top priority--before trade, before the war on drugs. I believe Presidente Fox to be one of our allies in this effort, and strengthening him is in our interest. One of the ways we can strengthen him is to give him political cover for the difficult things that he needs to do.

But corruption is a big, broad target. By working specifically to end corruption that affects small businesses, Presidente Fox will be able to focus his government's resources on a comparatively measurable and achievable goal. If Bush demands Fox make Mexico safe for small business people, that may give Fox more power to actually do so.

22. wabbit - 11/8/2004 2:28:16 PM

AC, please see Message # 2257 in thread 148

23. Ms. No - 11/8/2004 2:31:24 PM

Elliot,

I think you've got an excellent idea, but as for getting rid of corruption, I doubt that anything short of a military action and complete purge of both the police and much of the political infrastructure would accomplish that.

There isn't, to my knowlege, any impartial, objective Mexican body with the authority to even expose corruption much less the power to stop it. My knowlege is extremely sketchy, though so I could be quite wrong.

How would you suggest rooting out corruption in Mexico?

24. ElliottRW - 11/8/2004 2:37:05 PM

WARNING FROM MR. MANNERS:

Please, no name calling, and limit personal attacks to those that are very tightly on-topic.

The basic guideline for this thread is that when you make posts, do so as if you were referring to blood relatives.

The truth is always ok. Just say it nicely.

25. ElliottRW - 11/8/2004 2:46:27 PM

There isn't, to my knowlege, any impartial, objective Mexican body with the authority to even expose corruption much less the power to stop it.
I will research this matter.

How would you suggest rooting out corruption in Mexico?
I assume that there are technical methods for doing this. My suggestion is to put these methods to use, measure the results, reward the successful. A key, though, is to focus the efforts on highly measurable, achievable goals. Success breeds success.

26. Ms. No - 11/8/2004 3:12:20 PM

But where are the people going to come from to enforce this? I mean, we're talking about an entire system that is fully entrenched in the day to day life of the people. Do you simply fire all the police at once? What about the pressures on the "new guys" to take money from criminals for a pass?

And what about the large percentage of the governemnt that is also profiting from this corruption? The big money in Mexico is involved in this. In order to fight big money you have to have big money yourself. Where will it come from?

---Not to be discouraging, I'm just looking for specifics. I think it's an extremely worthwhile goal, but I don't see practically what ought to be done or what might be successful.

27. Ms. No - 11/8/2004 3:13:09 PM

Not to be forgotten is the big money in the US that is also profiting from the corruption in Mexico.

28. PelleNilsson - 11/8/2004 3:40:16 PM

Offhand I cannot think of any country where corruption has been eliminated once it has taken root.

29. ElliottRW - 11/8/2004 4:21:28 PM

Ms. No: But where are the people going to come from to enforce this?
I must admit that I don't know. I don't know how, in detail, it is possible to actually root out corruption, generally speaking, much less in the specific case of Mexico.

Pelle: Offhand I cannot think of any country where corruption has been eliminated once it has taken root.
So maybe I've made a bad assumption. And I accept that I have not made my case.

Still, there is anecdotal reason to hope that Mexico could work bottom up by professionalizing policing:

30. ElliottRW - 11/8/2004 4:45:34 PM

Cuba bans dollar, replaces it with 'monopoly money'.

Cuban businesses can now only accept the "convertible peso" which has a face value equal to one dollar but which is worthless outside the country.

The coloured notes have become known as "chavitos", or "monopoly money", by the local population. But most people have accepted the change ordered by Castro.

Ostensibly this change has been in response to new regulations by the Bush administration (e.g. Cuban Americans can now visit Cuba only once every three years).

But I fail to see the sense in it.

31. ElliottRW - 11/8/2004 4:59:13 PM

Guatemala alert issued after Americans raped, attacked

GUATEMALA CITY – The United States issued a serious security warning for Guatemala Wednesday after a series of attacks on U.S. citizens in the Central American nation, including the rapes of children.

...

It was not clear if the attackers were police, although the embassy statement said police might have been involved in some of the attacks. The embassy declined to give further details.

Yikes.

32. ElliottRW - 11/8/2004 6:12:48 PM

Love fest in Havana:

"We've spent some time soul-sharing," [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez said after the meeting, which began Sunday evening and lasted through the night. He praised the 78-year-old Castro's "extraordinary" strength, health and "clarity."

33. robertjayb - 11/8/2004 6:35:59 PM

I don't know of the interior or of big business in Mexico but mordido, the bite, the tip, the bribe, is thoroughly ingrained in the street life of the border. and I suspect the custom extends upward and outward.

34. Marc-Albert - 11/8/2004 6:59:43 PM

La mordida pervades Mexican and all Latin American societies from top to bottom. Those societies are inherently corrupted to the core

Let's hope that the UN Convention agains corruption, adopted exactly a year ago will be of some help (wishful thinking, of course)

35. ElliottRW - 11/8/2004 7:13:00 PM

La Mordida

I will accept that this custom persists in Mexico. And yet, one Latin American country is not perceived to be corrupt: Chile. Why is Chile different?

36. Magoseph - 11/8/2004 8:34:38 PM

It is humming in here, Elliott--so many interesting articles to read, thanks.

37. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 1:47:22 AM

Thanks, Magoseph. Here's another:

Vazquez proclaimed president-elect of Uruguay

MONTEVIDEO, Nov. 8 (Xinhuanet) -- The Electoral Court of Uruguay on Monday proclaimed Tabare Vazquez president-elect of the country,after he won the general elections held on Oct. 31.

Vazquez, who won more than 50 percent of the votes, will take office on March 1, 2005 for a five-year term. Rodolfo Gustavo Nin Noboa has been elected vice president, said the court.

According to the CIA (see link in sidebar), "Uruguay's political and labor conditions are among the freest on the continent." Also cool: life expectancy nearly 76 years, low population growth rate (0.51%), 98% literacy rate.

Uruguay scores fairly high in Transparency Internation corruption perceptions index 6.2 (only Chile, USA, and Canada higher in western hemisphere).

Uruguay ranks 46^th in the UNDP's human development scale, and is a party to all UN conventions on human rights.

Go Uruguay! Congratulations on another free and fair election.

38. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 1:56:52 AM

From the Washington Post via Minneapolis (Hey Rick!) Star Tribune:

Newly elected leftists don't fit the old mold

Analysts said most of the region's newly elected officials accept the principles of market economics and democracy but also believe that free trade and economic liberalism have not lifted the region's poor as promised and that a stronger state social role is needed. Some also gained popularity by distancing themselves from the Bush administration's controversial foreign policies.

"These old images of the left must be left aside," said Sergio Bitar, Chile's education minister. He said recent electoral trends in the region have shown that candidates with a "center-left" position, advocating "fiscal responsibility and more active social policies," are winning.

(Sounds a lot like Clintonomics, to me.)

39. concerned - 11/9/2004 2:47:19 AM

The Democratic process can effectively reduce governmental corruption over time, at least given a robust two party system, as US national politics has shown on more than one occasion.

I don't see that Mexico's (or any other Latin American country's) case is at all hopeless, but unless a stable government with other than single party dominance exists, the prognosis is much dimmer.

40. alistairconnor - 11/9/2004 6:23:21 AM

Go Uruguay! Congratulations on another free and fair election.

Ah, but the man's a socialist!

Democracy in South America is at a historic high-water mark : free and fair elections nearly everywhere. And governments of the centre left almost everywhere.

Two obvious exceptions : Venezuela, where Chavez is, unfashionably, further left, and whose legitimacy is contested. But he was elected fair and square, and will (presumably!) go quietly when he's finally beaten.

And Colombia. Right wing government. You can't expect free and fair elections in the middle of a civil war.

41. alistairconnor - 11/9/2004 6:31:33 AM

It would be tempting to emphasise the fact that Colombia is also the country where the US is most heavily engaged...

But I have never subscribed to the idea that South America's legendary militaro-fascist dictatorships are primarily the result of the interference of the yanqui imperialist dogs. On the contrary, they are generally the continuation of long and glorious national traditions dating back to independence.

On the other hand, and with notable exceptions, US administrations have undoubtedly found it more convenient to deal with strong, personalised regimes rather than turbulent democracies.

42. alistairconnor - 11/9/2004 6:40:24 AM

A robust two party system... beware...

Uruguay used to have that... Blancos and Colorados... two factions of the ruling elite, they have alternated in power for 100 years or more - effectively shutting out the mass of the population from democracy, and preserving a very stratified society.

Vasquez's winning coalition has broken the mold, coming from outside that duopoly.

43. Macnas - 11/9/2004 7:11:24 AM

You know now don't you, that there is a chance PE will be among us. You can sometimes summon him by talking about south american politics.

44. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 12:02:04 PM

Thinking about la mordida ...

When I read descriptions of petty bribery in Mexico, I see that in many cases a bribe amounts to a negotiable user fee. It is a mechanism that guides the allocation of and partially pays for public services. This is not in and of itself a bad thing. In fact, these fees possibly have the beneficial effect of rewarding hard-working and efficient bureaucrats.

The problem with the informality of the system is that in practice innocuous bribes provide cover for bad bribes. It is okay for a plaintiff to pay a fee to cover some court costs. It is unacceptable for a plaintiff to buy the outcome of her case.

It seems that a way to remove corruption from this system would be to formalize it. To set up schedules defining the maximum fee for a particular service, to provide mechanisms for monitoring the system, and to provide mechanisms whereby the disadvantaged can receive government assistance paying fees. On the back end, the fees could themselves be tax deductible, giving the government a way to square accounts.

Once these mechanisms (which are basic accounting, really) are in place, the government will then be able to efficiently separate normal business from the abusive bribes that retard growth, destroy faith in the system, foment unrest, and cause the middle class to emigrate.

Also, I found this to be an easy-to-read introduction to the goals and hopes for The UN Convention Against Corruption.

45. RickNelson - 11/9/2004 12:10:57 PM

Eliott regarding post 38: That's what it's all about.

I just cannot fathom why this isn't grasped by the more conservative amongst the political leadership? That it's coming from their collective constituency seems to be likely. Likely zealot leadership spinning their wheels around the heads of their local officials. Though I can analyze the issue of why moral conservatives will not esteem a social conscience, the hypocrisy against their proclaimed belief system boils my berserker blood. I'm going to pull out Thors old axe-

46. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 12:45:10 PM

concerned/Alistair

This is an interesting topic in its own right: what is the role of elections in correcting corruption? And, what are the necessary conditions for elections to fulfill this role?

Concerned, I you invite to elaborate on how elections have succeeded in reducing corruption in the United States.

Alistair, I invite you to provide the counterpoint, and show how ostensibly fair and meaningful elections in a two-or-more-party system have failed to reduce corruption.

47. alistairconnor - 11/9/2004 1:00:59 PM

OK, got all your links, Elliott?

American Samoa to the Virgin Islands.

Wait a minute -- what's American Samoa doing there? It's neither a nation, nor in the Americas.

48. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 1:03:27 PM

Alistair,

Heh. That was just a test. Really. I'll remove it now.

49. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 1:05:13 PM

Oh, and yes, I see all my links. Thanks!

50. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 1:14:41 PM

Police, seeking to ambush drug traffickers kill 7 party-goers

The Milenio daily newspaper reported the intended victims were marijuana traffickers who allegedly had threatened police after they refused to provide them with protection.

The agency quoted a survivor of the attack as saying that one of the assailants screamed out "We made a mistake, these weren't the ones," before they fled.

I find this doubly sad. Police try to do the right thing, are threatened with murder, try to defend themselves, botch the job, kill innocents. Ouch.

51. alistairconnor - 11/9/2004 1:52:04 PM

... trying to do the right thing? I think not.

Their job is to arrest wrongdoers, not get tanked and lay ambushes. We don't have much context, but apparently only their word for the fact that they had been threatened for refusing to provide protection... at least as likely, the traffickers refused to pay the agreed protection money.

52. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 2:16:07 PM

I missed that part about the assailants drinking--I misread that line as applying to the partygoers--that changes things. And your skepticism about police motives is fair.

Ok, the article is just sad, not doubly sad.

53. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 2:44:05 PM

CAFTA not so sweet for sugar growers

THIBODAUX, La. -- A major sugar industry lobby is pushing to gain congressional opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

...

CAFTA is a proposed deal between the U.S and six Central American countries -- Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua -- that includes provisions allowing more foreign sugar into the U.S. free of import taxes.

The domestic sugar industry is protected from low sugar prices worldwide by a stiff tariff. Critics argue that weakening the tariff through CAFTA will lead to sugar's trade protections being further dissolved.

Well, yes, that's what free trade is all about--eliminating barriers to trade that hurt the economy.

The high-road rationale behind price supports is price stability. Why aren't sugar growers arguing from that standpoint? My guess is that they don't have a case at all.

Heck, with CAFTA, sugar may get so cheap that I can get real Coca-cola at my grocery store.

54. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 5:44:53 PM

Ecuador President faces impeachment

Country's left and rightist forces joined in the Congress to oust Lucio Gutierrez, a leader who had promised broad social reforms, but has deepened pro-market policies increasing poverty and inequality in the oil-rich South American nation.

Conservative and leftist political parties joined in the Ecuadorian Congress to launch a bid aimed to impeach President Lucio Gutierrez for alleged misappropriation of funds. According to these forces, Gutierrez, who was elected in November 2002, used state funds to finance the political campaign of his Patriotic Society party, which catastrophically lost recent mid-term elections.

55. Marc-Albert - 11/9/2004 5:54:05 PM

Elliot, as regard the many facets of la mordida and the “bribe system” within the Mexican bureaucracy, you may like to read bits and pieces of this Report on the mission to Mexico of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (2002)

Of particular interest I find are the sections on the federal and state judiciary and on the legal profession in Mexico.

56. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 7:01:15 PM

Illuminating link, Marc-Albert. I think anyone interested in the Mexican judiciary should read the executive summary.

Do you know of any follow-up on the Special Rapporteur's recommendations? In particular, I would like to know how the "pilot project" is proceeding.

57. Marc-Albert - 11/9/2004 8:28:26 PM

I'll see if I can get information about that on the UN site.

58. ElliottRW - 11/10/2004 12:08:40 AM

Life after Castro?

Many Cubans, [James Cason, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana]said, are trying to muddle through and expect change in the wake of Castro's death.

"The survival strategy is simple," Cason said. "Keep your head down, don't make waves and await the biological solution."

Jaime Suchlicki, director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, said the most likely scenario for a post-Castro Cuba is one where the Communist system remains in place after Castro's death.

"We don't anticipate a total collapse," Suchlicki said. "We anticipate a quick succession and a gradual transition which will be long and difficult."

59. ElliottRW - 11/10/2004 12:30:10 AM

A new way to stay in the USA?

A 42-year-old transgender woman is fighting to remain in the United States where she has lived since 1979, claiming that she would be harassed, persecuted or worse upon returning to El Salvador.

Actually, she might want to consider moving to Canada.

60. alistairconnor - 11/10/2004 7:26:08 AM

The high-road rationale behind price supports is price stability. Why aren't sugar growers arguing from that standpoint?

Their best argument would be : public health. The US doesn't need cheaper sugar; it could only worsen the rate of diabetes etc. Sugar ought to be heavily taxed, much as alcohol is, to discourage its use and to help pay for the health and other societal costs its abuse generates.

But this is not an easy argument for sugar growers to make...

61. ElliottRW - 11/10/2004 2:28:11 PM

Their best argument would be : public health. ... But this is not an easy argument for sugar growers to make.

This made me chuckle.

On a serious note, I think that arguments from public health alone are hard to make because of the "slippery slope" response (e.g. what's next--a tax on sex with strangers?)

But it can be done as long as there is some other feature of the problem that limits the scope. For example, alcohol impairs judgement, cigarettes are non-nutritive, both are addictive. Is there something special about sugar?

62. ElliottRW - 11/10/2004 4:40:02 PM

Colin Powell agrees...power to the people

The United States would back a left-leaning government in Mexico as long as it was elected freely and fairly by Mexican citizens, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said

63. robertjayb - 11/11/2004 2:33:31 AM

bushies impede effort to save Hemingway's Cuban villa...

(IHT)--The Treasury Department recently turned down the Hemingway Preservation Foundation's application for a license to permit its architects, engineers, and consultants to travel to Cuba to research a feasibility study to help the Cubans save Finca Vigia. This denial, which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the law, is being appealed.

In the eyes of the Treasury and State Departments, saving Ernest Hemingway's home is against the foreign policy of the United States because it might encourage tourism to Castro's Cuba. This is ironic, not the least because Finca Vigia is the home of an American literary giant who wrote harshly critical eyewitness accounts of the dictatorships that enslaved much of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s and whose writings championed democracy. Finca Vigia is a Cuban-American landmark where democratic values are celebrated. The home's literary significance and value to scholars are enormous.

64. ElliottRW - 11/11/2004 10:21:46 PM

It looks like Nigaragua is taking a turn for the worse, as President Enrique Bolaños, who led a fight agains government corruption, faces threats of impeachment ... can Donald Rumsfeld save him? Meanwhile, does the murder of a journalist signal a "climate of violence" against the press?

65. ElliottRW - 11/12/2004 5:48:32 PM

Peru Pill Plan Makes Ministers Mad

A decision by Peru’s health minister to make the ‘morning-after’ pill freely available in public clinics has drawn threats of a gaol term from dissenting conservative MPs.

...

“They’re trying to use this to open the door to legalising abortions, homosexual marriage and the de-Christianisation of Latin America,” said one of Peru’s leading anti-abortion campaigners, Blanca Neira.

...

The rest of the region will be watching the outcome of the debate, aware that similar efforts by pro-choice lobbyists are also underway in Mexico, Chile and Columbia.

66. Magoseph - 11/13/2004 1:02:32 PM

Another question: my thread (M.D.) appears to be turning into "Elliott's Blog". Which, I have to admit, is a bit discouraging. Any tips?

Elliott, what I suggest is more of a focus on Mexico. At this time, we have the problem of a porous border which is an invitation to Al-Quaeda, especially if the US is successful in Iraq. If beaten in Iraq, they will fall back to the direct attack and it will surely come through the Mexican border. In addition, the Hispanic population, growing as it is, could very well be the critical margin in forthcoming elections here.

There remain additional contentious questions to be answered in respect to Mexico--have our trade policies tended to perpetuate the concentration of wealth in the hands of 2 or 3 percent of the population or even increased the percentage held by a few?--or is it a policy of the Bush administration in pursuit of their theory of trickle-down economics to sponsor as an ultimate goal, the concentration of wealth at the top?

Many of the problems that anyone would talk about would apply to most of South-America, but the focus is definitely on Mexico, and so that's where I would focus.

67. Magoseph - 11/13/2004 1:13:31 PM

Elliott, I intended to put the above post in The Cafe. You can move it if you want.

68. ElliottRW - 11/14/2004 9:33:14 PM

Thanks for the encouragement, Magoseph, and also the suggestions.

We have, already, touched on corruption in Mexico specifically, and the Americas generally, and I think the consensus is that corruption is a big deal. But income inequality, and its twin, concentration of wealth, is also worth a look. Here are two related questions:

Why is there income inequality in Latin America?

Is income inequality a bad thing?

_{Is there income inequality? An accepted measure of inequality is the Gini coefficient. Unfortunately, I don't have any recent figures, but I found figures from 1999 for most Latin American countries (notably excluding Cuba), and all but Uruguay were over .53, with Brazil over .6. That's pretty inequal. Uruguay, oddly, was at .44, about the same as the U.S.}

_{69. wonkers2 - 11/14/2004 10:29:43 PM}

_{If memory serves, Uruguay has been one of the most democratic countries and somewhat socialist.}

_{70. ElliottRW - 11/14/2004 11:21:55 PM}

toys.

71. alistairconnor - 11/15/2004 8:29:06 AM

"Elliott's Blog". ... Any tips?

Post some controversial stuff. Have some strong opinions, the extremer the better.

72. alistairconnor - 11/15/2004 8:33:15 AM

Uruguay, oddly, was at .44, about the same as the U.S.

Do you have an international league table for the Gini coefficient? Both Uruguay and the US are very unequal, by... European standards.

Sweeping, know-nothing generalisation : I think South Americans generally look to Europe, rather than North America, for their social and political aspirations.

73. Magoseph - 11/15/2004 12:07:20 PM

Inequality in Latin America--A stubborn curse

Excerpt--Historians, political scientists and left-wingers have long highlighted inequality as an important obstacle to development in Latin America. But this is newer territory for the World Bank. It used to argue that achieving prosperity was simply a matter of getting economic policies right. More recently it has recognised that politics and institutions matter.
How does inequality fit into this new view? It is said to affect development in three main ways. First, income inequality goes hand in hand with unequal access to good things such as education, health and political power—inequalities that violate basic principles of democracy. Second, in Latin America, inequality involves widespread poverty: two out of five Latin Americans are poor, even though most of them live in “middle-income” countries. Third, there is some (contested) evidence that very high inequality undermines growth, by concentrating saving and investment in too few hands.

Latin America is much more unequal than other regions. The reason is history. European colonisation set a pattern of exploitation of indigenous Indians. Its legacy, and that of slavery, live on. This helps to explain the ethnic character of some of the region's inequality. The Bank finds that in Guatemala one in five “white” men have a car, compared with only one in 20 men of indigenous blood. In Bolivia, 84% of “white” women have access to electricity, compared with 64% of Indian women.

Neither development nor democracy has served to reduce inequality much. Crucially, access to land and to education was very unequal in most Latin American countries in the late 19th century, when the economic returns to these resources were very high. Subsequently, authoritarian politics tended to lock in inequalities.

74. Magoseph - 11/15/2004 12:09:02 PM

The article above is from The Economist.

75. Magoseph - 11/15/2004 2:15:04 PM

Why is there income inequality in Latin America?

Some of my thoughts on this--The farther back you go in the history of the western world, the more inequalities in respect to wealth you will find. At one time in some places, the wealthy paid no taxes at all, as it was believed their obligation was in the form of defending the nation militarily and that was it. Latin America, sadly enough, is behind more advanced nations in moving towards a democratic society--the so-called 'Banana Republic Syndrome'.

Venezuela. for example, is moving rapidly up the ladder, stimulated by its oil revenues, which the masses have demanded to be used to create a new order. They had to go to the streets to accomplish this. However, if they are successful, it will have a strong impact on Mexico and others. I want to suggest that we focus on both Mexico and Venezuela for that reason. That is, if we find the required interest on that topic.

76. sakonige - 11/16/2004 1:36:10 PM

Why is there income inequality in Latin America?

well, duh. Maybe racial discrimination has something to do with it?

77. ElliottRW - 11/16/2004 8:17:10 PM

well, duh. Maybe racial discrimination has something to do with it?
Maybe. Show me. Also, please refrain from including gratuitous insults in your posts.

78. wonkers2 - 11/16/2004 8:51:14 PM

Peru recently elected it's first president of indigenous descent, Alejandro Toledo. In my experience, the upper classes tend to be of European descent and the lower classes of indigenous descent. Toledo won a narrow victory and has been having a hard time since he was elected. Some of his difficulties appear to stem from racial prejudice.

79. sakonige - 11/16/2004 8:53:02 PM

Magoseph already showed you himself/herself in post #73.

Do you consider point out the obvious a gratuitious insult? Some people would think it is tantamount to calling you stupid.

80. sakonige - 11/16/2004 8:54:32 PM

In my experience, the upper classes tend to be of European descent and the lower classes of indigenous descent.

Right.

81. wonkers2 - 11/16/2004 9:05:18 PM

Alejandro Toledo [W2's sister lived with Toledo's family when she was in the Peace Corps and helped him come to college in the U.S. She renewed her aquaintanceship with him recently when he came to D.C. for the dedication of the new National Museum of the American Indian.]

82. wonkers2 - 11/16/2004 9:12:43 PM

The long journey of Alejandro Toledo Here

83. ElliottRW - 11/16/2004 9:42:23 PM

Do you consider point out the obvious a gratuitious insult? Some people would think it is tantamount to calling you stupid.

Pointing out the obvious is sometimes important, especially if it is not obvious to everyone. Saying "well, duh" on the otherhand is invariably insulting. It is calling someone stupid. Which is just the sort of thing I don't want in this thread.

84. ElliottRW - 11/16/2004 9:49:02 PM

As for racial discrimination, there is no doubt about it being part of the past. My interest however, is not so much why there has been inequality in Latin America as why there continues to be inequality.

For example, from the same article:

85. wonkers2 - 11/16/2004 11:59:58 PM

Racial discrimination in Latin America, and North America, for that matter, is part of the present as well as the past. It's a factor in inequality, among others such as inept and corrupt governments and laws that support the status quo. In Colombia there's a saying "La ley es un perro que no muerde sino a los de ruana." [The law bites only the poor.]

86. sakonige - 11/17/2004 12:12:49 AM

ElliottRW,

Just to gauge the amount of explanation you need to grasp the idea that racial preference plays a role in inequality in the New World, are you connect the dots in this quoted passage for yourself?

Latin America is much more unequal than other regions. The reason is history. European colonisation set a pattern of exploitation of indigenous Indians. Its legacy, and that of slavery, live on. This helps to explain the ethnic character of some of the region's inequality. The Bank finds that in Guatemala one in five “white” men have a car, compared with only one in 20 men of indigenous blood. In Bolivia, 84% of “white” women have access to electricity, compared with 64% of Indian women.

87. sakonige - 11/17/2004 12:13:39 AM

can you, rather.

88. sakonige - 11/17/2004 12:19:49 AM

It's difficult to know what to say to someone who acts as though they have honestly never noticed historical race relations impact economic and social status. It's happened to me twice recently.

89. wonkers2 - 11/17/2004 12:22:20 AM

The problems vary from country to country, but few have government systems that work as well as ours in the U.S. Many have suffered from years of oligarchic governments. My impression is that truly independent judiciaries are uncommon. In Mexico, dictatorship was followed by one-party rule for nearly a century.

And in many countries, the fact that the Catholic Church is the dominant religion which runs most of the schools has not encouraged progress, in my opinion. With some exceptions the church has been quite conservative, telling people to accept the present and look forward to the hereafter. Opus Dei is strong in several Latin American countries. I'm prejudiced against mixing religion and education. Catholic schools aren't as bad as madrassas, but they don't produce a lot of scientists or engineers.

[I am expressing my impressions based on spending a fair amount of time in several Latin American countries, but I have never studied developmental economics or Latin American history.]

90. ElliottRW - 11/17/2004 1:46:12 PM

sakonige,

connect the dots in this quoted passage for yourself...

European colonisation set a pattern of exploitation of indigenous Indians. Its legacy, and that of slavery, live on.

You connect dots more freely than I do. I understand the practise of racial discrimination to mean given two otherwise equal candidates for some opportunity, preference is given based upon race.

I don't see anything in this bolded statement that says that racial discrimination is happening today, any more than it says slavery is happening today. What it plainly says that effects of historical practices (exploitation and slavery) contribute to present day inequality.

historical race relations impact economic and social status
No argument from me on this.


wonkers2,

I think your observation that the "Catholic Church ... runs most of the schools" could have a great bearing on the prognosis for inequality in Latin America. Were these schools primarily for the poor and working classes or do they cut accross class lines?

91. wonkers2 - 11/17/2004 1:53:23 PM

I'm not sure. My impression is that most middle class and poor Colombians went to Catholic schools. Many of the elite Colombians in Bogota went to schools for ex-patriot Americans and rich Colombians where the classes, except for Spanish, were taught in English. Then they went to college in the U.S. and some to Europe (and some to Colombian universities.) Students in these schools were roughly 50-50 Colombians and ex-patriots.

92. ElliottRW - 11/17/2004 2:48:10 PM

w2,

Here is a piece from the economist specifically discussing education in latin america. It does not specifically talk about the influence of Catholicism, but it does lay out some valuable facts. I've attempted to link a particularly interesting graph here. You may not be able to see it without subscribing (not free, sadly):



I also found a tangentially related report on young people in Ibero-America (that is, Latin America + Portugal and Spain).

It provides the insight that even when they have skills, young people generally have few opportunities to use those skills--a scenario that spells "high drop-out rate" to me. Why study analytic geometry if there are no engineering jobs? The idea being that the solution to educational inequality may require concomitant social and economic changes, as well.

(I am unable to read the full report, as it is in Spanish. The link above just provides a summary in English.)

93. wonkers2 - 11/17/2004 7:42:47 PM

Thanks! Latin America is farther behind than I'd realized.

94. sakonige - 11/17/2004 9:31:08 PM

ElliottRW,

As for racial discrimination, there is no doubt about it being part of the past. My interest however, is not so much why there has been inequality in Latin America as why there continues to be inequality.

Contemporary racial discrimination in Latin America may be a result of the same historical causes, such as cultural biases in favor of European appearance and deportment. That could provide an adequate explanation for the persistent stratification of Latin American societies. Given the abundance of evidence, the obvious stratification of light over dark, I personally wouldn't feel the need to look any further. I wouldn't wonder, for example, whether the darks have physical or intellectual limitations that have prevented them from attaining the same accomplishments as the lights. I would just chalk it up to the familiar social dynamics of racial discrimination we have seen at work in the United States, which have resulted in blacks being placed in high governmental offices only very recently.

Again, I don't know how to answer what is to me such a oblivious question, so I guess I'll just leave it at that. I suppose I could spend time searching for and posting documented evidence of racial bias in Latin America, but I feel it would be more work that it was worth to prove so obvious a point.

95. sakonige - 11/17/2004 9:33:27 PM

(how was that for an alternative to "duh"?)

96. wonkers2 - 11/17/2004 9:47:55 PM

My experience in Latin America is consistent with sakonige's observations. Discrimination exists even in Brazil which prides itself on its congenial race relations. In Brazil one finds just about every conceivable racial mixture, but the Brazilians of European origin tend to be at the top of the pecking order and the indigenous Indians and pure blacks are at the bottom. In Colombia many of those at the top of the social ladder acknowledge their mixed ancestry as Spanish, indigenous Indian and African American, but they look mostly Spanish. My impression is that Mexico is similar, but without the African ancestry. I had a Mexican friend in graduate school who had a hyphenated Spanish-German last name but who appeared to have a fair amount of Aztec ancestry. His father had at one time been secretary of agriculture. My impression is that discrimination is more subtle and less overt. For example, I don't believe that either in Colombia, Brazil or Mexico anyone would be excluded from a private club because of their ancestry. Nevertheless, blacks and American Indians tend to begin and end up at the bottom of the heap.

97. ElliottRW - 11/18/2004 12:52:43 PM

W2, sakonige,

Thanks for providing some backup on the racial discrimination theory. But as a counterpoint, the presence of a correlation between social or economic status and race is not necessarily an indication of discrimination in fact on the basis of race. Discrimination may simply be on the basis of social or economic status. That kind of discrimination, simply by preserving the status quo, has the same effect as racial discrimination when the starting condition is one where status and race are highly correlated. As they are today in Latin America.

Look, this is important when you talk about addressing the problem. If the problem is racial discriminiation, do you devise a different solution than if the problem is poor educational outcomes stemming from poor prenatal care, malnutrition of students, and demand for child labor stemming from poverty? Resources are limited, so what do we do first? An ad campaign extolling Aztec heritage month? Or do we pay poor mothers to go to health clinics during pregnancy, take their kids to regular checkups, and send their kids to school? The smart money is on the latter; Mexico has garnered a billion dollars in international support for the expansion of its successful Progresa program.

continued...

98. ElliottRW - 11/18/2004 12:53:03 PM

The poor in Latin America happen to be mostly of native American or African descent; the rich are mostly of European and Asian descent. That is a fact I cannot deny. But I can't help but think that race is a red herring here. It is not the first problem to solve.

In otherwords, I think a focus on racial discrimination is putting the cart before the horse. History tells us that businesses that value profits hire qualified applicants of any race. But qualified is the key. Defacto discrimination cannot end until there is a large pool of qualified workers of all races.

Does that pool already exist? Do light-skinned Mexican bricklayers get more work or higher pay than equally qualified dark-skinned Mexican bricklayers? If so, then there is racial discrimination. But I haven't seen any facts to back this up.

99. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/18/2004 1:03:28 PM

Meanwhile . . . Welcome to the New Cold War

100. wonkers2 - 11/18/2004 1:32:04 PM

Well, as somebody once said, discrimination is like the wind--you can't see it but you can sure feel it. In my opinion, discrimination is pretty clearly one of several factors that contribute to inequality in Latin America and the U.S., for that matter. I agree with the need to do something about all of the issues that Elliott raises, but I can't agree that racial discrimination is irrelevant.

Here's a little story told to me by my college roommate, a Chilean, of European descent (Spanish, Italian and English).
Chile has a large indigenous Indian population who are mostly poor and not well-educated. These people do most of the menial jobs. My roommate got on an elevator with a Chilean acquaintance. The elevator operator was tall, blond, blue-eyed and apparently of German descent. When the two rich Chileans got off the elevator, my roommate's acquaintance expressed amazement that such a tall, blond, handsome Chilean of apparent German descent could possibly be employed in a job so menial as an elevator operator. This occurred more than 40 years ago, but I doubt much has changed since.

101. wonkers2 - 11/18/2004 1:33:28 PM

Elliott, please explain why it's so hard for you to believe that racial discrimination contributes to the perpetuation of inequality in Latin America or North America.

102. wonkers2 - 11/18/2004 1:36:22 PM

Of course it's true, as you suggest, that better universal education is an important key to a reduction in inequality. It may also be true that better education is also a key to the elimination of racial discrimination. Poor education and racial discrimination feed on each other.

103. ElliottRW - 11/18/2004 2:45:29 PM

wonkers2,

You misunderstand me. I do believe that racial discrimination contributes to the perpetuation of inequality. But I question the degree to which it contributes. Really, it seems to me that racial discrimination is more an effect than a cause of racial inequality.

Which is one reason I don't see much to be gained from trying to deal with it directly.

Please note that you can actually do something about racial injustice using the invisible hand of market forces. Racial discrimination (and its parent, nepotism) are actually inefficient and they will fall by the way side in the face of increased competitive pressures. A little competition can do more to solve this problem than 10,000 lawyers.

How do you increase competition? Not to sound like a one-trick-pony, but it means making Latin America a good place to start a small business. NAFTA and Progresa are two big steps in the right direction for Mexico. But endemic corruption could make it all for naught.

104. wonkers2 - 11/18/2004 3:03:05 PM

We aren't far apart. But civil rights advocates would point out that recent progress in this country would not have been possible without the many court decisions and laws ensuring voting rights, outlawing school segregation and prohibiting discrimination in public facilities. They would also agree that these steps have not been sufficient to eliminate poverty and inequality and racial discrimination.

105. sakonige - 11/19/2004 8:45:32 PM

107. robertjayb - 11/20/2004 2:19:19 AM

Yankee mischief? Yankee murder?

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - A Venezuelan prosecutor probing a 2002 coup against President Hugo Chavez was killed by a car bomb that the government blamed Friday on radical opponents it said were training in the United States.

Senior officials said the attack that killed Danilo Anderson late Thursday was carried out by opposition "fascists and terrorists" and they accused the U.S. government of tolerating hard-line Chavez opponents on its territory.

"This was clearly a political assassination," Information Minister Andres Izarra said. "We believe the U.S. government must explain how these terrorist groups can be operating in Florida, U.S. territory."

108. Marc-Albert - 11/20/2004 2:44:31 PM

''In several cases,'' it adds, ''tourists report that uniformed police are the crime perpetrators, stopping vehicles and seeking money or assaulting and robbing tourists walking late at night.''


State Department Warns of 'Critical Levels' of Crime in Mexico

109. ElliottRW - 11/22/2004 1:31:18 PM

President Bush promises to push immigration reform through congress.

SANTIAGO, Chile -- President George W. Bush assured Mexican President Vicente Fox on Sunday that he would press to ease U.S. immigration laws, despite resistance in Congress.
...
Fox wants an open border between the two countries. Bush's plan would give legal status to an estimated 8 million illegal immigrants -- most of them Mexicans -- by letting them become temporary workers.

But it was likely to signal a battle with Congress, where the proposal has languished for nearly four years because of opposition from both parties.

"I think it's important for our country to recognize that people are coming to our country to do jobs that Americans won't do," Bush said. "I'm going to find supporters on the Hill and move it."

The Mote | Mote Archive

back to top