Comments by straight, no chaser

Please give yourself an enormous favor and watch this documentary or read the book (Manufacturing Consent).

The beauty is that the quotes and their context, and the other facts, with some research, can be easily verified.

The article as the political debate is futile. Corporate america runs the shows, the government by the people for the people doesn't exist. It's just the way it is and will be until people wake up...

@doublehelix

I haven't seen JFK, but The Doors is fairly accurate.

Are you expecting Hollywood to provide social commentary and historical accuracy?

3 quick points:

- Most readers (at least the ones commenting) are not buying the story. Perhaps, some data to back up your claims could have persuaded these skeptical folks. Unfortunately, even the best spins on anemic economic readings are still dismal beyond the headlines (a few examples): GDP dropped from 5% in Q4 of 09 to 1.6% in Q2 of 10; at beginning of the year CPI was roughly 3% now 1.3%; The Philly Fed index came in at -.7 vs consensus of +.5, after a -7.7 reading in august (1st consecutive drop since june/july of 09); retail sales for august +.4 MoM, not a great reading taking into account record sales tax holiday and large discounts; housing and private employment, everyone knows where these two stand.

- Despite unprecedented bailouts, quantitative easing, extension of unemployment benefits (our modern day soup kitchens) and government backing, US economy is flirting with deflation. Please read NFIB Small Business Economic Trends, September 2010 for more "recovery" news.

- Anyone who thinks we are in recovery is gravely mistaken, after years of excessive borrowing & consumption the deleveraging forces cannot be stopped. The can was kicked not too far down the road but the system is also much more vulnerable.

"The empties barrel makes the most sound!" ~ russian proverd

viva,

I made a comment pointing out that the economist in its cover story didn't mention the role US played (and still does) in LA. America's involvement in the region is fundamentally relevant to the subject of the article, yet it was not even hinted at. Do you ask why? Obviously, you do not, b/c to you my comment was sneering. What I wrote aroused you to "puncture a lefite."

You write: "And there are lots of other sorry episodes to go with it, who needs national archives to know that? We are an (a painfully) open society, that information is smeared all over everything. But, you know, the closer you look at a picture, the harder it is to see the overall image. Why do you ignore the whole?"

Here's is where you and I disagree. I do look at the whole. And if you explore beyond the media and read declassified documents/memos you will quickly see a pattern emerging and shaping the whole picture. It ain't the one to admire.

Let me end this with two proverbs, Russian and French, respectively, that you ought to keep in mind:

1. "The emptiest barrel makes the loudest sound."
2. "Confidence is like jam, the less you have the more you spread it."

I'm stupefied, how surprising!

Do not know why the first and the third link do not work, enjoy:

1. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKwJI9axblQ

@viva

Nice try, again you are way off. Your guesses, however, reveal your mentality and attitude.

As I previously stated, please stop humoring me. Turn off Foxnews, stop watching the James Bond movies, which you seem to be fond of, visit a public library, and browse National Security Archive.

Do you truly believe this? "like Achilles, we reluctantly picked up the shield and saved Western Civilization... We will continue to keep our foot on the neck of the Islamofascist beast. We will keep Russia and a few others from gobbling up small countries. And we will continue to safeguard small nations on the periphery of Eurasia that you no doubt would weep for if we invaded but care nothing for or scorn when they seek our protection."

Delusional!

Above is the romantic hollywood version, not the real world. This is what US government touts in public; unfortunately, it is far from reality. If you (and most Americans) understood the foreign policy (what is actually done in the name of freedom, democracy and protection of others) you would realize that many current problems facing US & the world (i.e. IRAN, in 1953 US overthrew DEMOCRATICALLY elected government) are direct results of US intervention; not for freedom or democracy but for corporate profits at the expense of the local populations. I'm not sneering only calling a spade a spade.

I suggested this presentation to Michael Dunne in my previous post but if you care to know the truth, listen (the quotes and facts can be easily verified and are public record).

@vivazapata

I grew up in four different countries (England is not one of the four). The fact that each public school (and its textbook) taught history relating to the same events very differently seemed suspect, even to a young child.

Remove your blinders and study american foreign policy and its impacts (may be go to a public library and read a declassified document or foreign press to see how truly thankful other nations are for your sacrifices). Until then please do not humor me with "we are the guardians of..." and "we have died for a lot of countries not our own." It only proves that you are either naive or ignorant of the real world.

Lastly, Ron Paul, although I do not always agree with him, is an American politician I most admire and respect. Nonetheless, I'm glad that your last post was "the source of endless delight."

@Michael Dunne

I think you missed the point of my post. The events I listed are only some examples of significant historical relevance that cannot be omitted when Latin American development is discussed. I'm not surprised that the economist in its article did not even hint on the subject of US intervention in the region. I have yet to read the report, which I reckon will be silent on the matter as well.

I did mean Nicaragua, regarding your other points if you have some time please listen to this presentation.

@vivazapata

I grew up in four different countries (England is not one of the four). The fact that each public school (and its textbook) taught history relating to the same events very differently seemed suspect, even to a young child.

Remove your blinders and study american foreign policy and its impacts (may be go to a public library and read a declassified document or foreign press to see how truly thankful other nations are for your sacrifices). Until then please do not humor me with "we are the guardians of..." and "we have died for a lot of countries not our own." It only proves that you are either naive or ignorant of the real world.

Lastly, Ron Paul, although I do not always agree with him, is an American politician I most admire and respect. Nonetheless, I'm glad that your last post was "the source of endless delight."

@Michael Dunne

I think you missed the point of my post. The events I listed are only some examples of significant historical relevance that cannot be omitted when Latin American development is discussed. I'm not surprised that the economist in its article did not even hint on the subject of US intervention in the region. I have yet to read the report, which I reckon will be silent on the matter as well.

I did mean Nicaragua, regarding your other points if you have some time please listen this presentation.

"In fact we have died for a lot of countries not our own. Many nations thank us for our sacrifice." Could you point to a few examples?

Of course, the economist, the respectable publication that it is, deemed the events listed below (and their impact on LA citizens) insignificant and immaterial to the present state of affairs in the region.

Please explore further (beyond wikipedia), you might be surprised by what you discover:
- Guatemala 1954
- El Salvador, too many dates to list, assassination of Ignacio Ellacuría
- Chile 1973, referred as the first 9/11
- Honduras deliberately pushed into soviet hands
- Dominican Republic 1965
- Brazil 1964
- Ford, Carter and Reagan backed the brutal military regime of mass murder in Argentina from 1976
- Cuba

@Nirvana-bound

I have read a few of your comments under various articles alluding to the Bush-Cheney junta. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the pair. However, the seeds of distraction were planted under Clinton - repeal of glass steagall act, deregulation of derivatives and expansion of credit.

The bottom line: it is irrelevant who is in the office, the similarities in policies greatly outweigh the differences. Corporate America runs the show. Corporate media floods us with left vs right while the real issues are muted and not debated, and the corporate agenda proceeds uninterrupted at our expense.

This discussion (in the economist's forum mind you) is a testimony to how immensely successful indoctrination of US citizens by its government and media has been. Ignoramuses like "the native" do not know of the atrocities their government committed in Latin America. Majority of American citizens are oblivious to their country's foreign policy and its ramifications.

Of course, the economist, the respectable publication that it is, deemed the examples listed below (and their impact on LA citizens) insignificant and immaterial to the present state of affairs in Latin America.

Please explore further, you might be surprised by what you discover:
- Guatemala 1954
- El Salvador, too many dates to list, assassination of Ignacio Ellacuría
- Chile 1973, referred as the first 9/11
- Honduras deliberately pushed into soviet hands
- Dominican Republic 1965
- Brazil 1964
- Ford, Carter and Reagan backed the brutal military regime of mass murder in Argentina from 1976
- NAFTA

"Two things lie behind Latin America’s renaissance."

Yes, indeed! The 2 points you did not mention, however, are much stronger contributors to the renaissance than the rubbish you published:

1. Military industrial complex, the brute, behind American imperialism, which is rapidly losing steam, is no longer overthrowing local governments. As a result, policies that suit American corporate interests at the expense of the local populations are not the rule of the land.

2. IMF is not involved. IMF's record speaks for itself, I doubt there is a need to elaborate.

@cbon58,

I think that you gave 2.4.6.8.goshort! too much credit. Most people who preach as he does are not hypocrites. They simply do not know the reality, for which you provided few real world examples.

In the current environment, I am personally much more focused on the return of my investment instead of on the return on my investment. As bob in mass, in my view, correctly pointed out the risk is once again very much under priced.

Some recent news that popped up after eco was published:

Germany:
-Factory orders slipping 2.2% in July, the consensus was looking for a 0.5% gain
-10 largest lenders may need $135 billion, according to the Association of German Banks (stress test were smoking mirrors, expectedly)

"Europe's recent 'stress tests' of the strength of major banks understated some lenders' holdings of potentially risky government debt, a Wall Street Journal analysis shows." No, can't be true.

In US BO is proposing additional tax breaks, allowing companies to write off 100% of their new investments in new plant and equipment through 2011 (at an estimated stimulus of $200 billion). BRILLIANT! If anyone is strapped for cash at the moment it is the corporate america. BO is not done, another $50 billion for infrastructure spending. Of course, by now the evidence clearly shows "success" of the 2009 infrastructure plan. Obviously the upcoming elections are more important than sound economic policy. Let's see what q3, q4 and 2011 will bring.

As Tonnac pointed out your argument is neither relevant nor has much merit.

"The good news, though, was that NAFTA had been signed, and the boundless US market beckoned." Do you believe this statement? For US it was certainly good news, for mexican farmers and other businesses NAFTA was the end.

"The rich, not the poor, will carry the growth banner, and pull the poor back to productive life." The poor are broke. They do not utilize the loopholes in the tax code that the wealthy exploit regardless of their tax rate. The fact that the poor pay much higher taxes as a percentage of their income is no secret. Buffet isn't the only one who stated that his secretary pays more taxes (percentage wise) than he does.

Your argument is nothing but bs-mongering.

@Germanambassador,

"economicand military super-power as ever before" - Good old American imperialism, deeds of which are conveniently omitted by all mainstream media. Fortunately, it'll be coming to an end very soon. Latin America is slowly gaining its independence and expelling US's corporate pillagers.