Correction: Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere (no natural resources at all). If Boliva thinks nationalizing there natural resources will bring more prosperity to the average person then I am all for it. These third world countries need to stop listening to the World Bank & IMF, giving them bad advice. These Multinational Corporations do not care about the poor people in these countries, ruining their eco systems, exploiting people and then taking their profits back to the west. These poor countries need to do what is in their best interest not what the US&Europe think they should do. FREE MARKETS & Capitalism is not the solution everywhere. Look at Argentina, they did the opposite of what the IMF wanted and they are slowly getting their economy back. I hope it all works out for Mr. Morales and the people of Bolivia.

Actually capitalism works best when political officials keep their hands out of the till. In Latin America, govt's believe this to be their inherent right, regardless of whether they be left-wing, right-wing, paramilitary, communist, socialist, etc. It's an unfortunate cycle, seemingly destined to repeat itself in perpetuity. Morales is just another thief in a long night.

You're quite right, Jefferson, that the Financial Times' coverage of this, and of so many other stories, is far less biased and hysterical than what one reads in most of the U.S. media. A recent Miami Herald piece, for example, quoted only oil and gas company reps, their Chamber of Commerce allies and officials from the countries where those companies are based -- and not a single quote or even paraphrasing of any representative of the vast majority of Bolivians who, polling shows, enthusiastically support this decision.
Thank God we have the Financial Times to rely on; U.S. media are an absolute write-off on this story.

Bolivia is sinking even deeper into the mud of authoritarianism and demagoguery. Since he became a leader of the coca farmers in the early 1990s, he consolidated his power through intimidation and extortion. That is what this "nationalization" is. When you occupy private property with armed soldiers, that scares the bejesus of investors and others who have the money, capital, and know-how so desperately needed in Bolivia.

Yes, Bolivia is in deep trouble, and it is leaded by a number one demagogue who, ironically, is the number one opponent of free markets and capitalism for everything except...coca.

So matedecoca, answer this question, was Bolivia better off with Hugo Banzer, Tuto Quiroga, Carlos Meza, Goni Sanchez de Lozada or any previous non-indigenous president?. Let's be real, the elites (de "buena familia") in Latin America have screwed up and still screw up big time for years and years, Morales was elected by a huge majority who happen to be indigenous and poor, guess who are the ones totally uncomfortable with the results?

Bolivia is repeating the mistake of so many other Latin American countries, the blind (bordering on religious) faith in the state to generate broad based prosperity. History suggests it usually doesn't work out as planned.

State-owned industries are usually much less efficient than privately owned industries. Production will lower under an industry controlled by the Bolivian State. However, if that is what they want, so be it.

You miss the point, coca dubious. Morales is a coca capitalist and a number one demagogue who hasn't the slightest idea how a country produces wealth. Instead of fixing the government institutions that impede growth, he's doing just the opposite. He has increased government control, which has hurt the country so much prior to 1985. Just see how unemployment will increase even more after he abolished the free hiring and firing policy, and when no more foreign investment is available.

And actually, yes, Bolivia was better off with the people you just mentioned (coincidence you only mention people considered from "the right"). Thanks to them, Bolivia had as never before the amount of foreign investors who, by the way, discovered the gas fields and Morales plans to rob.

You forgot to mention the hyperinflation paradise that the communist/leftist UDP by Siles Zuazo in the 1980s left, or the chaos from leftist military dictator Juan José Torres, and so many others you conveniently fail to mention.

Foreign investment isn't the solution towards Bolivian problems, but is an important component. What Morales has cemented is a lack of respect for private property rights and the rule of law, which are essential components that lead a country towards prosperity.

Exactly, so be it, leave them alone. Despite all naysayers Bolivia can pull this off and perhaps some will have to eat their words.

Good point, RC. The problem is that when nations like these fail eventually fail miserably, it's the taxpayers from First World countries like the US that have to rescue these bozos with unending grants and loans.

The worst thing about this is it's thanks to demagogues like Morales that the people he's proclaiming to defend are the ones who suffer the most: the poor.

Ummm, by what criteria is Bolivia "the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere", as you write? Acc. to world bank statistics, Bolivia's per cap GNI of 960 is more than twice than of Haiti's 400 and still more than Nicaragua's 830. You should correct this error. Poor, not nearly the poorest.

I don't think I miss the point, I present facts that you conveniently dismiss, if Bolivia was really better off (for who?), then please, explain the huge mass of poor aymaras, were they ever got the chance to participate in the country building process?. That's the point, is not if the leftists or right wingers got it right, is just matter of looking at the results. Again, your rhetoric is more of the same, more of what well intentioned fellows sometimes do to just go with the flow. You can't hide a malnourished aymary kid, you can't hide a illiterate aymarr woman, no matter what your allegiances tell you and no matter how hard you close your eyes because that's is the reality in LA. Bad leaders paved the way for more radical ones with the horrible and incompetent policies, what did you expect?. People are fed up already and if they make bad choices is because they have nobody to turn to. If at least one of your presidents had been competent enough we would not see such situation right now.

If only PODEMOS would have fielded an indigenous candidate for president, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Ballots in Bolivia feature pictures of the candidates, which is helpful for those who cannot read. How do you think indigenous people will vote when they have one of their own versus a bunch of white devils. To say that the population supports nationalization is misleading. Evo himself doesn't even understand the economic, legal, and political ramifications of what he is doing, much less the majority of people who, like him, never attended school. If Bolivia willingly demonstrates to the world that it does not respect contracts that it has signed, foreign investors will jump ship. I would advise Evo to proceed with extreme caution.

Thanks to all for the correction on the poorest country. Text will be corrected now.

Sorry, Coca dubious. You present no facts, just opinions. If you want facts, then prove that Bolivia wasn't better off with the leaders you just remembered. Now, of course the "aymaras" (not written "aymary") and the "quechuas" and many of the indigenous people suffer under horrible poverty, but it has nothing to do with foreign investment nor the convenient scapegoat: capitalist imperialism.

Either under the "right" or the "left", Bolivia has now and has had bloated governments that were notoriously corrupt, impeding the creation of jobs and wealth into the country. When there are so many bureaucratic rules and regulations, and no faith in the justice system, then how can there be job creation?

I agree to some point with you that the "people" elected Morales because they perceived they had no better choice, but still, the policies that Morales is imposing right now are simply wrong. It has been proved countless times in the past throughout the world, and it will be no different now.

That's the harsh reality with Bolivia, we fail to grasp it because we measure it through our western standard that not necessarily apply to most of the indigenous population that compose this country, it is very easy for some of us to pontificate about the wonders of free markets, free-ride investment, as long the usual suspects are not touched and who cares about the majority, right?

You underestimate the Bolivian populace, AlbertParsons. Although many are illiterate, most can choose a candidate other than from a simple picture. Yes, many that look like Morales voted for him because he looks like an "indio", but there were many other candidates who looked even more "indio" than he does and were voted much, much less.

That doesn't explain why Morales got plenty of votes from not only from the lower class, but from the middle class.

Morales was voted in because the nationalist rhetoric and demagoguery made people believe that he's the only one who could save Bolivia. That, and because he won't be able to cripple the Bolivian economy with his highway blockades which have destroyed the Bolivian economy for over 15 years.

Facts don't necessarily make the truth, facts can be accommodated for convenience my friend and you know that, sorry for my opinions but they are born from common sense and observation, can't compete with you in punditry since I am not good at it, just a regular joe brushing off the usual Bravo Sierra. Obviously you don't want see the reality that is there right in front of you, go and look at the eye of any impoverished bolivian and tell her/him he/she was better off with nay of the folks I mentioned, most likely you will get a blank stare if not a hearty laugh.

Carl, the problem is not about pontificating free markets because their benefits are undeniable and are universal. The problem is that Morales' policies have been tried in the past and have failed miserably.

People mistakenly believe that the privatization wave during the 90's in Bolivia is akin to free markets. Nothing further from the truth. Government bureaucracy and corruption is as rampant as ever.

We shouldn't look at the Bolivian indigenous people as a curious anthropological fact, but as individuals that want what we Westeners want: the freedom to work to earn profits and to provide for their families.

Hernando de Soto's "The Other Path" is an excellent book relevant to Bolivia's situation.

Don't worry, Coca dubious, I knew that you wouldn't be able to produce the facts nor really understand what happens in Bolivia, since you never lived there nor know its history much.

Actually, it would be interesting that you speak to one of the poor quechuas or aymaras and explain to him/her how Morales' policies will help them, after it has been proved to have failed miserably so many times in the past.

By the way, this is Bolivia's third "nationalization". Will the third time be a charm? Superstition is incompatible with the real world.

matedecoca,
The middle class in Bolivia is too small to consider as a relevant indepedent actor in Bolivian politics. That election was about national identity. Also, I don't see how Evo looks any less 'indio' than Quispe, the only other major indigenous candidate. People were just afraid of Quispe. My point was that it is misguided to assume that the majority of people support nationalization and, furthermore, even if they do, that it should be carried out. What Bolivia needs now is a great leader who can lift his country up without being toppled by protests over every little sacrifice that has to be made in order to achieve prosperity. Evo is popular enough to do this, but apparently he has chosen a different path.

AlbertParsons, I agree and disagree with you. I agree that a large part of the population in Bolivia are not knowledgeable about the fine points of economic or legal issues. They simply want to have stable jobs that offer decent salaries as well as less corruption and unrest. They could care less how this is achieved.

What I disagree with you is that the middle class didn't wasn't a strong part of Morales' victory, and that most Bolivians don't support nationalization.

The chronic bouts of corruption compounded by the undending demagoguery and unrest created by Morales (and Quispe) throughout the years has made the population more nationalist and anticapitalist.

But I agree with your big picture: that Bolivia is going towards the wrong path.

This is a very interesting article along with the accompanying comments. A bunch of capitalist, white and Westerners are talking about Bolivia! Only one thing absent from this conversation, no Bolivians, no people of color, no poor person, and no person with a social conscience.

It is very easy for an American or other Western bred white commentator to talk about Bolivia in investment terms, investor friendliness, B+ or A- investment grading, etc. However, these individuals in their luxury condominiums, subarbian household, SUVs, and 6-7 digit salaries and bonuses never experienced and will never experience the hunger, suffering, racial oppression, and poverty of an indigenous Bolivian or a working class mestizo in either Bolivia, Latin America, or even amongst the hispanic migrants in the US.

It is quite laughable when these so-called capitalist Westerners pontificate about what is best for peoples, whose experiences and plight they never experienced themselves first-hand in their so-called first world luxurious life.

What Evo Morales is doing is a great thing. Personally, I also hope that he speeds up and nationalizes the forests, mines, and other resources in the country for the benefit of the masses. It has been a long time since the plundering of Bolivia and the resources of the other nation's of the Americas have been carried out by Western multinationals, the gringos, the corrupt and racist local oligarchy, the traitorous right wing, and the evil and damaging prescriptions by the IMF and the World Bank.

This trend should be expanded in all nations of the Americans from Mexico down to Chile, and I hope to see Ollanta Humala, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Lopez Obrador, and other left leaning, humane, presidents, nationalize everything in their nation and boots out the racist and traitorous oligarchy, the gringo multinationals, and the evil IMF and World Bank, whose policies only help to enrich the few and the Western multinationals at the expense of exacerbating the poverty of the poor, indigenous, mestizo, black, mulatto, and the non-white in Latin America!

Now that I think about it, Hugo Chavez. I hope that your very capitalist and imperialist instruments such as your computer and the internet are nationalized to be used for the "better good". I'm feeling oppressed.

;-)

Funny your 1960's rhetoric, comrade.

Nationalization of industries or natural resources has never been successful in that government run industries are always less efficient and thus they destroy value. Look at Mexico for an example. It has huge oil reserves but Pemex is poorly run and Mexicans are as poor now as they were years ago. Unfortunately, the Bolivians will have to figure this out the hard way.

So matedecoca, I presume you are bolivian or you lived there?, your tone suggests living in Bolivia, maybe in better conditions than 90% of the population?, good for you.

And you're welcome,I gave you the little pleasure of thinking you nailed me this time, that's ok, I can take it but I stand by my thoughts.

At the end, only time will declare who is really correct, hopefull you will be there.

It is true that only time will tell whether this move prove successful but, so far, history says this kind of thing is damaging to a country's economy and does not help its poor. I sincerely hope the best for the Bolivian people, as do others I believe, but considering that nationalization has never made a country better off, it is hard to see how this time will be different.

That's a broad statement Tony, "Nationalization has never made a country better off."

I would guess that a solid majority of Mexicans would disagree with you on that count: the nationalization of the country's oil industry in 1938 was--and is-- widely credited with fueling a broad-based prosperity that lifted Mexico into the ranks of middle-income countries over the next three decades.

You can say they would have done better if they had not nationalized but that's a different point.

"The problem is that Morales' policies have been tried in the past and have failed miserably."

Not so! Venezuela is currently reaping the benefits of a state-controlled petroleum sector, as many other nations have done. Tell me what Exxon has done for the long-suffering people of Nigeria, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea or Ecuador, to name but a few corrupt petro-states where impoverished masses coexist with a tiny elite that reaps the benefits of the resource wealth they help plunder for foreign multinationals.
Bolivians aren't stupid. They can see where the benefits of their resource wealth are flowing under the previous model, and it hasn't been to the Bolivian people.
Time for another approach. Nothing could be worse than the status quo.

This whole "nationalization" of Bolivia's gas supplies is the latest President Chavez's move to establish his hegemony in the region. By introducing turbulence in the Bolivian gas supply, Pres.Chavez wins as a supplier of natural gas to South America, and as a mediator between Pres. Morales and Pres.Da Silva. I am not even sure Pres. Morales knows he is being used as a stooge. He should watch out for his lilly-white Vicepresident and Pres.Da Silva should understand that behind all this turmoil is an squeeze from Pres.Castro because he is not being as supportive as he should have been.

To truly understand this whole thing use The Godfather Part I and II paradigm not international politics and finance. As always follow the money!

MateDeCoca's claim that the benefits of free markets are "undeniable and universal," along with the more laughable assertion that "most Bolivians don't support nationalization" shows just how out of touch US market fundamentalists are with the Latin American populace. Somehow voters in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia and soon Peru don't seem to see the "undeniable" benefits of policies that brought them the Argentine financial collapse, Bolivia's disastrous water privatization, widening inequality and indebtedness, nor do they have fond memories of the murderous dictatorships that brought the market gospel to them by violence and fear.

M's more desperate defense that the failed privatization fad in the 90s didn't reflect true market economics recalls, more than anything else, the assertions of orthodox Marxists that the Soviet system didn't reflect "true" communism. Apparently even the obvious failings of the Washington Consensus prove M's point.

Joel,
Two points - first, venezuela is reaping the benefits of historically high oil prices as opposed to the inherent benefits of nationalization. Also they had a well developed mature state oil company with pre-existing distribution channels unlike Bolivia, which is dependent on foreign expertise moreso than Venezuela. Since 79% of Venzuela's exports are oil or gas, they are riding the tide of high prices, which they likely would've seen a great return from regardless of nationalization.

Second, Exxon actually does deliver portion of their profits in the form of taxes to the countries they extract oil from. The problem there is what happens to the money after Exxon pays. The citizens of Nigeria should ask their ministers where the tax money goes. Of course, had Exxon and other firms not invested in the countries you mention, there would be no income derived from oil for those nations whatsoever.

jefferson: Mexico has had broad based prosperity since 1938? To which Mexico are you referring? Mexico's GDP per capita is around $7k, I would think Mexico would be much better off by now. I believe they are two sides of the same argument, by saying Mexico would have done better if it had not nationalized, that is the same as saying it is not better off, it is worse off. Not to say that Mexico hasn't had other problems though. I'm sure you're right that Mexicans generally don't see the privatization of the oil industry as detrimental but that is only because they have no way of knowing how a private oil industry could have been better. I do believe though that a solid majority of Mexicans would say that Mexico's economy has not done so well over the past 68 years.

Joel:Venezuela nationalized its industry in the mid-70's. Now after 30 years, have Venezuelans really been "reaping the benefits"? If so why is there still so much poverty? Why does it need Chavez now to fight for the people? It is quite true that many oil rich states suffer from government corruption but isn't corruption the real problem?

There's a great deal less poverty in Venezuela than there would have been if it had kept its oil industry in the hands of foreign multinationals. Now Bolivia is doing the same. It's a gutsy move and long overdue.

I think the students of history have been well represented here, pointing out the past reputation of nationalism. However, none of that history means anything through the context of people who are living under a corrupt system. They will throw the bums out when they get a chance and put the devil himself in their place. Problem is, devils like Chavez won't allow themselves to be so easily thrown out when _their_ true corrupt selves are revealed. Bye-bye democracy, hello to your new leftist dictators. Look at how Chavez is already changing the electoral system in Venezuela. The cycle will end with new leaders who believe in free markets and will depose the dictators with popular backing. Unfortunately, this will take about 10 years to occur.

When will third world countries get it? The first world or the West is not preaching at them, nor is the liberation/communist rhetoric of the 1960's even relevant. The World Bank and the IMF are simply trying to tell these countries what works and the West supports them based on experience. We know the free market approach works based on centuries of continuig and growing prosperity in our own countries. It doesn't work though, when half-hearted attempts are made or when people attempt futile compromises between ancient tradition and modernity. There is a reason why the old practices of the peoples of the West are no longer practiced, they don't work. Societies must evovle if they are to thrive and prosper and for some reason the third world seems to have a hard time understanding that.

As for Morales' nationalization of the gas industry, well that is simply stupid. Stupid because for a country desperately dependent on FDI to risk scaring off foreign companies is self-defeating and is the mark of an incompetent leader who ought to be thrown out. Capitalism, when operated in conjunction with broad personal freedom is a perfectly fair system, you get out of it what you put into it. If you have little education and limited skills your return will likewise be limited. Also, if you fail to evolve you will be marginalized. What some anti-capitalists call unfair they ought to call unbalanced. Capitalism does in fact result in an unbalancing of wealth and financial resources, however, this is caused by the characteristics of those who participate in the system, not from the system itself. The idea of a distribution of wealth is simply false. Wealth is not static nor is it fixed and thus the "distribution" of wealth is at least irrelevent, since wealth can be created, if one posesses the requisite ambition and skills.

Thus, for a country like Bolivia to try to nationalize its industries in order fix what it sees an inequality in the distribution of wealth is simply an exercise in futility. History has shown that governments cannot impose from the top down a fair distribution of wealth and that to attempt anything of the sort is a costly and dangerous mistake that will result in the country sliding further backward.

Sorry, Observer, you lose. It's obvious that there is no "pure" capitalist country, but what is undeniable is that the countries with the highest level of economic freedom are the richest.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/

"The World Bank and the IMF are simply trying to tell these countries what works and the West supports them based on experience."

Yeah, right. Which is why the poor have become dramatically poorer under Latin American governments that have followed World Bank/IMF prescriptions, and why resource multinationals have made off like bandits under those same prescriptions.

The World Bank/IMF prescriptions are utterly discredited, which is why, by huge majorities, Latin Americans are turfing out the subservient rightist governments that embraced those prescriptions from Washington and are now instead electing leftist governments that are determined to redistribute some of their countries' wealth.

Latin Americans have tuned out this b.s. about "impartial World Bank/IMF advice." That advice has consistently bolstered the old corrupt oligarchies while the poor sink ever deeper into poverty. Good for Chavez, Morales, and to a lesser degree Kirchner and Lula for taking another, more promising path.

There's a great deal less poverty in Venezuela than there would have been if it had kept its oil industry in the hands of foreign multinationals. Now Bolivia is doing the same. It's a gutsy move and long overdue.

Posted by: Joel | May 4, 2006 05:19

WHAT STATISTICS ARE YOU USING? Everything I have seen suggests that poverty, inflation, and, especcially, crime are getting worse in Venezuela. And all this with $75 a barrel oil. Joel, what do you think is going to happen in Venezuela when oil returns to $35 a barrel?

I would think that the best solution for Bolivia would be to leave the industry and expertise in private hands, but establish a trust fund for the royalties like Alaska hase done. Then, every Bolivian citizen could start recieving an annual check, like the Alaskans do.

As bad as some of the IMF policies are, Joel, they aren't as bad as the ones of CEPAL in the 50s and 60s during the glorious days (now utterly discredited) of statist policies of "infant industries" and "import substitution". Massive unemployment and inflation, corruption, and poverty.

Morales is leading Bolivia into a hellhole so deep that not even el Diablo will be able to get it out of there.

Joel, again, hasn't the real problem been corruption? It seems so easy to blame outsiders for problems that come from within. Why not just deal with the real internal problems? Why would Bolivia have originally contracted with foreign companies if it could extract the resources as efficiently by itself? Usually foreign companies bring expertise that the country does not have. Therefore, both sides get what they want, a fair exchange. If the contracts were not equitable for Bolivia, perhaps because of government corruption, why not just renegotiate them?

As mentioned earlier, another problem is that most Latin American countries never really embraced free markets or never fully implemented IMF/World Bank recommendations. Of course no country has a completely free market but there is a lot of research on the high level of restrictions in Latin American economies during so-called liberalization. In the long run it doesn't work if you only make half-hearted changes, especially without dealing with corruption. IMF/World Bank recommendations are just basic Economics 101.

Imagine where Latin America would be now if the countries had fully embraced the free market and without those corrupt regimes. I think they would be somewhere near the level of Hong Kong by now.

Tony, it is MUCH easier to blame outsiders/foreigners (especially if they are homosexuals or Jews, a la Ollanta Humala in Peru) for your shortcomings than to fix them. It usually feels better too. Witness the entire Arab world, and, sadly, much of Latin America. When the Bolivian nationalizations fail, as they will, expect all the usual suspects to start screaming about how it was sabotaged by... (you fill in the blank).

I hope Morales will be more competent and moderate than Chavez, and less egotistical. Chavez is extremely lucky both in his internal opposition and the oil. Much as I dislike him, he's probably a lot better than the politicians who proceded him for generations and managed to keep Venezuela's poor from getting any benefit from the country's immense oil wealth. They understood neither how to create wealth nor to distribution the oil windfall fairly.
At least the U.S. is in no position to do to Bolivia what it did to Iran in 1953. That was as smart as it was justified. Maybe Eisenhower realized that too, by the time he warned about the military-industrial complex. If he was around later, he would have wound up warning about the prison industrial complex too (I know, getting off subject...)
It's very good to see the non-European people of Latin American having more influence. It's the same basic story as north of the border: 300 years of slavery followed by 200 year of further domination by the lighter skinned.The nationalization should be seen in that history.

"300 years of slavery followed by 200 year of further domination by the lighter skinned..."

Um, Mike, there was slavery and barbarity for many years in the pre-Columbus America, as well as throughout the world. I think it's time to stop blaming the Europeans, no?

You think Morales will be less extreme and more competent than Chavez? If you read his history of death, destruction, and extortion as a leader of the coca farmers since the early 90's, you'll find out that he won't be.

Poor Bolivia...

Tony, I see you're a true believer. Two prime examples of impressive economic development in the past century were Taiwan and Japan. The key in both cases was that land (and, with it, wealth) was massively redistributed to the rural poor under orders from occupying U.S. forces. This is exactly what Latin America needs today, but instead, the new economic prescription from Washington has been to do everything possible to keep our countries' unjustly distributed wealth in the hands of the miniscule super-rich elites, while the landless poor continue to starve. "Free markets" aren't free if the basic economic needs of the vast majority of citizens are not being met. For "free" markets to flourish, you need a basic distribution of wealth. That does not exist in most of Latin America and the World Bank/IMF have done all in their power to impose a brand of "free market" economics that does absolutely nothing to redistribute that wealth.
Morales and Chavez, on the other hand, are redistributing wealth and power into the hands of the masses. They are the true "free marketers," not the crony capitalists in Washington who merely want to bolster local elites so they can better rip off our resource wealth.

Your comment is the best one I've read so far, Juan. It made me laugh so hard...

Go ahead and laugh, "matedecoca"; a substantive response would be much more persuasive.

Right on, Juan. Very well put. Of course, Washington is so discredited now that it could never play that leading, progressive role in Latin America. After WW II, Washington had an enlightened foreign policy that actually created modern economies out of places like Japan and Germany. Today in Latin America, its aims are quite different: to keep unfettered access to Latin American resources and to keep Latin Americans as a pool of cheap underpaid labor. Latin Americans can't count on the U.S. to change that. They have to do it themselves. Today, that means defying Washington which, encouragingly, more and more Latin American nations are openly doing. I've never felt more optimistic about the future of Latin America than I do now. At last, its people are taking their destiny in their own hands.

Bolivia has one tough geography. Be lenient about any other shortcomings. There is a lot that no politician or entrepreneur can solve. Most of the altiplano is desolate. Even the best stretches defy anything but subsistence potato farming. The yunga valleys are economical only for local produce and coca. Santa Cruz, with its soy fields, is almost a different country. Squeeze SC too much to help the highlands and you'd get secession.

Nationalization? Bolivia's been there, done that. The MNR took over tin and farmlands in the 50s. Tin went bust and most peasants remained poor. The gas sector will never produce many jobs, except fake ones that tend to pervert state monopolies. It cannot yield enough "rent" to make the impoverished highlanders rich. Tax the gas it too much and Brazil will: 1) dump camarada Lula and elect a more assertive center-right president, and 2) build LNG facilities and buy from Qatar.

Evo Morales will extort enough money to appoint legions of cronies to YPFB and other offices set up to milk the state assets and pay for militias to intimidate opponents. He will re-write the constitution and rule in perpetuity. Leftists will write praise of his vision. Most Bolivians will remain poor and survive on remittances sent from kin in São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Madrid, or Baltimore.

Evo Morales will extort enough money to appoint legions of cronies to YPFB and other offices set up to milk the state assets and pay for militias to intimidate opponents. He will re-write the constitution and rule in perpetuity. Leftists will write praise of his vision. Most Bolivians will remain poor and survive on remittances sent from kin in São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Madrid, or Baltimore.

That, in a nutshell, is the story of EVERY so called socialist revolution that has ever been tried in the world. It is no accident that leftist paradises like Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and North Korea do not have illegal immigration problems, no one in his right mind would want to go there. The prime beneficiaries of what Morales is doing in Bolivia will end up being Argentina and Brazil who have just been handed a new source of exploitable illegal aliens.

It will take me a few days to stop laughing, Juan...be patient.

;-)

This guy Matedecoca, if he really is a Bolivian is surely a traitor to his country and nation.

People like him, are like those traitors who served the Nazis in the conquered European nations against their own people.
These traitors are enemies of the state (in this case Bolivia).

It is good that people like Matedecoca are now living in Miami, Florida, serving their yankee masters and not in Bolivia!

Matedecoca may even be tied to Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who is a lap dog of the yankee imperialists!

We are proud of Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Daniel Ortega, Ollanta Humala, Juan Velasco, Omar Torrijos! These people may be caudillos but they do what is for the greater good of the people of their nations.

Matedecoca, and his yankee bosses only care about themselves and stealing from the poor, the non-white, and the oppressed.

514 years of racist genocide against native peoples, black peoples, and the theft and plunder of their land and resources is enough!

WE are proud of Evo morales and his nationalization of the countries' lands, resources, mines, and forests.

Such things are long overdue.

Oh one thing Matedecoca! As a traitor and a free market fanatic, who belives in market price, the law of supply and demand, stealing from the poor, oppressed, enslaved, and non-white peoples, tell me my evil friend.

Why does Bolivia pay only 40% of the market price for its gas when selling its gas to the buyers, like Brazil, Argentina, and others?

does market price disappear in such a situation or are you people really interested in modern day stealing from the poor and oppressed peoples of Latin America?

I disagree that FT's coverage of Bolivia's new government is fair. Look at the May 12 Opinion piece called "Observer: Evo's new platform" which is just dripping with racist hatred and contempt. It, of course, refers to the Bolivian leader dismissively by his first name (just like this story does) for the same reason that black men were called "boy" in the US for centuries.

there is no doubt that financial times is racist in its depiction of developing nation's leaders.

a developing nation's leader who serve the yankee "massahs" and other european nations gets great treatment despite their anti-democratic and oppressive policies at home.

but leaders of developing nations, who serve the interests of their own people and not the yankee imperialists, or for that matter european economic interests, such as hugo chavez, evo morales, robert mugabe, fidel castro get blasted with biased, racist, and one-sided coverage.

after all the name is financial times, and who do you think this entity serves: the world bank, IMF, western and yankee nations that are out to steal the resources, lands, and wealth of the developing countries.

by the way, financial times many times called developing nations by the term "third world" nation, which is a term itself racist, as if non-white people are somewhat less of real humans, and hence has to be termed to be living in "third world" nations!

To "Matedecocaisatraitor":

That wasn't nice of you. You bored we with your tiring "antiimperialist" tirade.

Be more imaginative with your insults, OK?

;-)

Hello Matedecoca, who is my traitorous friend to the Bolivian nation.

How is life in your part of TraitorToBolivia land? Traitors of your kind, always end up working for yankee imperialist institutions, such as the IMF, World Bank, and other right-wing organizations.

I wonder if you are tied in any way to Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who is the enemy of the bolivian state, who fled bolivia after his genocidal and corrupt policies against the bolivian people!

you are an enemy ofcourse, to the bolivian people. every one can see that with your anti-bolivian rhetoric and pro-enslavement_of_the_bolivian_people stance.

At least I have better grammatical skills than you do, "Matedecoca is a lackey".

;-)

insurance auto

pcrqewo [link http://istb.com]test4[/link]