I don't have much time at the moment but I promise to try and get back to this later Rasputin.
QUOTE (Lazarus Long)
The promises of the *free market* simply have not been experienced by all too many in the third world and emerging technologies and the masses of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, AND Venezuela don't want to wait any more generations to benefit from what amounts to a resource held in common by the people.
I am not sure why you would make this conjecture and then follow it with the link to de Soto’s wikipedia page in which he not only explains why many third world countries struggle with achieving Capitalism, he stresses the importance of private ownership of property so that these countries can transcend their current condition and achieve the levels of prosperity seen in the US and Japan.
De Soto is a highly articulate and astute academician that has literally studied this issue from the inside out practically all his life, however he is the minority. There is a vast difference between the *common* perception/beliefs and his opinion.
There is a large price to pay still in Latin America for al the abuses of colonialism and the idea that socialism is preferable to laissez fare capitalism is widely held because it is seen as more reliable an opponent to far more exploitive and destructive aspects of neo-feudal post colonialism, as the moder version of allegedly free market capitalism is perceived to represent.
The majority of people in Latin America represent a far more disenfranchised poorer class thna we in the US have experienced since reconstruction and they are not sympathetic to *promises* that for them appear like more mythology rather than proven economic theory.
I happen to respect De Soto a lot but it is important to also understand the distinction between abstract analysis and popular pragmatics.
There is frankly a lot more to this issue than has been presented in a somewhat two dimensional manner in this thread so far. Trying to have this discussion without addressing those aspects; like cultural, racial and ethnic conflicts, historic trends and issues, relational economics in the global society of today, and the requirements of emergent technologies to an educated middle class, and the damaging influence of US geopolitical and economic manipulations over the last century is futile IMHO.
BTW, there is strong evidence that at least some of the principle media moguls were complicit in the attempted overthrow though it is strongly circumstantial not demonstrative proof that I have seen. However Chavez has certainly responded even more leniently than Putin has in this respect and I suggest a reading of what is going on in Russia as we speak is even more relevant to the issue and should be interesting given your chosen screen name.
In fact the response to the excesses privatization during the 90's around the world and the critical strategic importance of oil in global geopolitics has given new legitimacy and incentive for governmental control of oil wealth in many nations including the US.
We are seeing this already in a reversal of privatization trends in many large oil producing nations. Part of the problem is that oil is not a free market comodity now, nor has it really ever been one, so the incentive for government to seize control of it as due to its strategic importance is heightened.
Also the dirt poor of Latin America see oil as a wealth of the commons that belongs to the people not to private interests and BTW most if not all Latin American countries have a constitutional democracies now.
BTW, I am still waiting for an example of a nation where oil alone has helped an emerging nation and more importantly I will add; improved their democratic structure?