[ALEXIS_DH]

i read this sarcastic opinion on the paper today, in spanish, it was pretty funny and sad at the same time... in reference to the dude leading the polls.
another stereotypical south-american "Generalissimo". (in this case a retired lieutenant).
i thought it kinda pictures most of south america.....

We all like to get around the PLU. (people like one). And this not only drags into the past until the Neanderthal and the cro-magnon, its given in almost every species. Poor bee in the wrong panel!! It wont last a heartbeat. And among human beings, if there wasn’t a preference for the PLU, there wouldn’t be different races, all homo sapiens would be one ethnic group. Unfortunately, it isn’t like this. That’s why there is a Chinese neighborhood, a latin neighborhood, a jewish neighborhood in big cities. People like to be around their equals.

Its always been like that, and unfortunately, it will always be. Whites don’t have a problem calling an Indian “brother”, but “brother in law”.. absolutely no way.
And at the time to pick a governor, this love for the PLU can be deadly negative, specially in a place like Peru. Peruvians, more than anyone, only vote for persons. This is why political speeches have to be very simple, very dramatic and very pretty. No ideas, no trying to convince, just persuade. (we know you convince with arguments and persuade with rethoric). Plus, we only vote for the PLU.

95% of Peruvians, the average Peruvian, are mixed race, somewhere between an Indian and a Spaniard, ergo that’s how the person we vote for must be. We Peruvians are territorial, like chimpanzees (“nationalistic”). Thus our candidate must be and alpha chimp.
We, the average Peruvians, are not very bright. Our IQ probably is around 90. and that is how the person we vote for must be. Borderline. We, average Peruvians, are ignorant. With a few years of elementary schooling. And that is how the person we vote for will be. Thus we only accept a simple discourse, elemental, emotive (and revengeful) and straight to the point. “Am gonna execute…”, “Only mestizos will have Peruvian citizenship”, “we are gonna kick out the whiteys of the country”, “am gonna create 10 million job openings”.

The average Peruvian is, obviously, mediocre. Not tall, not short, not fat, not thin, not hard-working, not lazy and kinda dumb. Thus, that is how his candidate must be.
Sending a Peruvian an intelligent discourse is absolutely useless. He wont understand, and whoever speaks like that, belongs to another planet and has no place in this country. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the average Peruvian, as a good elemental being he is, is deeply religious, in addition to being ferociously bloodthirsty (burns thieves alive, lynches mayors…..). Both these “virtues” believe or not, complement each other. For these very same reasons, he is machist down to the marrow, equally homophobic (“I’m gonna execute all fags”). Women are just another appliance in the house. Thus, the Peruvian candidate must show this characteristics.

So, in short, in Peru only a candidate who is mediocre, homophobic, kinda dumb, violent, nationalistic, revengeful against whiteys (who we know, are the cause of all our problems) and also, almost forgot again, who “is with the poor” will win. And its that the average Peruvian is a member, for eternity, at the Poor’s Club. He knows he is poor without fix, and he knows he will only get out of poor when a ballsy head of state takes the money away from the “rich” and give it to him. Work?...... Responsibility?..... What for?.
A intelligent candidate for Peru? Please! Is like thinking in Uganda or Somalia a blue eyed blonde will be elected.
Good luck on april 9th, and see you later.

* all quotes were actually said in public by the leading candidate, or by peoplr very close to him.

 

[DaveW]

Well at least he sounds to dumb to be another "pinochet"


....unless your really unlucky.

 

[fluff]

I was gonna write a critique but then I remembered that you're Peruvian.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Well at least he sounds to dumb to be another "pinochet"


....unless your really unlucky.

you know what really bugs me.

the current president, is in single digit aproval rates.... i mean, he is not my cup of tea, but i gotta recognize, the dude, and his economic minister, made a pretty decent job.

i mean, the dude led exports to double in his 5 year term, the currency gained value, public teachers, doctors and cops got a 40-60% pay raise (no inflation needed), average anual gdp growth in 5-6%.
per capita went from $2100 bucks a year to $6400, human development index went up, house ownership went up, basically almost every economical variable from gdp growth down to beer and groceries consumption went up. median and average.
bad things? he raised the sales tax from 18% to 19% and created a tax on money transfers (the latter is basically a tax substantially paid by the top 0.5% earners).

yet 90+% of the people hate the guy.
and around 23% will vote in this coming election for the president of 85-90 (who is running 3rd on the polls, and whose economic policies ended up in 7 digit inflation, economic collapse, debt default, etc, etc....):hot:

hey fluff.. go ahead, do your critique.
lets imagine am not.

 

[fluff]

hey fluff.. go ahead, do your critique.
lets imagine am not.

Errrm.. you called my bluff.. bugger....

I do sometimes wonder if full democracy is the best thing for 'developing' nations. It does seem that in order to succeed (especially if you are already in the ****) without incurring the wrath of the US means implementing some fairly austere policies, the fruits of which may not be seen for many years. This inevitably leads to a lack of popular support from an electorate that expects instant results, makes for an easy target for populist opposition who further screw things up when elected etc, etc.

I have no doubt that Peruvians are no worse than any other nationalities when it comes to these kind of things, they just happen to live in a region that has economic disadvantages.

BTW, what is your opinion of Venezuala's President?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Errrm.. you called my bluff.. bugger....

I do sometimes wonder if full democracy is the best thing for 'developing' nations. It does seem that in order to succeed (especially if you are already in the ****) without incurring the wrath of the US means implementing some fairly austere policies, the fruits of which may not be seen for many years. This inevitably leads to a lack of popular support from an electorate that expects instant results, makes for an easy target for populist opposition who further screw things up when elected etc, etc.

I have no doubt that Peruvians are no worse than any other nationalities when it comes to these kind of things, they just happen to live in a region that has economic disadvantages.

BTW, what is your opinion of Venezuala's President?

thats true.
coldy speaking, something like an illustrated despotism seems to be best solution.
for instance, pinochet, there is just no way he could have enacted and enforced the stuff he did, if he had been a democratic president.... yet 30 years latter, many of those economic reforms led to today´s chile high living standard (astronomically high when compared to bolivia´s for example). is it justified??. i dont think so. but many people do. some people are so poor, that their next free meal paid by the gvmt is way more important than to be equal under law, or the right to property, or to fair trials and due process.

on Chavez??. i dont have a good impression. on a personal level, i think he is a tacky megalomaniac who feels he is the one to save southamerica or something like that.
am somewhat close to what is going on in venezuela. a good deal of my family live in western venezuela, in fact am going there next month for my niece catholic baptism.

he´d made good stuff. free education and health for a lot of very poor people.
but really, i´ve read the hike on oil price actually meant a 100+ billion surplus to venezuelas projected income for the time he´s been in office. with that kind of "unexpected" spending money, is really hard not to get huge aproval rates.

i think he is just a mascarade for huge corruption. i see his economic welfare programs are political tools for leverage.
a lot of demagogery, the usual "popular banks" with low interests, that end up in default, latter paid by the gvmt.....
while it may seem good to people (the health and education i accept).. a lot of other expenses i dont think are the best use for the money. in south america, too much gvmt intervention always means huge corruption.
he is actually collapsing a lot of small and medium businesses with subsidies, and stagnating the economy. slowly replacing a market economy for a very inefficient gvmt planned economy. i guess if oil prices stay where they are, he could afford that for a while. but i really doubt venezuela is making a sustainable progress.

a lot of capital (human and monetary) is going out of venezuela for greener pastures.
i dont think the consequences will be seen anytime soon... but at the current level of de-optimization of the economy, something awful is bound to happen.

 

[fluff]

thats true.
coldy speaking, something like an illustrated despotism seems to be best solution.
for instance, pinochet, there is just no way he could have enacted and enforced the stuff he did, if he had been a democratic president.... yet 30 years latter, many of those economic reforms led to today´s chile high living standard (astronomically high when compared to bolivia´s for example). is it justified??. i dont think so. but many people do. some people are so poor, that their next free meal paid by the gvmt is way more important than to be equal under law, or the right to property, or to fair trials and due process.

on Chavez??. i dont have a good impression. on a personal level, i think he is a tacky megalomaniac who feels he is the one to save southamerica or something like that.
am somewhat close to what is going on in venezuela. a good deal of my family live in western venezuela, in fact am going there next month for my niece catholic baptism.

he´d made good stuff. free education and health for a lot of very poor people.
but really, i´ve read the hike on oil price actually meant a 100+ billion surplus to venezuelas projected income for the time he´s been in office. with that kind of "unexpected" spending money, is really hard not to get huge aproval rates.

i think he is just a mascarade for huge corruption. i see his economic welfare programs are political tools for leverage.
a lot of demagogery, the usual "popular banks" with low interests, that end up in default, latter paid by the gvmt.....
while it may seem good to people (the health and education i accept).. a lot of other expenses i dont think are the best use for the money. in south america, too much gvmt intervention always means huge corruption.
he is actually collapsing a lot of small and medium businesses with subsidies, and stagnating the economy. slowly replacing a market economy for a very inefficient gvmt planned economy. i guess if oil prices stay where they are, he could afford that for a while. but i really doubt venezuela is making a sustainable progress.

a lot of capital (human and monetary) is going out of venezuela for greener pastures.
i dont think the consequences will be seen anytime soon... but at the current level of de-optimization of the economy, something awful is bound to happen.

I can see why you might not be keen on Humala then...

To open up the debate a little I imagine that you are in the more affluent end of Peruvian society (probably in the top 5% - pretty much the elite)? If so are you concerned with the good of the educated upper echelons of Peru or the good of the entire nation? By this I am (to a degree) separating the two although it is not really so.

The whole nation (and hence the elite) will benefit from a economic program that works to raise the poorest from poverty, to decrease unemployment and inflation, improve basic healthcare and education etc, but these must be funded and the poor are not the basis for such funding. That Chavez uses revenue from increased oil sales for such programs is very much to his credit (how much corruption is involved and whether it is worth the cost is another question that cannot really be answered at the present time), it is a case of Venezuala exploiting its resources for its people. Peru clearly has the capability to do similar things, from the little I know it seems that whilst the Peruvian economy has grown rapidly the effects have not been felt by the poor, hence the unpopularity of the president.

I need to do more research on the economic situation but as I understand it around half of the population are classified as poor?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Not to break up the tea party, or the flow of the discussion, but I just wanted to say that you, Alexis, shouldn't feel so bad about the voting habits of your country. A lot of the things written in that op-ed could just as easily be said about the people here in the US. I mean, look at us, we elected Bush...twice!

 

[fluff]

Not to break up the tea party, or the flow of the discussion, but I just wanted to say that you, Alexis, shouldn't feel so bad about the voting habits of your country. A lot of the things written in that op-ed could just as easily be said about the people here in the US. I mean, look at us, we elected Bush...twice!

I kinda said that already, I just didn't pick on the septics..

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I kinda said that already, I just didn't pick on the septics..

You did, but I'm not feeling subtle today.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

in the case of venezuela, and for the matter, peru in the early 70s with velasco (the role model of humala), the late 80s with garcia, morales in bolivia, etc.. i would not be certain that corruption is a byproduct of helping poor people. everyday corruption is not irrelevant in the big picture, as it may be in the developed world. 2 different mind frames. for you a state owned company is innocent of corruption until proven guilty, for me, its guilty until proven innocent.

i´d say corruption was the central point, the raison d´etre of the welfare programs, and helping the poor was a byproduct of the corruption, like the oil needed to keep the corruption gears going smooth.

i´m concerned with the good of the nation. i recognize that richer poor people means richer and better for all of us.
but i do not think burning state funds for corruption under the story of social welfare is the way to achieve this. and in my mind, seeing the last 50 years, any try at welfare states, market controls, etc are just cover ups for corruption.

on the other hand, my view is not representative. neither in the "elite" nor in the "poor". class issues play a big deal there.
since race differences are kinda watered down here as compared to the US for example, class comes into play as the discriminating criteria.
imo a lot of people in the "elite" do not only want to remain wealthy, but also to be way above and segregated from the "poor", thus directly requiring the poor to remain outside opportunities for the effect of relative "eliteness".
thats more of a treat from the colonial era, but still shows often, and this plays against any shot at closing the gap or improving poors conditions.

are chavez ideas worth the cost??
i dont think so. he is doing nothing new in S.A.

peru did it with the copper in the 70s, bolivia did it with the tin in the mid 1900s, ecuador did it the oil... it has never worked.
for now it works for venezuela, because oil prices are high, and they chavez has the muscle and pockets to keep going.
but it always ends up in the same inefficient corruption circle that feeds those around the people in political power. huge state owned mammoth companies with 10 or 20 times more employees than when they were private, that go from turning profits and paying taxes and royalties to pay for schools and hospitals, to debt and endless credits from the state that has to cut expenses like schools and hospitals, raise taxes and slow down the economy, to keep those companies afloat.

in the end, the costs end up being socialized in the worth of the gone original resource, PLUS debt of some kind.

on the economic situation. yes. 52% of people are poor. low 20s% are in extreme poverty. effective minimal wage is around $150/month (10% increase in the last year), 50% informal employment (that has to do a lot with the crazy high benefits required by law. burocratical benefits equal 70% of wages, plus a huge legal liability ). a lot of employers turn informal into cash under the table kinda deals.

 

[fluff]

So is there a solution or are you condemned to the same old cycle time and time again?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So is there a solution or are you condemned to the same old cycle time and time again?

hmmmmm... moving to new zealand?

 

[Changleen]

I wouldn't come right now, the weather is turning horrible! Wait 'till the summer.