Friday, January 6, 2017

Mexicans ransack stores and block roads in anger over steep gas-price hikes


Better get the wall construction going pronto and figure out how to do the accounting later... this in response to only a 20% increase in MXN terms.

Finally getting a policy response from Mexico to the fall in oil price in USD terms which bottomed almost a year ago here almost a 12 month delay in this new Mexican policy.  Shows how long govts can intervene to set prices.

Terms of trade between US and Mexico shifted greatly towards the US with the oil price reduction in USD terms in 2014 and 2015.  Mexican citizens now have to pay more in MXN terms for petroleum products.

Boo hoo hoo too bad what do you think we have been going thru for the last 10 years here?

Suck it up seƱor.








54 comments:

John said...

"...what do you think we have been going thru for the last 10 years here?"

Who's the "we" here? Working class Americans have got more in common with working class Mexicans than they have with the Washington elites who have wreaked economic havoc on the working classes in Mexico and the United States.

Thinking nationalistically is exactly what the Washington elites want. It's just another card trick from their playbook of how to mislead people.

Matt Franko said...

I'm a nationalist 'we' are the non-oil sector citizens of the USA who have been getting F-ED over royally for the past 10 years by these gd oil people...

I view it as national boundaries (material) not social class boundaries (human)... I'm a materialist... define your system and its boundaries and regulate and control the interfaces this is textbook systems theory 101.... and it doesnt apply to people imo...

Maybe next time they should re-consider the monopoly rent they get in USDs thru piggy backing on the OPEC prices when that cartel manages to periodically get control of the USD price for oil...

So they have been ripping us off for 10 years on their oil at $100+ and now they are only getting $50 so they riot?

Let them figure it out and start using their own munnie... they have been turned into a bunch of brainless USD zombies all of them...

Tom Hickey said...

Let them figure it out and start using their own munnie... they have been turned into a bunch of brainless USD zombies all of them...

Fortunately they are finally not only figuring this out but also figuring out how to do it.

Russia and China are developing an alternative to Swift, for example, and also an alternative internet.

Globalization under the institutional of the neoliberal West is shutting down, and regionalism is rising along with nationalism.

John said...

Matt, who are what is OPEC? This so-called cartel is mostly US client states, armed to the teeth with US weapons and protected by US intelligence agencies. That means these US-backed dictatorships take orders from Washington. Oil prices are set in Washington. You have to wonder what kind of "cartel" always disagrees on the price or production? The "cartel" barely agree on anything. In what world does Venezuela agree with Saudi Arabia on anything? OPEC is mostly all show in order to hide the real power behind the decision making. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain and one or two others do not set a price without consulting with Washington. The next time you fill up your tank, remember its Washington which sets the price.

The real price of oil is a lot more than $100. You should be happy with $100. If you're not, write to your congressman. He or she sits in the city which decides the price.

The working class unemployed of Wisconsin and Michigan have been subject to the same neoliberal "market discipline" as the working class unemployed of Sonora and Chihuahua. They've both been fucked by Nafta. By the way, look at what happens to countries that try to do anything about alleviating poverty: coups and attempted coups in Venezuela, Honduras, Brazil, etc, and these under the progressive, liberal Nobel laureate "man of vision" Obama.

Matt Franko said...

They have to get off the USD... if it has to be cold turkey then so be it... they will have to figure it out... they probably will...

intajake said...

"the monopoly rent they get in USDs thru piggy backing on the OPEC prices"

working class mexicans arent' oil producers Matt (US is the energy exporter) ...

mexico needs ramp up it domestic energy production to lower prices so el pueblo don't suffer as much/
fuel subisidies for low income people makes more sense than subsidising the price for the whole population.

Tom Hickey said...

The real price of oil is a lot more than $100.

True cost = production cost + externality + overhead + risk-weighted return on capital investment - depreciation - rent.

The negative externality involved in carbon-based fuel is enormous in terms of health and environmental degradation. Presently, it is socialized and not accounted for as a cost in determining price.

Tom Hickey said...

That would require socializing the economy and that probably wouldn't help either since the left is clueless about governing. The problems of Latin America largely involve a kleptocracy at the top and massive crime and corruption. But getting rid of the kleptocracy invites regime change gamed by the US since these people are compradors. This is a historical pattern that underlies addiction to the USD.

John said...

Tom, how about the externality of this product being the only product you have and making the most of it?

In a perfect world that equation may have some validity, but in a world subject to superpower intrigue that equation has to be modified in favour of the less developed countries in which oil may be their only resource and their only possible path to prosperity. Norway falls into that category, but it has a political history that allows it a lot of wiggle room, and it has used it to very good effect as it is by some measures the richest per capita country in the world. Venezuela falls into that category too, but it is subject to the machinations of Washington. The US client Gulf Arab dictatorships simply recycle the money back as Washington dictates and the sheikhs and princes recycle it into Las Vegas casinos and property.

Not all countries have the resources of the US or Canada, or have histories or politics or socioeconomic distributions that allow for that equation to hold. For example if you're one of the landlocked "stans" in Central Asia and you have nothing to sell other than oil or gas, you better make as much money as you can. The rest of the world's not going to help you when you run out, and they're sure as hell not going to remember how fair you were when you were selling that one resource you had and they needed.

John said...

Tom, I wouldn't be so hard on the so-called left in these countries. Can you imagine how hard it is to govern these countries? If it isn't the hegemonic power supporting terrorists in order to bring the country to its knees, it's the rich elites with their private armies or the gangster warlords we softly refer to as mere "drug dealers". It's amazing that any progress is ever made. You have to get it to people like Lula and Chavez. They made the impossible possible.

Tom Hickey said...

I am just looking at economics wrt market price. Market price generally doesn't not include externality. To paraphrase Dee Hock (founder of Visa), the general principle is to capitalize the upside and socialize the downside. Ignoring externality in the price equation is a special case of that.

Of course, conditions affect that, this is how the cost accounting works in general wrt natural resources, not only energy. Socialize the externality and let the public absorb it.

John said...

Tom, as you say, it's hard to wean a country off USD when the elites are wedded to it and are willing to wreak havoc to maintain it. It gives Washington a huge amount of leverage over these countries. People forget the power relations involved. It's not as if a country in Central or South America can make decisions like this without consequence. The consequences can be extremely dire, and politicians in the region are aware of that.

Tom Hickey said...

It's amazing that any progress is ever made. You have to get it to people like Lula and Chavez. They made the impossible possible.

That's true but for how long were they successful.

The only "success" over time has been Cuba and the long term success such as it was under US sanctions was only possible with Russian support. But they still hung on afterward. The the condition was terminating the kleptocracy. Previously, the kleptocracy always managed to come back to power.

Auburn Parks said...

wrt John's comment about oil being the only thing these countries sell and his comment about these countries' elites wanting the USD's so they can live the life of their fellow global elites.

Interesting how the two things are connected in a way. You cant buy las vegas or miami property with rials, or pesos, or rubles, only dollars. You cant invest in the US Stock market with foreign currency (not a trader so this may not be true) and you definitely cant buy US TSY CDs with foreign currency, so is it any wonder that the foreign elites want to obtain dollars? Why would some rich family in Kazakhstan want to acquire only their local Tenge currency units and only invest in their local KASE stock market with its market cap of $42 billion. If Kazakhstan's Govt were to fall or the country split up, that rich family's entire savings could go to zero. So of course, the rich people want to acquire and keep their wealth denominated in one of the main country currencies. Hell, rich Kazak families probably cant even buy Bentleys or Ferrarris or mega yachts with Tenge script. After all, currencies are only worth what you can buy with them.

Of course there is another way to obtain wealth for these third world countries other than selling their natural resources to foreigners for foreign currency, maybe educate and organize your society to a level that allows you to create other products that foreigners actually want to buy. I dont think Ive seen a Venezuelan company's phone, or clothing, or PC, or car, or any fucking product ever for sale in the USA. Why cant Cubans make something worthwhile that became a hit product in Europe? or CHina? or anywhere? SO what if the US wont buy Cuban products, this many more trillions in demand in the world. The US cant be blamed for all the failings of the third world. Their own societies need to assert control instead of allowing the tiny elite to just hoard everything.

Auburn Parks said...

and hold back societal progress, its still the feudal middle ages in the third world even though we've already shown them the way out of the dark ages. These countries dont even need to figure it out for themselves. There's no reason why Venezuela with oil resources, a huge natural advantage in tourism, and 30 million people cant be as successful as cold as fuck norway with oil resources and just 5 million people.

The third world has mainly itself to blame for the medieval hell hole that it mostly is.

Tom Hickey said...

The third world has mainly itself to blame for the medieval hell hole that it mostly is.

Medieval = feudal

These are still feudal systems run by feudal elites that own all the land, control institutions, and behave as medieval lords.

China dealt with that with a revolution, but that was the system under which it was operating.

Japan was largely a feudal country prior to WWII and run by lords, with the emperor as a figurehead. It is still quite feudal.

The same families that control wealth in Venice five centuries ago still hold that dynastic wealth.

As Marx pointed out, capitalism didn't replace feudalism as much as adapt it to industrial technology.

Technology requires a higher general level of education and that resulted in greater liberalism. But the same oligarchic structures still survive even in developed countries.

John said...

Auburn, yes it's frightening when you connect the dots. Once you connect the dots, people scream MARXISM or some other nonsense.

"The US cant be blamed for all the failings of the third world. Their own societies need to assert control instead of allowing the tiny elite to just hoard everything."

True, it can't, but a helluva lot can. When a tiny country like Honduras gives Washington palpitations, you know things are looking bad for Honduran politicians who want to change their society. When huge numbers of FBI agents are taken off tracing money going to Al Qaeda (and this in the aftermath of 9/11) in order to enforce sanctions against Cuba, you now know that the public crucifixion of Cuba is more important than saving American lives. Many people just cannot fathom the mind-boggling power and reach of Washington. And Washington can make small countries pay a very heavy price. Rebellion cannot be tolerated.

Auburn Parks said...

No doubt about that Tom, but that still doesnt remove the blame these people's themselves must shoulder for not doing more to improve their societies. Again, these third world countries dont have to go through their industrial \ enlightenment \ liberalization revolutions blind. They already know how the process looked, what worked, what didnt, from dozens of the first world countries that have been through it so it should be much easier for these nations. Unfortunately it doesnt look like many are capable of doing it or of even wanting to. Maybe Venezuelans dont want a first world country because that would be to "European" or "American" and they wouldnt want to parrot what the imperialist pigs have done would they?

Guess what, the imperialist west likes to only fuck with countries that cant fight back. You want the USA to leave you alone, get good enough that We cant do anything to you.

Tom Hickey said...

With the Third World there's the double problem of education and technology. Sure the blueprint for development is there but they need to acquire both and underdeveloped countries were starting from scratch. It's difficult transitioning from a feudal and chiefly agricultural system to a capitalist and technological one. This is what development economics is about, for example. It's a huge challenge to leapfrog from being underdeveloped to developed.

One of the problems is organizational ability, for example. It's difficult to tech and is acquired through experience. This is a reason that the US so far ahead and likely to remain ahead for some time.

Auburn Parks said...

John-

That was the point of the second part of my comment. I can understand why the foreign elites do what they do, thats why I spelled it out. What I cant understand is why the regular people can take the reins and do something about it. Again, these people dont have to go through uncharted territory, there's historical lessons and blueprints all around, just have to do some reading. America is not the reason that Venezuela with all its natural resources has to be a third world hell hole. The US Army is not invading Venezuela.

Tom Hickey said...

Oh, and I forgot, the people with the education and who control the tech are the elites. So if country chooses to get rid of the elites, then they are left with low ed and low tech.

It's not countries that make decisions but social cohorts in them. The problem is with elites determined to preserve status and power, added by elites of developed countries for whom they are compradors.

Auburn Parks said...

No doubt that its alot of hard work Tom, but again they dont have to create a developmental economics from scratch, we've been working at for a century. Use those US Dollars Venezuala acquires with its oil to buy some US Companies and their patents or send 1000s of students to US universities to bring back with them the technical skills, this is what CHina has done so successfully in just 2 decades, and thats with more than a billion people. NO reason 30 million Venzuelans cant make similar progress in an even shorter amount of time.

Auburn Parks said...

Tom, its not like either of those points is unique to venezuela than Sweden in the 1800s or Italy throughout its entire history, or the USA today. Its not a good enough excuse.

Auburn Parks said...

aaahhhh

"unique to venezuela more-so than Sweden in the 1800s..."

John said...

"There's no reason why Venezuela with oil resources, a huge natural advantage in tourism, and 30 million people cant be as successful as cold as fuck norway with oil resources and just 5 million people."

Why the Washington-backed coup, then? Why the backing of the most rightwing parties in Venezuela. If what you're saying is true, then Washington would be insouciant as to the results. As the Kennedy administration acknowledged, Cuba isn't a threat to anybody. What it displays is that things can be changed. Hence six decades of economic war and attempted coups.

There have been dozens of similar examples. Whether it's liberals or social democrats like Lumumba, Moddadegh or Allende, their politics is irrelevant. Anybody who poses a threat has to be extinguished.

Economically resilient countries can weather a lot of problems. Countries like the Congo, Iran and Chile aren't in a position to really just start again. If they get fucked by the massive cock Washington has, they may never recover (Congo, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc). Or if they do, they're hesitant to try again and try to make peace with Washington. Small poor countries are very fragile. Many people who live in advanced industrial countries don't appreciate that.

Tom Hickey said...

No doubt that its alot of hard work Tom, but again they dont have to create a developmental economics from scratch, we've been working at for a century. Use those US Dollars Venezuala acquires with its oil to buy some US Companies and their patents or send 1000s of students to US universities to bring back with them the technical skills, this is what CHina has done so successfully in just 2 decades, and thats with more than a billion people.

Evidence in development economics belies this in the case of most countries. China had a successful revolution that exterminated elites or drove them abroad. It also had enough of a traditional culture on which to build and the opposition of great powers trying to terminate the revolution as Russia did, too. Communism, size, and the necessity to industrialize quickly to create an arms industry capable of defending the homeland enabled these countries to leapfrog.

For example, Putin welcomed the sanctions because he recognized that this was an opportunity to do what would have been difficult to impossible previously. Russians had to endure but they are coming out of it a lot stronger and more advanced technologically, educationally, and economically.

Like China, Russia had offed the elites and then Putin was able to harness the new elite, as China has been able to do also.

These are exceptional circumstances and big countries with historical endowments. Latin America, MENA, and Africa are quite different.

Auburn Parks said...

Tom-

All good points and yet none address why Venezuela cant be like norway. Except for culture and society. Which is the point Im making. Venezuelan society and culture being unable to execute even the most mundane modern progressive reforms cant be blamed on the USA.

John said...

"What I cant understand is why the regular people can take the reins and do something about it."

It's very difficult for a number of reasons. Some are the ones I talked about above, but sometimes you are simply fighting to stay alive or some warlords have taken over the place because the central government has fallen apart: Somalia, Afghanistan, Congo.
After all, a few thousand headbangers can easily control a good deal of a country: the madmen of ISIS are an example.

A lot of countries in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America are fragile poor countries. If you hit them with a battering ram, they just splinter all over the place, and it takes decades to put the pieces together. Many of these countries may never even have had a strong central government in the first place, which can coordinate development, defence and all the other things we take for granted. Many of them have only been "independent" for a few decades and are beset with all kinds of problems left over from pre-independence.

Tom Hickey said...

Tom, its not like either of those points is unique to venezuela than Sweden in the 1800s or Italy throughout its entire history, or the USA today. Its not a good enough excuse.

How long did it take Western civ to develop? Millennia? Oh, and there was also the disruption of the Dark Ages in which barbarian Europe was integrated in the West, and then the fall of Constantinople in the East, with the ascendancy of Islam.

The only record of fast development on a sustained basis has been USSR and China without close Western cooperation and aid along with a tight alliance with the US to the point of being proxies. I am thinking of Japan and South Korea, both of which had special access and were cultured as allies against the rising power of "Red China."

Auburn Parks said...

JOhn-

for every example you mention of the US successfully regime changing these third world countries, there are examples where the US failed. Again, Im not confused about why the US would try to do these things or why the third world elites try to keep their own native brethren down, the question is why cant the rest of Venezuelan society do anything about it? The answer to that question is not "Washington DC".

Why do the Venezuelan people allow for complete economic control of their newspapers, radios and prodution by the elite that fail and abuse them? Thats not the US's fault. Why do the Venezuelan people allow their elites to allow US efforts to overthrow populist lefty type governments like as just happened in Brazil? The US is not doing these overthrows with US military personnel, we give money and information to native elites or "compradors" as Tom calls them. Its the native society doing it to itself, not the USA.

Matt Franko said...

John there is no coup in Venezuela c'mon... maybe there should be but there still isnt... the whole Brazil thing was out of Petrobras, etc... they use ethanol down there and yet its all about oil...

You know we had gas go up from under $2 to over $4 and nobody looted or wtf...

You just suck it up and try to deal with it.... buy a Prius... take less trips... give up other purchases... etc...

These people it goes up 20% and they are burning the place down... no wonder they all want to get the hell out of there and come here... f-ing uncivilized bunch of barbarians...



Tom Hickey said...

Venezuelan society and culture being unable to execute even the most mundane modern progressive reforms cant be blamed on the USA.

I am not blaming all on the USA. The people that own and control Latin America are of European heritage and culture. Most of the people are Native American, progeny of African slaves or mixed race. This is a remnant of colonialism and imperialism.

With the Monroe Doctrine, the US declared that henceforth, it was in charge of the region and the European nations should butt out. But the European elite remained in power and cooperated with the US, or else.

Auburn Parks said...

Tom-

of course it takes millienia to do those things the first time. But this is like the 100th time, or at least the 50th, so it should be much easier.

John-

None of that absolves these societies of their own blame for the inability to improve the conditions of their people. It cant be blamed any longer on the imperialist west since we are literally no longer keeping them down with our militaries.

Auburn Parks said...

Tom-

all of that is ancient history for what we are talking about now. Im not arguing with you about the history because you're describing it accurately. Im saying that these third world dumps have only themselves to blame now.

Tom Hickey said...

Its the native society doing it to itself

It's not the "native society" that is doing this to itself. It's Europeans doing it to Native American, Black, and mixed race people.

These are not homogenous societies.

John said...

"All good points and yet none address why Venezuela cant be like norway."

The simple answer is the Monroe Doctrine. Any country in Central and South America must kneel before Washington. Independence cannot be tolerated. Tiny Cuba or Honduras cannot pursue their own objectives. They must pursue Washington's objectives. If they don't, then they will be brought to their knees. What else can possibly explain Washington's hysterical reaction to *democratic* socioeconomic developments in Honduras? It's Honduras!

Why do the socioeconomic developments in one of the poorest and smallest countries in the world give Washington sleepless nights? That's the question you should ask yourself, Auburn. Note, I say Washington, not America. America is a different thing entirely.

As for Norway, this is post-WW2 Europe. Rightly or wrongly, Washington fears Europe will go communist. That gives Norway a lot of wiggle room. It can do whatever it wants, as long as it doesn't vote for communists. Any signs of a socialist takeover will be stamped out brutally, like the UK did in Greece. Other than that, everything is up for grabs: universal healthcare, state pensions, universal education, roads and trains in rural areas, benefits, etc.

Auburn Parks said...

Come on Tom, thats such a strawman, Im not talking about race here Im talking about nationalities. Natives as in the people who are actually living in venezuela and colombia.

John-

What do you mean by bring these countries to their knees? Cuba doesnt need the USA and neither does Honduras or Venezuela in the 21st century. Its not like we are still in the age of sail and geographic proximity is extremely important for trade, technology, and information. And we havent been involved militarily in either country for decades wrt coups etc. (and excepting Guantanamo of course which is in cuba but has nothing to do with impacting Cuban Govt.

Tom Hickey said...

Im saying that these third world dumps have only themselves to blame now.

I don't deny that the problem is also local. The people that are reformers are on the left and the people for the status quo are on the right and allied with the US as compradors.

The left has been clueless about running a country. When they get the chance they usually blow it, but at the same time they are being sabotaged by their own right wing and the US government basically representing US political interests (territorial dominance) and economic interests (US firms).

Auburn Parks said...

Where are all of these examples of US military takeovers, invasions and coups that are supposed to be doing all this harm to the third world? Boo-hoo if the IMF wont lend you euros or dollars cause your elites have stashed them all for themselves and you cant buy medicine. Thats your own fault for allowing the elites to steal all of your country's wealth.

Tom Hickey said...

Come on Tom, thats such a strawman, Im not talking about race here Im talking about nationalities. Natives as in the people who are actually living in venezuela and colombia.

I think you are being naive about the ethnic dynamic there. That is a key aspect of the social dynamic in Latin America. Of course, it is not the only one but but it makes for a very heterogenous dynamic in terms of identity groups, class, power and property.

Auburn Parks said...

Tom-

Thats the real problem. The lefties are all incompetent and the conservatives cant be trusted to help anyone but their own class as they've consistently showed for thousands of years.

Tom Hickey said...

Where are all of these examples of US military takeovers, invasions and coups that are supposed to be doing all this harm to the third world?

Well-documented but I don't have time to find a reference just now.

Boo-hoo if the IMF wont lend you euros or dollars cause your elites have stashed them all for themselves and you cant buy medicine. Thats your own fault for allowing the elites to steal all of your country's wealth.

You realize of course that these counties have armies and security services including secret police, don't you. Have you seen the movie, Brazil (1985)?

Auburn Parks said...

AS if there arent and havent been different races in every country on Earth for a long time. hell, even the scandanavians arent all the same exact ethnicity and have killed each other over it for centuries (finnish more slavic, swedes and norweigans more germanic)

Auburn Parks said...

Tom-

yes but those are internal native issues that they have to take responsibility for. Thats not the US military employing a police state in Brazil.

I used the IMF example as that and maybe some sanctions are the only real threat the west poses to these countries today. the US army is not invading colombia or Caracas.

MIlitary intervention decades ago doesnt count Tom, as in Grenada doesnt count and neither does us stealing panama away from columbia a century ago. Im talking about now, or maybe since the dawn of the internet age 25 years ago. Yeah, that list is really tiny now that you dont include Pinochet in the 50's and cambodia in the 70s (although in that one you are going to have a very strong case as that tasteful action by Kissinger led to millions of Cambodians dying which was truly a destabilizing and genocidal occurrence for those poor people thanks to US "exceptionalism"

John said...

Auburn: "Where are all of these examples of US military takeovers, invasions and coups that are supposed to be doing all this harm to the third world?"

Please note that the vast majority of the following are poor fragile countries and don't get many shots at development and democracy. Once the country is turned into a disaster zone, it'll be prone to takeover by warlords, gangsters and ideological maniacs:

Iraq 1963
North Vietnam 1945
Cambodia 1955
Laos 1958
Ecuador 1960
Congo 1960
Brazil 1962
Dominican Republic 1963
Cuba 1959
Bolivia 1964
Indonesia 1965
Ghana 1966
Chile 1964
Greece 1967
Costa Rica 1970
Bolivia 1971
Angola 1975
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974
Chad 1981
Grenada 1983
South Yemen 1982
Nicaragua 1981
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1979
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999
Ecuador 2000
Afghanistan 2001
Venezuela 2002
Iraq 2003
Haiti 2004
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014

Tom Hickey said...

AS if there arent and havent been different races in every country on Earth for a long time. hell, even the scandanavians arent all the same exact ethnicity and have killed each other over it for centuries (finnish more slavic, swedes and norweigans more germanic)

Imperialism and colonization complicate the matter. Even the US has not dealt with this issue and is not dealing with it now.

Tom Hickey said...

Thats not the US military employing a police state in Brazil.

Just funding and training and sending advisors, not to mention the compradors checkin with Washington on everything of importance.

Auburn Parks said...

Sorry John

That list is laughable for our purposes. Cuba 1959? umm, that was the revolution against the US puppet not the US led overthrow of a Cuban nationalist Govt.

Same w Iran in 79.

US failed in 2002 in Venezuela so how is that supposed to have hurt that country's development?

Afghanistan 2001? you mean our response to their murdering 3000 US civilians?

Iraq 1991? Where we didnt even overthrow Saddam? we just kicked their ass out of kuwait and then let Saddam murder 10's of thousands of dissidents? How is that relevant to our discussion? Its not.

Iraq 2003? Now there you have a point, however we gave Iraq a golden chance to pull a south Korea or Japan and instead they are more interested in their tribal clans and religious wars. But we definitely failed on our part of the program.

I could go on disqualifying most of this list as relevant to what we are talking about, but I really dont want to take the time. Suffice it to say that of course there are some examples on your list that make your point. But there are many more third world countries where they only have themselves to blame and thus make my point.

John said...

Auburn: "MIlitary intervention decades ago doesnt count Tom, as in Grenada doesnt count and neither does us stealing panama away from columbia a century ago. Im talking about now, or maybe since the dawn of the internet age 25 years ago."

Why doesn't it count? Small countries just cannot recover in quick time and are in really bad shape for a long time. A country may descend into the pits of hell because of a coup or an invasion. Somalia was never Switzerland but it was a functioning country. It was a very poor but functioning country. The US-backed coup against the government led to decades of civil war and warlords taking over the country. Now it's host to Al Qaeda and other religious nutjobs. Now, you may say, well, that was decades ago and why can't they get their act together. The first thing to say is that Washington may not have wanted Somalia to still be crippled as it is decades after the fact, but, as I said above, if you hit a fragile country with a battering ram, be prepared for the worst. The second thing to say is that supposing all the fighting immediately ceased, what kind of country is there now? It has been basically obliterated. Now what do you do? Monopoly control of the Somali currency means what exactly in these circumstances? It's a post-apocalyptic landscape. Similarly for Afghanistan and a host of other countries.

And the key thing you have to remember is that countries that have only recently recovered are seldom keen to try again the policies that so enraged the hegemon in the first place, for fear of again enraging Washington, and these are the very ones you're saying should be entertained, Auburn! So they do what Washington demands, and try to help the population where and when it can, but always looking over its shoulder towards Washington.

Auburn Parks said...

Tom-

the 1% should never beat the 99% in a war regardless of how much US training their thugs have had. If the Viet cong could beat the USA, surely the brazilians can beat their own 1% oligarchs.

Auburn Parks said...

John-

Your Somalia referencing i sjust all wrong from my recollection. The US was involved because Somalia in 1993 was a dangerous hell hole for humanitarian reasons, it had nothing to do with overthrowing a functional Somali Govt and destroying the country which has simply not recovered yet. That might be true for like US machiinations in Cambodia but certainly not Somalia.

Surely I may not be blaming the USA and western imperialists enough, and Im willing to acknowledge that I dont know what the % responsibility is in general or even on an individual basis. But one thing I know for sure, both you and Tom are blaming the US way too much and absolving these third world societies for much what is truly their own failure.

Tom Hickey said...

If the Viet cong could beat the USA, surely the brazilians can beat their own 1% oligarchs.

Who armed the Viet Cong?

Who is arming the mujahideen?

These are proxies.

John said...

Auburn, I refer you to my post above about fragile countries not having the luxury of being able to just brush themselves off and start again.

However, you're wrong on a number of fronts.

"Afghanistan 2001? you mean our response to their murdering 3000 US civilians?"

Afghanistan did no such thing. 15 Saudis and 4 Egyptians trained in Munich did that.

"Iraq 1991? Where we didnt even overthrow Saddam? we just kicked their ass out of kuwait and then let Saddam murder 10's of thousands of dissidents? How is that relevant to our discussion? Its not."

It wasn't an overthrow, you're right. The US air force bombed Iraq's *civilian* infrastructure to pieces, sending the country back decades, then enforcing a sanctions regime that specifically targeted the *civilian* population and led to approximately 1 million *civilian* deaths. Yes, Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait, only for the country to be handed back to the tyrannical dictatorship that was in place before. Kuwait's democrats were enraged.

"Iraq 2003? Now there you have a point, however we gave Iraq a golden chance to pull a south Korea or Japan and instead they are more interested in their tribal clans and religious wars. But we definitely failed on our part of the program."

Auburn, really? Is that all? I have a point? Washington wilfully concocted an absurd lie and deceived its own population in order to go to invade a country that posed no threat. It then bombed the shit out of it. The occupation was so botched that perhaps one million people died, led to the rise of ISIS and the partition of the country, and all you can say is that there was a golden chance to pull off a South Korea? Really? How about, for starters, we should try all involved for war crimes and pay trillions of dollars in reparations to Iraq?

There is no "we gave" and they decided to have a "religious war". That didn't happen. This is drinking from the WMD kool-aid well. The occupation was so bungled that religious psychos from Saudi and elsewhere walked over the border. The borders were left unguarded by the occupation armies. The Al Qaeda nutters - you know, the ones who massacred 3000 innocent people in New York - decided the opportunity was ripe to murder millions more people, ones they didn't consider Muslims. Having murdered many more than those murdered in New York, this triggered a religious war. That's what happened. The idea that "we", whoever "we" is, tried to help "them", but they didn't embrace our gift is just fanciful.

John said...

Auburn: "Your Somalia referencing i sjust all wrong from my recollection. The US was involved because Somalia in 1993 was a dangerous hell hole for humanitarian reasons, it had nothing to do with overthrowing a functional Somali Govt and destroying the country which has simply not recovered yet. That might be true for like US machiinations in Cambodia but certainly not Somalia."

Your missing what happened before 1993. Prior to 1969, Somalia was an unimaginably poor country, but it was a pretty stable place, no murders on the streets, warlords levelling the place. In 1969 there was a military coup. For decades Washington backed the military dictator Siad Barre, who then turned the country into a living nightmare. It couldn't have been done without US aid. In 1991 Barre was finally overthrown, but the country was in chaos and warlords took over. When the violence of the civil war had basically ceased in 1993, Washington intervened to end the terror of the warlord Aidid! The warlord Barre was fine; the warlord Aidid was a disaster. That's what you saw on television. An alleged aid mission and a US intervention to destroy the warlord Aidid who had taken over a good deal of the country. Like in Syria today, Washington and Saudi Arabia backed certain factions and civil war ensued. Like Afghanistan, the country is now a wasteland.

You should ask yourself why it is Somalia is so important that the greatest power the world has ever known has been intimately involved since 1969?