Typical thinking in a poor country

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
From a story about the troubles in Bolivia:


But union leaders and the nation's poor Indian majority, which has frequently led protests against government attempts to privatize the country's state industries, argue the economic benefits won't reach them.

The decision to shelve the gas plan "is not enough for the Bolivian people," Morales told Radio Cooperativa of Chile. "What the Bolivian people want is that the gas remain in Bolivia, for the benefit of Bolivians."

Opponents are especially upset that the government might pick a port in Chile to ship the gas. Bolivia has been a landlocked nation since it lost its coastline in an 1879 war against Chile, and resentment against its neighbor is still strong.

Sanchez de Lozada has said he would prefer a Peruvian port, but admitted one in Chile would be technically and economically more convenient for the now idled project, which would involve a $6 billion investment by an international consortium.

Notice the usual stuff happens here that holds back countries. Lets see, they want to keep gas in Bolivia for their use. How is this to be achieved??? Reports say that virtually none of the country is capable of using natural gas, yet these protesting groups think they can use it. Fat chance, changing a country over to use natural gas costs billions upon billions of dollars, and in this case the amount of gas they are talking about is probably 10 times what they could ever use. Nationalism at its best, lets stay poor, but at least we are being poor the right way. And to object to a plan because of grudges against your neighbor really just sums it all up. We will be dirt poor (Bolivia is one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere after all), but we will do it our way with dignity. Any wonder countries like this stay poor forever?

I can't blame people though for expecting corruption to be a big problem with this, but in the end leaving gas sitting in the ground hoping it will do you some good is very crazy thinking. This will next lead to people calling for Bolivia to use the gas, but once again there is no money to make this happen. What will they do then, argue the government should be kicked out for lacking money to invest in this since you turned away the foreign dollars? If I were the President I would definitely just step down, who needs to run an ungovernable country with people that have no concept of reality?
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
I didn't interpret the people as "ungovernable", just unwilling to work with a country that took there land (Chile). That doesn't seem so far fetched, afterall didn't some oaf in DC insist that French Fries be renamed Freedom Fries over a country (which has been our ally more often than not) disagreement with us? Maybe they should try the Peru port option?

"Opponents are especially upset that the government might pick a port in Chile to ship the gas. Bolivia has been a landlocked nation since it lost its coastline in an 1879 war against Chile, and resentment against its neighbor is still strong.

Sanchez de Lozada has said he would prefer a Peruvian port, but admitted one in Chile would be technically and economically more convenient for the now idled project, which would involve a $6 billion investment by an international consortium."
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
I have heard a lot of interesting comments on this as a close friend of mine works with a US company trying to coordinate the Mexican facility to take in the LNG that this project would produce. The problem it seems is that the investors, all foreigners, want to go through Chile because the facilities are better, the currency and economy much more stable and respected, and the difficulty of crossing the Andes is much less going to northern Chile. Also political risk is perceived to be far higher in Peru. Add these all up and the investors basically ask for too high a return on their money to make this palatable to the Bolivians. The only way to make it economically feasible is to go through Chile, but pride blocks that. Simple fact is that there is this country, Bolivia, that has voters and citizens up in arms saying they want many things they can't have due to the extreme poverty there. Its so bad that the leading opposition figure would basically with a nod and a wink allow for widescale cocaine production to bring in the needed capital to improve the standard of living. Leaving aside all issues on the drug wars, how can anyone think that this is a way to improve a country and clean up its rampant corruption is beyond me. Simply put this is truly an ungovernable nation right now with people willing to throw away a chance to possibly improve the standard of living so they can protect what little pride they have left. They can surely make those decisions and it looks like that is what they will have, but I just say this is their choice and they can't come crying to the world about it a year later.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
Wildbill...It's that "broke" pride. You hit the nail on the head. These Latin American countries are world leaders in poverty and pride, and they will always be. I'm not even sure the Latin culture is even capable of thinking in terms of the future. Latin America, now and forever, will always be coming up short. The culture doesn't have it in them.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,169
Messages
13,564,858
Members
100,753
Latest member
aw8vietnam
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com