While I hesitate to respond to trolls, I do feel compelled to respond to repeated fallacies, half truths, and lies. Capitalism has never taken much hold in Latin America. Capitalism has had little to do with Latin America's woes. Per the Midwest, the free hand theory was born long after Spanish (and Portuguese) domination of Latin America. Spain wasn't a free market (which is separate from capitalism, indeed, capitalists frequently side against free markets when it suits them) nor was it capitalist. the "accepted" practice at the time came to be known as "mercanitilism."
http://m-w.com/dictionary/mercantilism
This theory, along with basic human nature, led the spanish to take gold from Latin America. Per Hegel, the master became the slave. The influx of gold allowed spain to thrive without really developing a sustainable economy. In exchange, spain exported it's culture of corruption and large bureuacracy to Latin America. When the influz of gold waned, so did Spain. While most credit Smith with bringing together existing economic thought, it was Ricardo who was most responsible for the spread of capitalism and international trade. That it as more important to deploy capital where it was most useful, rather than to hoarde it in treasuries. that nations had competitive advantages even where they were not absolutely more efficient in any one thing. Latin America never really caught on to the revolution and instead has been stuck in a never ending state of feudalism, corruption, marxism, and strongmen who blame the rest of the world for its problems. As for people believing in these economies, bear in mind many well educated people believed that Stalin was a visionary and communism was ultimately the future. There had been reports of what was happening there, but they were dismissed until later. FDR himself was an admirer and considered "Uncle Joe" Stalin a friend.
As for foreign ownership of corporations, foreign capital has always been necessary to build countries much the way a new business borrows money from outsiders. In some cases, foreign competition breaks up cozy domestic relationships thar are a raw deal for consumers. An example woudl be the domestic auto industry and a more recent example is Wal-Mex. Much derided in the US, it has continued it's double edged sword killing small businesses in Mexico but also drastically cutting the cost of living there in poor rural regions by bringing it's emphasis on low costs and efficient distribution to a country plagued by government tolerated (or encouraged) cartels and "gentlemans" agreements."

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

I apologize if my writing was not clear in the last post. I tried to be concise, on an admittedly technical issue, without sounding too "wonky." The question that you pose about the "international capitalists" who were holding Latin America hostage is precisely what I was attempting to answer. Let me revisit it.

The elasticity of demand for a particular commodity relates to how sensitive the product's demand is to changes in price. Gas, for instance, is traditionally viewed as having inelastic demand - we will continue to demand relatively similar quantities, no matter the price. Now, the charge that dependency theorists (such as yourself) level at the "international capitalists" is that "they" forced these Latin America countries to export products (like coffee or bananas) with high demand elasticity. As the theory goes, these countries would never be able to turn real profits, because the products they exported were very elastic.

As I said, the problem with this theory is that it was constructed in hindsight, to fit a particular historical circumstances. The degree to which something like this can be generalized speaks to its value as a "theory" and not just "speculation." As I said, your theory does not generalize well - see India for a great example of a post-colonial country that is currently thriving.

More importantly, though, your theory of "international capitalists" holding these countries hostage just doesn't fit the facts. I mentioned Mr. Rodrik's work - he found that when many of these countries made an effort to increase the profitability of their exports, demand increased. Moreover, the real exchange rate was found to be a more important determinant of demand than, say, elasticity.

We would say that these Latin American countries had a comparative advantage in the products that they exported. When these countries attempted to move in to other industries, like automobile production, they did so with high-tariff barriers and import substitution policies, which led to locally produced good of inferior quality.

I mentioned Hernando de Soto in an earlier post, and I would encourage you to look in to his work. He had shown, rather convincingly, that many of the development problems in Latin America (and other "developing world" countries) stem from a lack of formalized property rights, and the existence of "dead" capital. His book is called "the mystery of capital."

I would appreciate if, in future posts, you would stop asking rhetorically "do you know..." or "how could I...", as this sort of argumentation is not particularly compelling. Instead, you might offer your own explanation. I have responded to your objections. The burden of proof, it would seem, is on you.

Hmmm...I wonder what profit there was in that?

As I've said, Euros came LA and and introduced capitalism around the place's natural resources. They also introduced racism, and Christianity, both of which create poverty(not the WASP version), and benefits captalism by creating cheap labor. Low education also creates support for capitalism as the uneducated do not understand how to gain control of power, and may not know that there's a life beyond what they have.

Wealth mostly has to do with natural resources there and even this was defeated by international capitalism. Food companies made sure that the various countries adopted a one crop policy. This was then used to drive down prices as countries with the same crop around the world were played against each other. The corporations doing this did more than anyone to destroy the economy of many Latin countries.

Much like the US, most of Latin America is a Plutocracy, but of a very extreme nature, and even more racist.

again, you need to brush up on your terminology. capitalism isn't the same word as profit. Capitalism is a theory where capital is deployed where it earns the highest return. Accounting profit is the revenues in excess of COGS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit

were that but it true. the "Euros" were the spanish and portuguese, neither of which were capitalist countries.
and education creates opportunity for capitalism as productivity increases as does innovation. these things are separate from capitalism, which is a theory where capital is deployed where it's most useful. It's up to the country what social system they have. If minority rights and property rights are not protected, that leaves room for individuals to abuse others whether they use borrowed capital or not (mostly in latin america, they ran a fuedal system).
how about some detail? what one crop? AFAIK, more damaging than anything else has been the drug war and the developed world's subsidizing of their own agriculture which depresses world prices. most developing nations get their start in natural resources, excepting small places such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai. how is that chile has developed an economy with improving living standards and rising wages based on natural resources?
Racism is certainly a problem here. However, ignorant ideas about one's neighbors isn't strictly European. The US is increasingly a plutocracy, but that doesn't make it different than most countries. The US never really ahd an entrenched aristrocracy as in Europe (which is one of the sources of European feelings of cultural superiority). Indeed, the industrialists and capitalists were very much disliked by the old guard back in the 19th c. Men like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford were of modest backgrounds. Bush is a symptom of decay, not strength. but that's besides the point. The US was built during a period of unprecedented international trade and fairly free markets. It benefitted substantially from capitalism (our nation was built with foreign capital). Unlike Latin America,the US saved and eventually paid off its debt and became a creditor (even if we've since squandered it). Latin America, on teh other hand, has been run by a bunch of corrupt boobs where invested capital has been wasted by governments that share little with their people and have little regard for investing capital in productive assets. As such, borrowed money never produces anything and the people never see the benefits, and can't save, while the governments spend. On and off nationalizations make it quite risky and therefore expenive to borrow.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

You are way too literal.

Capitalism is a term, and that's it. What it's really about is behavior, profit seeking by an individual or group via the control of production. If king X has his soldiers kill people to control gold mine A for the benefit of his treasury, then the king's a capitalist.

To keep profits up the king has to make slaves to do the mining, which needs to be justified, which inspires racism/classism/religious condemnation. What you get is workers being exploited for the purpose of profit.

That was quite a long time ago, but there's no argument about the single crop strategy mentioned, which was in the modern era. That was a direct setup to dupe whole countries into working for next to nothing in order to supply the west with cheap fruit.



Who are you smirking at sir?

it is a term, which you play fast and loose with so you can make points that fit your goals. while there is no exact definition of capital, it is most certainly not a king invading another country. I don;t agree with the following definitions 100%, but then, nobody agrees 100% on the definition. However, what is clear, is that the definition you hold is manufactured by Marx himself, and subsequently used to mislabel the modern market system with the ultimate goal of deception. What if Chavez invaded Bolivia for its natural gas for his treasury, which was subsequently redistributed to his people in order to shore up support? A US invasion of Iraq benefitted Haliburton, but it hardly benefitted all capitalists. In any system there is the danger of people not respecting other's rights and using force to take what they want. the desire for more is human, not capitalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Capitalism.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...apitalism.html
according to you, who is backed by no economic theory. the point of the free market system, in theory, is to find a balance where economic profit does not exist, called equilibrium.
we buy fruit in a market system from Cost Rica (your admired "communist" country) and Chile which seems to be doing quite well. I'm not aware of any conspiracy to dupe countries, so if you could give me some pointers to look for that information I'ad appreciate it. Stranger things have happened in this world. It is possible, of course, that some countries had a competitive advantage in growing some fruits, such as bananas, that had value on the world market.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

TheAdlerian: If you'll forgive my (slightly) juvenile example, let's try a thought experiment.

I can posit that there are monsters under my bed. I have not actually checked whether or not there are monsters under my bed, nor have I presented anyone with any research to confirm that there are monsters. Rather, I'd prefer that everyone take it on my own authority.

Let's further posit that a number of others have actually researched the situation. They've checked under my bed, or read books written by others who have checked. Those who have investigated have conclusively decided that there are no monsters under my bed. When they present this information to me, though, I remain unconvinced, and when challenged on why I cling to my beliefs, I cite myself as an authority - "there are monsters under my bed because I said so, and there should be no argument about it." If I proceed this way, I'm going to lose credibility, because - if I have no other authority, no text, to appeal to - my reasoning is circular.

Such is the frustration of this particular argument. Over the past day, both eldondre and myself have presented a number of verifiable facts in rebuttal of the points you have made. Most of these points have been dropped, which - in a traditional debate - means that the opponent has conceded them. In return, though, more claims are made, and none of them are sourced or referenced to anyone other than yourself. I am very interested in having this discussion, but it's difficult when - no matter how strong a rebuttal is provided - there is no willingness to conceed a compromised point of view, or to provide references.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about because you can't think out of the box.

The idea of capitalism was formulated because it evolved into being over centuries of activity. You seem to think that some guy sat down one day and decided to invent the idea like a toaster. Then, he marketed his toaster and everyone bought one.

The fact is that there's little difference between a feudal lord collecting the work of farmer serfs and a factory or mine owner from the early 20th, or even today. Currently, we have dynasties of the rich who live in this country, which is supposed to be against that, and although they aren't called aristocrats, that's what they are. A rose by any other name, and all that.

Your legalistic view of the situation is very limiting.

1. according to you, who is backed by no economic theory. the point of the free market system, in theory, is to find a balance where economic profit does not exist, called equilibrium.

I have no idea what that means.

2. we buy fruit in a market system from Cost Rica (your admired "communist" country) and Chile which seems to be doing quite well.

You don't know what I'm talking about regarding the single crop economy. It doesn't refer to a current situation, it might though.


Point:

The original point of this discussion was that Latin American people, especially Indians and mixed people, have been getting exploited by capitalists from day one, and that is why Marxist ideas keep surfacing. The people believe that they're good concepts.

You certainly have not.

I've presented a huge number of realities about the situation. The responses seem to be from people who don't know much about history or more than one economic theory.

My best points relate to the fact that there is no functioning capitalist country, capitalists were forced to introduce communist elements into this country, and all others, to maintain control, this country relies on foreign slaves to make its products so that CEOs and stock holders make profit, capitalism creates poverty, capitalism fosters racism and every other kind of ism to lock out competition, it harms family life, affects male/females, and lots more.

Meanwhile, a communist approach makes the most sense for a reduction in crime, human suffering, and allowing beneficial people the opportunity to help society. It is very logical in life of the fact that we will all die one day and that quality of life, for all, not just Paris Hilton, is important. The reason why people find this evil is because of cultural indoctrination and sometimes dreams related to greed.

Unless you've read this thread and the other you can't accuse me of being vague, because I've been anything but.

I haven't read the entirety of the other thread yet - it's 11 pages, and my lunch break isn't that long. I will try and get to it tonight, because I'm interested to see if you've sourced your viewpoints. But, vis a vis this thread, let me put it another way - it's as if you've submitted a research paper without a "works cited" page.

A great example is the above quote. Surely you must admit, it's an awfully loaded paragraph. Not only have you prescribed communism as a universal panacea for human suffering, but you've written off all opposition to it as cultural indoctrination. Further, and most importantly, you haven't told me how it will do any of that.

Those few sentences - if true - more or less invalidate a few decade's worth of literature on the importance of the price mechanism, the problems of price controls, and the pratfalls of central economic planning. It should not come as a surprise, then, that someone might hesistate to take your word for it.