Bolivia's socialists claim victory as unofficial count shows big win
uk.mobile.reuters.com
uk.mobile.reuters.com
The issues that interview covers have been widely discussed. Surely there's someone with an agenda other than "give this guy batting practice pitches right over the plate" that has asked him his opinion. This guy is a politician, being in the media, answering questions and talking about his opinion is part of his job. He's certainly done more interviews than just this one.
Furthermore, a friendly interview is much less informative than a neutral or hostile interview. Anyone can hit batting practice pitches. Anyone can answer questions from a friendly interviewer. A politician's answer to tough questions or to having their answers questioned is far more informative. Jacobin interviewing a leftist/socialist is like Tucker Carlson interviewing some ardent "muh religion and family values" type right winger. It's just a forum for the interviewee to pontificate mostly unchallenged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Jacobins
But you'd have to read to figure that out.
Fun remark : only the English Wikipedia article emphasis so much on a link Jacobin-left (for the languages i can read). On the other hand, the french article is much more careful and emphasis more on the difficulty and evolution of interpretation.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe a magazine doesn't want to be neutral? Maybe that's their competitive edge, maybe that's what their customers are after.
You're just imposing your own values on a business entity.
https://computo.oep.org.bo/?fbclid=IwAR1ZEacVZhmfMUUoFPklcIz...
he might win outright
https://as.com/diarioas/2020/10/20/actualidad/1603185745_540...
This claim has been debunked after the OAS finally released their data set. The original report fucked up the time stamps, which means the "hard-to-explain change in the preliminary results" never actual occurred.
https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/bolivia-macro-2019-1...
Can’t we just accept that the devil is in the details. Quality of government matters more than you political ideology, with respect to economic growth.
If they decide to purge it will take less time to "recover", if they make a national unity government, then it might take considerably longer
But he wasn't. He was responding, in kind, to a tweet that came out with a red herring about America organizing coup to benefit Musk. And those guys are a dime a dozen online. Their one trick is to always post about how evil America is regardless of context. They are supremely annoying.
>probably did help cause
Where are you getting that from?
This is a bad faith interpretation of that tweet. They were responding to a tweet about unnecessary government expenditure with an example of another expenditure that (allegedly) Musk supported. You can call it a whataboutism or attack it for a number of other things, but this is an irrelevant strawman.
What are you talking about? The tweet Musk trolled is in bad faith. That doofus accused Musk of staging a coup. And yes, it is 'whataboutism'.
>another expenditure that (allegedly) Musk supported
Allegedly? Who alleged this? Where are you getting that from?
> Allegedly? Who alleged this?
Literally the tweet you are attacking. I'm not sure if you are playing dumb on purpose or what.
The clear role lithium played on the coup, the known pressure placed by the US to force that coup, and the economic benefit to Tesla both immediately after the coup and long term. I'll admit it's hardly conclusive, but it's enough that his response was terrible.
If you're an internet marxist and accuse someone (without evidence) of staging or supporting a coup .. you're not actually holding anyone for their actions... you're just acting like a douchebag marxist.
>and the economic benefit to Tesla both immediately after the coup and long term.
And to you as well, after all, lower lithium prices mean lower prices for any battery-operated electronics. Maybe you're behind this coup as well?
>I'll admit it's hardly conclusive
I think you can state it more strongly than that. It's a conspiracy theory in the mold of infowars.
Only Marxists oppose coups? If you don't want people to blame you for a coup, maybe don't make your first public statement about it be a douchebag admission of guilt.
>And to you as well, after all, lower lithium prices mean lower prices for any battery-operated electronics. Maybe you're behind this coup as well?
I would stand to gain a few dollars, Musk would gain billions. As I think the US helped with this coup, I would be behind it as well, but not to the same degree.
>I think you can state it more strongly than that. It's a conspiracy theory in the mold of infowars.
Both the foreign interests ties and the US ties have some evidence, you just can't conclusively show Musk's involvement. Given the events of the past century, suspecting US involvement in a South American coup is hardly crazy.
No. But I looked up the twitter account and a hammer/sickle is a tell-tale sign of Marxists.
>you just can't conclusively show Musk's involvement.
Let's be clear, you can't show ANY involvement by Musk. So all you're left with is FUD.
Except the bit where he admitted it. I don't have any further evidence that he played a role in an incredibly beneficial event for him, that is true.
Let's just agree on this: responding with a troll response to a Marxist troll who accuses you of being complicit with a Bolivian coup, is not 'admitting' anything. It boggles my mind how you can possibly think otherwise.
Personally it didn't sit right with me that he ran (and won) for president unconstitutionally the last time, because I feel like that just gives the coup-ers some legitimacy, and a president ruling a country for that amount of time is a little bit too Putin-y for me.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/an...
Not sure how you got that from my comment, which implicitly mentioned China's own abuses.
I don't recommend you to use that example again, because it would only make you look bad to anyone who knows what he's/she's arguing about
When Pinochet was forced to step down from power, Chile had a ~39% poverty rate, which if we were to use today's new poverty metric it would be around 70% poverty. [pg17]
https://www.undp.org/content/dam/chile/docs/pobreza/undp_cl_...
If you'd like it in graph form, here's a GINI/GDP graph of Chilean presidential administrations
X axis is GDP, rightmost is better, Y axis is GINI, highest GINI means stronger inequality
As you can easily see, all the advancements on Chile's development have come since Pinochet stepped down from power and his reforms removed one by one, the source of that data was from the Chilean Central Bank
Also, there was an interview around 8 years ago, where historians outlined that basically the only reason why Pinochet stepped down was because the CIA informed him that the US would not continue to prop up his regime, as Pinochet wanted to renege on the vote to step down from power, but the at the time General in charge of the Navy and the General in charge of the Airforce both of them disagreed with Pinochet, so had the CIA not done so, it could have ended on civil war.
And what's interesting of it all, is that the CIA had documents/assessments which stated that if Pinochet were to continue in power, the already rampant poverty and growing slums in Santiago would work as perfect spots for a hard Communist uprising along the MIR and FPMR, both groups communist guerrillas which had already tried to assassinate Pinochet. So the US stopping support of Pinochet was again, intended to advance their own interests in the country
But yeah, slowly things which were done while Pinochet was in power are being corrected
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-...
> ...We show that the sale of state-owned firms in dictatorships can help political corporations to emerge and persist over time. Using new data, we characterize Pinochet’s privatizations in Chile and find that some firms were sold underpriced to politically connected buyers. These newly private firms benefited financially from the Pinochet regime. Once democracy arrived, they formed connections with the new government, financed political campaigns, and were more likely to appear in the Panama Papers. These findings reveal how dictatorships can influence young democracies using privatization reforms.
On the other: Volkswagens!
There are clearly two sides to the debate here. /s
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/09/life-under-pi...