Originally Posted by Joao Dasilva

Lula is FHC!??

Originally Posted by Strider

I'd certainly hope not, that would mean Brazil has some Mission:Impossible style technology where they can make masks so lifelike they mold to your skin and nobody could tell the difference. So, obviously they're not the same person(unless the above scenario is true, in which case, I want the machine to make one of those masks).

However, their macroeconomic policies have not been overly different. This isn't a particularly controversial statement(except, perhaps, to those who so desperately want to believe the situation in Latin America is something other than what it is), I really can't think of any economists who would attempt to claim otherwise. Perhaps the biggest macroeconomic decision of Lula's first term was giving the central bank operational independence. How radical of him.

Yes.

By the way, you still haven't responded to anything I wrote in my original post. Does that mean you concede?

Originally Posted by Strider

Oh for crying out loud, are you 16 or something? Basically, you're saying that anyone whose worldview contradicts your own can simply be dismissed as enablers of 'the establishment'(tm). That shit might be fun when you're still in high school, but after that, you should really grow up and start debating like an adult. That means not pretending arguments don't count simply because you don't like the source.

So, just for the record, you have no response other than 'they say things I don't like, so I'm just going to pretend their views don't count'? Must be nice to have such a monopoly on objective truth that arguments you don't agree with don't even have to be responded to. Perhaps you should go work with those who deny climate change or evolution, you seem to have a similar mindset.


I couldn't tell you, as I googled Rochina health cooperative and found nothing that would indicate this thing even exists. The only thing that keeps coming up is a co-op run by women in the garment industry. Said co-op was founded in the early 1980s.

Of course, all of that is irrelevant to my argument, which is that macroeconomic policy between Cardoso and Lula has been remarkably continuous. You do understand what macroeconomic policy is, right? If you've got an explanation of what in the holy fuck a(as far as I can tell, non-existent)co-op has to do with macroeconimc policy, I'd sincerely like to hear it.



Actually, I went to Mexico and Central America. And I stayed in hostels(thankfully, they weren't fronting torture, mutilation, and murder for pay businesses, that would have put a damper on things).



Then it really shouldn't be particularly difficult for you to issue some rebuttals. Of course, that brings up the obvious question of why you keep wasting your time responding in the first place if you consider what I say to be such nonsense.

Originally Posted by Strider

You know, I keep hearing this from Chavez's cheering section, but I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate it(yeah, you have your lunatics on Fox, but even they don't devote more than a segment to him every now and then). Personally, I don't see Chavez getting a whole lot of attention in US media, either negative or positive. Frankly, I'd be surprised if most Americans even knew who the guy was.



Well, leaving aside for a second the fact that these views are not promoted in the US is rather bizarre claim to be coming from guy whose work is syndicated in over 500 American newspapers, the idea that outside the US, media coverage of Chavez doesn't portray him as an authoritarian with illiberal tendencies is just silly. Probably the single most consistent and articulate critic of Chavez has been The Economist, which is a British magazine(to hear Medialens tell it, just about every British publication except possibly The New Statesman is out to discredit Chavez).



Actually, it's not. A latinobarometro poll earlier this year showed that the percentage of Latin Americans with a negative view of Chavez was about the same as those who have a negative view of Bush. Interesting, no?

Then there's the fact that his very public support for Humala during the Peruvian elections backfired and led to Garcia's win. And the fact that even many of his domestic supporters have been a bit taken aback by his increase in radicalism after winning the December elections. So, I'd have to say that, in Latin America in general, his influence seems to have peaked.

And of course, when talking about the current political state in Latin America in general, some people are just seeing what they want to see. As I've said before, the current state of Latin American politics is many things, but one thing it most certainly isn't is the mass revolt against the Washington Consensus some people so desperately want it to be. Sorry 'bout that chap.

Originally Posted by Joao Dasilva

Tell me, is the Health Cooperative in Rochina open?

Was it in 1998?