Another Socialist Victory in South America

The US trended left as well during times of poverty (Great Depression). So it's not surprising that Latin America has elected more leftist politicians.The question is whether they can help that much.Imo, there are several things Latin America needs to get it's people out of the miserable poverty afficting them.1. Less corruption at all levels of government.
2. Clear title and property rights, especially for land.
3. The US and Latin America to legalize, regulate, and tax the drug trade.If these 3 things don't happen, I wouldn't expect a lot of improvement.

Those are the core issues, imo, not whether a more or less leftist regime takes power except that if a leftist regime hurts property rights, it probably will have a detrimental effect in the long run.The sad thing is that it is not that the solutions are not there, and not apparent. it's that the political situation prevents these solutions from taking place.

Yea, we've been trending left in a lot of ways.....

I was thinking of the recent case where all the conservatives on the court voted against and all the more liberal justices voted for the right of eminent domain to seize private property to give to other private landowners and call it "public use."I also think of an increase in the corruption factor as leftist to some degree since growth of government spending encourages illegal manipulation of government to obtain contracts.In terms of owning property, I think the fact interest rates have been low has meant more ownership, not less, for most people not just the top wealthy families as you claim.

Care to back that up? Last count I heard, home ownership rates have never been higher.

Hardly. You picked a very limited view, and we expect fluctuations, but contrary to your claims, you haven't backed up your point. It appears home ownership is indeed pretty high.You claimed home ownership was becoming harder and harder.....I expected you to present historical rates of home ownership versus rates for the past 5 years or so. Instead, you pick a one point differential in those past 5 years, and you think that's a good argument?What the heck is that RAZD?Your link shows home ownership rates have climbed more or less since 1965, which was at 63% until today which is around 68%. Read it for yourself.http://www.census.gov/...ww/housing/hvs/qtr205/q205tab5.htmlThis message has been edited by randman, 01-29-2006 02:08 PM

Home ownership rates since 198969.1 68.6
2004.... 68.6 69.2 69.0 69.2
2003.... 68.0 68.0 68.4 68.6
2002\r.. 67.8 67.6 68.0 68.3
2002.... 67.8 67.6 68.0 68.3
2001.... 67.5 67.7 68.1 68.0
2000.... 67.1 67.2 67.7 67.51999.... 66.7 66.6 67.0 66.9
1998.... 65.9 66.0 66.8 66.4
1997.... 65.4 65.7 66.0 65.7
1996.... 65.1 65.4 65.6 65.4
1995.... 64.2 64.7 65.0 65.1
1994.... 63.8 63.8 64.1 64.2
1993\r.. 63.7 63.9 64.2 64.2
1993.... 64.2 64.4 64.7 64.6
1992.... 64.0 63.9 64.3 64.4
1991.... 63.9 63.9 64.2 64.2
1990.... 64.0 63.7 64.0 64.1
1989\r.. 63.9 63.8 64.1 63.8http://www.census.gov/...ww/housing/hvs/qtr205/q205tab5.htmlLike I said, it's never been higher. The past 2 years, we have seen home ownership rates around 68-69%. In fact, home ownership rates have been higher every single year of the Bush presidency than Clinton's presidency, BushI, Reagan, Carter, etc,...never been higher than the past 2 years. That's a fact.Look at the numbers for yourself, RAZD.This message has been edited by randman, 01-29-2006 02:12 PM

What the heck are you talking about? Buying is down this past year because people bought so much last year when interest rates were so low. Now they have risen and the home-buying market is not so overheated. So what!Home ownership has never been higher, ever, in American history. Your thesis is just flat out wrong.

nwr, obviously I am referring to owning a home but probably with debt. The increase in home ownership is due to easier credit.

There's a reason the nations that adopt socialism are generally poor, but some folks still think it's the way.

RAZD, ownership rates have a great deal significance. The more people that own homes, the less people there are to buy homes.Ever consider that?The fact is it became so easy for most people to buy a home that what has happened is the demand increased and with easier credit, home prices rose. So the market was so good with so much demand and so many people able to buy homes, that in some sense, it probably overheated, and now we see many homes priced out of the market for some existing non-home owners, but even there, to say people cannot by a home is absurd. The issue is probably what sort of home do they want to buy. Homes are more expensive so the same money won't get you the same home. You have to either move or wait for circumstances to change.But regardless, the simple fact is the past 5 years, it's been easier to buy a home than ever before, and more Americans own homes than ever before. Home buying and construction has been a mainstay of the economy for the past 5 years, and considering that, it is not surprising to see home buying slow, just a little.Your thesis is just flat out wrong.

Robbing their employees of a fair salary? Why do evos here seem to be so left-wing?

You'd think a good understanding of economics would make academic types lean right, towards a free market and trade, and not the other way around. It seems a lot of science folks that are evos advocate pretty much straight-up socialism, which seems very odd considering socialism had been such a miserable failurein the 20th century.

So the Republican party is both the party of the rich and poorly educated, eh?Let me ask you something. You think most upperm middle class to wealthy people, professionals like doctors, lawyers, accountants, and small business people, are more poorly educated?

Most doctors and small business people are liberal??What world do you live in, crash?