Another Socialist Victory in South America

Lets be fair here, he didn't say 'all' evos were left-wing, just that the ones at EvC seemed left wing. Obviously this is Randman's subjective opinion so one possible answer would be because Randman himself is very right-wing so anyone to the left of Norman Tebbit, I don't know who the American equivalent would be (Dick Cheney perhaps), looks left-wing to him.It is also possible that there really are a disproportionate number of liberals here compared to the general populace and that part of the reason is because this isn't a random sampling but is particularly people interested in the EvC debate.TTFN,WK

I believe this is a reply to me. You might want to use the reply button at the bottom of my post rather than the general reply button at the top. I'm in europe and sometimes the number of posts between the last time I post and when I wake up prevents me from reading through posts except ones indicate as being a reply to my own. No jesus complex please. I thought your analysis was interesting and indeed could eventually prove true. My criticisms are aimed at where I think you have overstepped your reasoning and drawn conclusions that are too specific to make at this time, or perhaps ignorant of a few facts regarding Bolivia.I suppose I do detect a bit of anti-socialist ideology, but that doesn't really matter. Well again, it is part of their regular lives so they'll be selling it to each other nonetheless. The stated goal of Evo was to try and restrict growth to legitimate use needs within the nation, rather than total eradication of coca and so their culture as demanded by the US. Is there a reason you believe that could not be done?In any case I also argued that I did not see any necessity in their pursuing the US drug war at all. If that nation can sell coca for that much, perhaps they should legalize it and reap the profits of that industry. It would be no different than all of the things the US makes which other nations do not like, yet will not stop because it is profitable for the US. That is correct, thus attempts to eradicate supply which inherently wipe out cultures is a bit backward. As far as your discussion of how we can eradicate demand, that is OT. Personally I think its a medical issue that does not need any legal tool to deal with.Drug addiction (as opposed to simple usage), particularly the kind which reduces people's lives to nothing, can be treated in the same way as "natural" causes which reduce people's lives to nothing. Yeah, but that makes sense. He is going to have to deal with leaders in that region, particularly likeminded leaders. I grant you that his associations could have bad results, but it is not at all clear that they will, or that it would be any worse than if he was to associate himself with Bush. This brings us back to the points I raised regarding socialism v capitalism. How is the above not true for the US, specifically under Bush. Bush has not only tight control of the military, but also the legislative, legal, education, and emergency services. His administration has been the most crony oriented since perhaps the late 1800s/early 1900s.It seems to me this is what occurs in all gov'ts and can be particularly bad regardless of politico-economic viewpoint.In the case of Morales, this could be seen as a very positive shake-up of the military system so that it is more representative of the will of the majority population and not beholden to US interests. Without that fact, his actions might have stronger implications, but not as it currently stands.Can I ask why we are to worry about Bolivia, rather than the exact same thing happening within our own nation? And as far as I know he has not called for renunciation of civil liberties in order to fight the "capitalist menace", which we are being sold here.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

WK, reading the political comments, from being very pro-Chavez, pro-socialism and anti-capitalism, from a sizeable group of evos here, it appears that the evos here are far more left-wing than most people.

RAZD, you have a lot of misconceptions. Interest rates are not low because home prices are high. There is no historical or any sort of analysis you can make to support that, and just the fact you make that statement shows you have no clue at all as to the basic facts in this arena.Interest rates are tied to the FED, which really sets interest rates to either counter inflation or deflation.The fact is more people bought homes than ever when interest rates were at their lowest. I showed that. In the past year, it is true that home buying has slowed, a very tiny bit, but interest rates have not been lowered further as your thesis suggests. In fact, the time that home buying has slowed a little corresponds to interest rates climbing.Your whole line of reasoning, basic understanding of economics, etc,...is completely and wholly wrong.

Two things:(1) - The fed raised the interest rate, but mortgage rates went down: so much for your "Interest rates are tied to the FED" ... seems market plays more of a roll.(2) - Heard yesterday that sales of "second-hand" homes was at a two year low.Interest rates are low because there is no market for mortgages. The reason there is no market for mortages is because the price of homes is more than people want to pay ... they are too high for the market.It's classic.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

So why do fundamentalists keep charging evolutionary theory with leading to materialism and lack of social concern?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Wrong again razd. Sure, mortgage rates are not automatically tied to the FED, but monetary policy plays a great role in interest rates, and everyone with any basic knowledge of the industry knows this.Furthermore, home ownership is still high. Bottom line is you cannot get around that fact no matter how much spin you throw out there.Are real estate prices inflated? Yep. Why is that? Because demand was so high it drove up prices. Why was that? Simple, because more Americans were buying and owning homes than ever before.Now, there is a very small correction in the market. People are not buying quite as much. That's to be expected. Prices are higher than they should be, but contrary to your claims, that's not because buying a home was so difficult, but the opposite. Interest rates were so low along with other factors that more Americans bought homes than ever before, and drove up demand and thus prices. Your analysis is 100% wrong, and pretty much anyone with even a casual knowledge of the real estate industry knows this.Get over it and just admit you were wrong.

Let's see.I've stated a position Message 21: (color added for emPHASisThen I've backed that claim with evidence (Message 23): and And (Message 80): I've restated the original thesis when you tried to take it off topic (Message 74): and (Message 80): You call this spin.Meanwhile you claimed that housing was "at an all time high" and that evidence of a continued base rate (~2/3rds) of home ownership was evidence that houses were selling Message 26, even though this is - at best - only a measure of net movement and not gross movement (the topic under discussion).This error was pointed out several times (Message 27, Message 33, Message 34, Message 38, Message 42) and yet you still referred to it (Message 45 and Message 82).I challenged you to derive the information from your evidence (Message 74): You have so far failed to even address this point.You also make irrelevant claims like this one (Message 29): and (Message 79): Actually you did not show it, you just claimed it, with no evidence provided at all.These claims are irrelevant because they do not address the ability of people to afford houses at current prices with current wages. If anything, what these claims support is one possible reason why people cannot afford houses at current prices with current wages (which bolsters my argument).Or made claims that have been refuted (Message 79): by (Message 80): You have not refuted on piece of evidence I have given, not supported your position with any real evidence, throw in casual ad hominems, and continue to present falsified concepts in your argument, and you call my posts spin.What keeps me coming back to this topic are two things:(1) It's classic (conservative) supply and demand economics: houses aren't selling so mortgage rates are down, and stay down even when the fed raises the base rate; houses aren't selling because the cost exceeds the ability to pay (and whether this is due to house prices being over-valued or wages being under-valued or both is irrelevant).(2) It demonstrates your modus operandi on a (supposedly) neutral topic: you ignore counter-indicative evidence, continue to claim evidence that has been refuted, claim to have given evidence you have not provided, and to restate claims that have been invalidated.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*12*2006 01:07 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.