The Wall Street Journal has written it’s latest “just so” article about how leftist Latin American leaders (Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela) are bad and rightist Latin American leaders (Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) are wonderful. It quotes favorably this dismissal of progressive leaders.
The balance between QE and Treasury supply will begin to shift in July. The underlying bid it has provided for stocks and Treasuries will begin to fade.
This report tells why, and what to look for in the data and the markets. GO TO THE POST
“’We set out to create the Pacific Alliance because we wanted to set ourselves apart from the populists,’ said Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, a former Peruvian finance minister. ‘We wanted a thinking man’s axis.’”
No thinking women, allowed, of course. Dr. Michelle Bachelet just busted the “axis” by being re-elected President of Chile by a large margin. No one intelligent, of course, could be a progressive, at least that is what the right claims.
The supposed proof of this was that Morgan Stanley predicts that the four rightist nations (ignoring Bachelet’s electoral triumph) will have higher GDP growth in 2014 than will the three leftist nations. I will set aside for purposes of this column the fact that Morgan Stanley despises the progressive Latin American leaders and panders to the oligarchs and the fact that Morgan Stanley forecasts of Latin American growth have greatly underestimated the growth of progressive nations.
Mexico is an odd champion of the right. It has recently had the worst GDP growth of any of the Latin American nations Morgan Stanley discussed.
As the author of the WSJ column wrote in a prior column about Carlos Slim, privatization in Mexico has been disastrous for Mexico’s democracy and economy because it has produced monopoly and massively increased inequality.
Mexico is now heading into an even more disastrous wave of privatization.
The WSJ column and the Morgan Stanley forecasts ignore Ecuador because it would have contradicted their claims. President Correa is an economist, and one whose predictions have proven far more accurate than the oligarchs’ economists. (Dr. Bachelet is a pediatrician.) The right cannot dismiss Correa or Bachelet’s intelligence without making their ideological biases embarrassingly apparent. Per capita GDP in Ecuador, measured on the conventional purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, was 58% of Mexico’s when Correa was elected in 2007. As of yearend 2012, the most recent date when comparative PPP data are available, that ratio has increased to 65%. Ecuador’s per capita GDP growth in 2013 has been much faster than Mexico’s so Ecuador continues to gain quickly on Mexico under Correa’s economic policies.
Under Correa, poverty has fallen sharply in Ecuador. The GDP growth is not simply going into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs.
Inflation has not been a problem in Ecuador. Ecuador gets left out of the right wing narratives about Latin America because it falsifies the narrative and makes it clear that the Latin American nations that have elected progressive leaders are not some monolithic “axis,” but rather sovereign states that follow diverse policies reflecting the electorate’s views and the preferences of their democratically-elected leaders. Ecuador and Chile’s economies have proven so successful under progressive leadership that the oligarchs’ apologists find it is essential to edit them out of history.
Wall Street Examiner Disclosure: Lee Adler, The Wall Street Examiner reposts third party content with the permission of the publisher. The opinions expressed in these reposts are not those of the Wall Street Examiner or Lee Adler, unless authored by me, under my byline. I curate posts here on the basis of whether they represent an interesting and logical point of view, that may or may not agree with my own views. Some of the content includes the original publisher's promotional messages. No endorsement of such content is either expressed or implied by posting the content. All items published here are matters of information and opinion, and are neither intended as, nor should you construe it as, individual investment advice. Do your own due diligence when considering the offerings of information providers, or considering any investment.