The anti-corporation governments of Venezuela and Bolivia, will it spread to all south America?
596048
John, just to set the records stright, North and South is is considered America, we are all Americans, and Venezuela government is not against The United States of America, he is against the government and their internatinal policies. \nAnd he is not alone, he represents the mayority of the population from Latin American Countries.\nNot against a continent or a country, is against administrations and governments!
95443
Of course they do. Isn't Michael Moore divorcing his wife to marry Cindy?  Then they're going to run off to Venezuela to open up taco stores everywhere as well as McDonalds and KFC chains. Thought I read that in the Times.
1118055
according to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html\n"Recent administrations have expanded competition in seaports, railroads, telecommunications, electricity generation, natural gas distribution, and airports. Per capita income is one-fourth that of the US."\n\nIt goes on to say "The FOX administration is cognizant of the need to upgrade infrastructure, modernize the tax system and labor laws, and allow private investment in the energy sector, but has been unable to win the support of the opposition-led Congress. The next government that takes office in December 2006 will confront the same challenges of boosting economic growth, improving Mexico's international competitiveness, and reducing poverty. "\n\nIndustries:   \nfood and beverages, tobacco, chemicals, iron and steel, petroleum, mining, textiles, clothing, motor vehicles, consumer durables, tourism.  NOTICE: petroleum, ...to the US.  it's where we get our gas, folks.
987108
I believe everyone thinks Venezuela should control it, unless you are a Nazi and then you will agree with Bush and believe you should invade the country, rape the country for their resources and leave it in shambles or worse leave our troops to rot over there.  If you listen to Chavez speak to the U.N.  he has a lot of easy points to make to illustrate how Bush is an Imperialist.  Becareful our Good ol' Boy Bush might put us in much more trouble than he already has.  Vote 2008...Please....I'm begging.
926682
they have no right whatsoever - but that won't stop them - they have been meddling in South American politics for decades - largely to the detriment of the indigenous people.\n\nYet they seem to soon get up in arms as soon as another country dares to criticise them!
994409
Espero que hables español, mira el TLC en Estados Unidos se dice ALCA, por ahora parece que los Estados Unidos quiere firmar este contrato con Peru, Ecuador y con Colombia, ya que ya lo ha firmado con Chile y con Mexico.\n\nParece igual que Ecuador no esta queriendo firmarlo, pero el trato con el Peru sigue en pie, mientras ellos no den un paso infalso siguiendo la linea de paises de Chavez(Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil). \n\nGracias espero haberte ayudado.
716909
antiglobalizationists
504236
Washington takes into account what is good for the country, I'm posting some facts here and as you can see, if we were to take harsh measures, many U.S. companies would suffer retaliation and there is a great economic factor that people fail to realize. There has to be more enforcement on illegal immigration but we can't make it a witch hunt without getting into a situation that will affect our economic interests abroad. \n\nLaboring in Mexican factories, they receive a little over $3.00 a day, not nearly enough to maintain an adequate living standard. This alone may not surprise people. What is surprising is that more likely than not, these workers are employed by United States' companies! U.S. and European corporations now have the permission and the technology to locate factories throughout the third world. There they do not have to abide by the wage, safety, or environmental standards that are in effect here. Consequently, people in Mexico and Central America are receiving slave wages to manufacture products such as clothing or automobiles that will be profitably sold in the U.S.\n\nA critic might respond, "True, U.S. companies do pay low wages in Latin American nations. But if those companies were not there, the people would have no jobs, no wages. Therefore, those people should be grateful to have the opportunity to make at least some money." This argument sounds persuasive, but is born from ignorance of the history and extent of U.S. involvement in Latin America. As we shall see, the location of U.S. factories there is only the tip of the iceberg. The story of United States' engagement in Latin America is a long and complicated one.\n\nUntil the 1930s, the Latin American economy was based primarily on exporting raw materials to the industrial nations. But in 1929 the stock market crashed, and the ensuing depression spread to Latin America, which no longer had a strong market for its products. Many Latin American governments therefore embarked on a new economic course, one which seemed the most sensible at the time. Because exportation had proven too fraught with danger, these governments tried to achieve self-sufficiency under an economic plan called import substitution. This involved a state-led effort at economic growth, comprising nationalization of industries, tariffs to protect domestic products, and government investment in infrastructure (Green, Duncan. Silent Revolution: The Rise of Market Economics in Latin America. London: Casell, 1985. ps.15-17). By the 1960s, domestic industry supplied 95% of Mexico's consumer goods.\n\nThe decisive event leading to the current situation originated not in Latin America, however, but in the global community: the oil boom of the early 1970s. With so much new money pouring into the West, banks recklessly gave loans to third world nations, "believing,"in the words of Citicorp chairman Walter Wriston, that "'a country does not go bankrupt' as a private company could" (Green 21).\n\nLatin American nations gladly accepted these loans at good interest rates. Although their program of import substitution had prompted much development, it had also caused lasting inflation, inefficient business practices, and high unemployment. But the loans which seemed like a blessing quickly turned into a burden. At the end of the 1970s the U.S. raised interest rates from the traditional level of between 4 and 6% to over 20% ("Foreign Debt Tribunal - Verdict." Third World Resurgence 107 (July 1999) ps.19-21.) This forced Latin American nations to take out new loans just to pay the interest on the old ones. Something had to give, and in 1982 Mexico announced that it could no longer meet its debt repayments. Other nations followed suit.\n\nLatin America was now broken and vulnerable. Irrevocably in debt to the U.S. and Europe, it needed debt renegotiation and further loans. But with no bargaining power, it was forced to accept the ter
463043
Yes, but...\n\nThe biggest producer of oil in Latinamerica is of course, Venezuela. Venezuelan oil is of a better quality than Mexican oil. Some months ago they discovered a large deposit in the Gulf of Mexico. \n\nHowever, the problem is that the infrastructure of the government oil company, PEMEX, is outdated and the productivity of the employees in the fields, very low, compared to other countries.
1143824
The Mexican system is based in corruption,  the government don't care about the majorities(poor) the "mordida" rules everything, maybe you can check " por esto" is a Mexican news paper whit good information.use the translator to have the information .
288164
off course i think chavez is. he is one of the few leaders with balls enough to tell the americans to stay out of his countrys business
40357
It has monopolistic practices in many countries. It lost a case in Mexico recently:\n\nMexico has imposed its biggest anti-monopoly fines ever, totaling about US$68 million (euro58 million,) against Coca Cola and dozens of its distributors and bottlers, a battle won by one woman who got tired of being told what to sell at her one-room store in an impoverished Mexico City neighborhood.
652565
We sell airplanes to other countries, why not Russia?  Don't worry about it.  Cuba probably has a few 29's flying around.  Our Navy needs something to play with from time to time.  Just ask the Libyans.  As for who is Hugo Chavez...he is Venezuela's Fidel Castro.  Pro Communist and Anti-American President.
1060093
let's see now...drugs, latin america, ug- URAGUAY!!!\n\n\nno, ECUADOR!!!\n\n\nguess I'll have to do some cocaine from COLUMBIA???
933003
That's interesting. I think that they can. I think that brazil is one of those "quiet" countries that will eventually emerge as the next world leader. And I believe that they will do it without power or might but with their wisdom that they obtain from watching the rest of the world screw up in form or another.
998360
This is actually a problem that has been going on across Latin America (Mexico, Nicauragua, Honduras, Peru, etc) for a very long time, and the reason the USA never seems to do anything is because as each of these nations changes its government from pro-US to anti-US to pro-US again, changes our official response to the action. When the government doesn't like us, this is the crime of the millenium, but when it goes back to liking us we tend to forget about it (Nicauragua, as an example). It doesn't seem to matter who is in charge of these countries, the indigenous people always seem to get the short end of everything.
1089655
Chavez is a kook, but the world is shrinking and it will come to a place where their will be limits on individual ownership!\n\nhowever, if more people were philanthropic like warren buffet than the problems would decrease!