OpEdNews: Why is The Economist Chortling over the Prospect of Oil Pollution in Ecuador?

[Judi Lynn]

OpEdNews Op Eds 10/18/2013 at 05:39:54
Why is The Economist Chortling over the Prospect of Oil Pollution in Ecuador?
By William K. Black, J.D., Ph.D.

Reprinted from neweconomicperspectives.org

The Economist has increasingly been copying the descent of the Wall Street Journal into dogma. One of it perennial hates is President Rafael Correa of Ecuador. Correa, an economist, has committed the unforgivable offense of succeeding through economic policies that The Economist despises. This is passing strange because Correa's four foundational policies are expanded health care, expanded education, improved infrastructure, and encouraging entrepreneurs by reducing the time and cost of starting a business in Ecuador.

The Economists' pages are littered with praise for right-wing governmental leaders and candidates who promise that they will implement those same four policies (but rarely do in practice). Correa has actually delivered on his promises -- quickly -- and the improvements in the economy of Ecuador and the lives of ordinary citizens have been huge. The result is that Correa is the second most popular head of state in the Americas.

"Danilo Medina of the Dominican Republic and Ecuador's Rafael Correa of Ecuador are the two most popular leaders in the western hemisphere, according to a survey by the Mexican polling firm of Consulta Mitofsky. The two posted approval ratings of 88% and 84% respectively in a survey of American leaders."

(And, as the link shows, Ecuador has qualified for the World Cup despite the tragic death of a star player.)

Correa's popularity is over twice as high as the heads of state in the Americas such as Canadian Prime Minister Harper and Chilean President Sebastià ¡n Pià ±era Echenique that the Economist praises. The Economist has lost the discipline to contain its hate and play it straight when it comes to Correa. Its September 28, 2013 article tries to pervert the approval of the people of Ecuador for their elected leader into an attack on Correa. Even weirder, it portrays policies it claims to champion (Correa's four foundational policies), as akin to bribing the populace.

More:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-is-The-Economist-Chort-by-William-K-Black--Ecuador_Oil-And-Resource-Wars_Oil-Policy_Oil-Politicians-131018-257.html

[Demeter]

1. Those that can, do, those that can't (or won't), turn to right-wing conservatism!

[Socialistlemur]

2. So far this article is empty

It doesn't really say much about what the Economist says. It seems to be more of a propaganda piece for correa.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Contrary to the opinion of our RW poster, above, it is a brilliant article...

...and we need many more like it, exposing the disinformation and sneering "neo-liberal" propaganda of the Econo-myst and all of its Associated Pukes brethren (the entirety of the corpo-fascist press).

The article, by William Black, quotes extensively from the Econo-myst.

Here is one example of William Black's analysis. First he quotes the Econo-myst:

"Mr Correa is popular, thanks to an economic boom engineered by higher public spending, paid for by raising oil royalties and Chinese loans."

So much bile and misleading innuendo in a single sentence! Note that when The Economist praises Texas and other states with Republican governors that have benefited from surging energy prices it has never dismissed their accomplishments as the products of increased oil prices. Does The Economist deny that Correa should be praised for raising oil royalties? No, this is simply innuendo designed to imply that something virtually everyone believes was desirable and successful is somehow suspect. Is The Economist claiming that nations should not borrow from China? No. Is it claiming that Ecuador is paying an excessive rate of interest to China? No. Is (the Economist) claiming that Ecuador's foreign debt under Correa has grown to dangerous levels? No. The CIA states that Ecuador has one of the lowest pubic debt ratios in the world. Of the 155 total nations for which the CIA reports data on public debt, 125 nations have higher ratios of debt than Ecuador. In fact, The Economist is not making any substantive attack on Correa's actions in raising oil royalties or on Ecuador borrowing from China. Instead, it has deliberately engaged in clumsy innuendo because it has no substantive argument. --from the OP (my emphasis)

I was particularly impressed with Black's understanding of the oil/environment swap that President Correa offered to wealthy nations--that tiny, poor Ecuador could preserve this oil-rich region from drilling if the wealthy nations, who are causing the great bulk of environmental damage worldwide, would pay them to preserve it.

Black has fingered THE most sensitive issue for the Left in the modern era: the economy vs. the environment. And he brilliantly explains this excruciating and tragic dilemma, for which there seems to be NO solution--yet Correa came up with a solution, which was rejected by the wealthy, heavily polluting countries of the world (including our own).

This article is not only well worth reading, it is well worth thinking about in depth. How do we solve this problem of the economy/development vs. the environment/life on earth? ESPECIALLY in a region--Latin America--with so much poverty?

We should APPLAUD the use of a resource--such as oil--to help the poor, to provide education and health care, and good jobs and pensions for the elderly, and new school buildings and roads, and so on. This is what Leftists are doing in the Latin American countries that have honest, transparent election systems and thus leaders who are truly "of, by and for" the People: They are using the oil, for instance, in the best way possible for the benefit of all.

Yet, yet, yet, we KNOW that global warming is caused mostly by the burning of fossil fuels, that this is KILLING the planet, and that we MUST convert to non-polluting energy.

Don't expect the Econo-Myst, nor its Associated Pukes brethren, to help solve this problem. THEIR goal is to get that oil wealth back into the pockets of the 1%. They are cynical purveyors of CRAPASS LIES on behalf of the uber-rich. They are JERKS.

Mr. Black brilliantly exposes them!

Now just imagine if this kind of analysis was the norm in our newspapers, news magazines and TV/radio media, rather than virtually non-existent. INTELLIGENT analysis, from the perspective of THE PEOPLE, discussing tragic economic/environmental dilemmas--of which there are many--and examining proposed solutions.

We would have a quite wonderful revolution. And we would start solving problems!

[Judi Lynn]

4. So true. Investment in the people is also investment in the life of the country.

The right doesn't seem capable of grasping this vital point.

Improving the health, safety, education of the people creates a higher standard of living, a far better, healthier, happier country.

Clearly, by using their racism to excuse themselves from responsibility, they justify their countries' struggle with the "inferiority" of the massive brown population, so certain their European heritage simply excuses them from any responsibility, just as their avaricious, twisted forbearers excused their own sins against the human race.

Nothing but admiration for everyone working for the advancement of a better world for ALL people.