who puts the bell the cat
Carlos Alberto Montaner
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Is There Anything Comparable To Revlon Skinlights
After World War II, when Stalin set out to conquer Europe, Harry Truman faced. With the help of the diplomat George Kennan designed what was then called''containment strategy.'' There are registered since the creation of NATO and the Bretton Woods economic agreements, to the Marshall Plan and the launch of Radio Free Europe. That was the beginning of the Cold War, the United States formally gained by forty years later, in 1989, when the Germans brought down the Berlin Wall collapsed shortly after all the Eastern bloc, including the USSR itself, which surprisingly ended up disappear.
to a tiny scale, with some grotesque features and without the danger of nuclear weapons, Latin America today is experiencing a similar experience, but nobody seems to notice or nobody seems to care. Mr. Hugo Chavez, in Caracas, with the cunning advice La Habana - greatest experts in the manufacture of prison - and barricaded with billions of petrodollars, Moscow now claims to be the twenty-first century has been launched with some success to political conquest of Latin America. Has already scored a few victories - Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua - as you put your eyes in Paraguay, Guatemala and El Salvador, the next countries placed in the sights of his rifle neopopulist indefatigable.
The problem is that Chavez has no opponent. United States can not want to try to stop it. The key objectives of Washington in the region are only three: try to prevent the flow of illegal immigrants, drug trafficking and to reduce buy some raw materials at market price if good they are sold. If Latin Americans are bent on committing suicide like lemmings, these rodents regularly drown thousands in the sea, no one knows exactly why, is something you do not lose sleep to almost no one in America.
Brazil also wants to play the role Chávez. Brazil has never been a real regional power. Lula also lives in the midst of the sharpest ideological dissonance. Is a reasonable and prudent ruler, but grew up singing the nonsense of the left. As such people are born with chromosomes disrupted, Lula has a radical and collectivist soul housed in a democratic body that recognizes the virtues of market.
with Argentina is the same. Peronist Nestor Kirchner and Peron is the ideological grandfather of Hugo Chávez. All nonsense and nonsense invented by Peron more than half a century have resurfaced now magically in the hands of Venezuela. Kirchner certainly thinks that Chavez is an insufferable tropical parrot, but can not adversity without betraying his own origins.
For different reasons, Mexico's Felipe Calderon also will choose to ignore his Venezuelan counterpart uncomfortable. He came to power very weak in the electoral struggle against Lopez Obrador. You do not want to open a battlefront against the vociferous international carnivorous left while attempts to defeat the powerful drug gangs operating in the country. Too many wars to free them simultaneously.
The major Latin American countries, then, will fold their arms. Is there someone who can step forward and lead the Latin American resistance to this imperial spasm impoverishing and dangerous anti-democratic? Perhaps there is one: Oscar Arias, President of Costa Rica. Arias has enough talent and training to realize that the risks are enormous. The expansion will increase exponentially chavismo poverty and conflict in the region. And Arias has the courage and fortitude it takes to face a much more powerful adversary. In 1987 won the Nobel Peace Prize for successfully imposing his peace plan for Central America and the criteria against U.S. threats. Who is not daunted by Ronald Reagan can not be afraid of Hugo Chavez.
Costa Rica, naturally, has no resources to this fight alone, but Arias has enough leadership and recognition as to call for democratic resistance to other governments concerned about the progress of Chavez, Uribe's political weight, Garcia, Saca Berger and, perhaps, Bachelet, the president of the Chilean prudent. Everyone knows that the fire will go out in a few years, but the wisdom advises cope collectively, put out the flames among all and try to prevent it spreading. This is how governments behave responsible. So West won the Cold War.
February 18, 2007 Taken Firmapress
Capitalism in China 
Monday, February 19, 2007
Levaquin For Swollen Gums
Chinese and globalization
James A. Dorn
A survey covering 20 countries, conducted by GlobeScan in 2005, discovered that the Chinese are the ones who believe (74%) that "the market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world." This is a surprising result, until 1979 when the Chinese government took absolutely all economic decisions. That same poll found that people in the United States also supports the free market (71%) while in Russia the support of capitalism is weak (43%) and France (36%), even weaker.
The big change in thinking about the Chinese capitalism is confirmed by a 2006 study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs: 87% of respondents in China believe that "globalization, especially the greater interconnectedness of the economy their country with others around the world, benefits the nation. " That compared with 60% in the U.S. and 54% in India.
not surprising that the Chinese support globalization, which opened his country to the world, fired economic growth and social change, enabling millions get out of poverty. By expanding the horizons and opportunities of people, globalization has put pressure on the Communist Party to allow privatization and market performance, achieving a positive impact on civil society.
The Chinese can now own their homes, run their own business and seek employment in the private sector. Such economic freedom was impossible under central planning and autarky before. In a major Chinese business magazine, Caijing, a photograph of the Statue of Liberty on the same page as the notice of a condominium in Beijing. And high school students in Shanghai read discussions on globalization and economic reforms in their textbooks with no mention of Mao.
Trade liberalization has benefited China and the global economy. Although millions of Chinese workers have been affected, the Chicago Council survey shows that 65% of respondents in China believe that "international trade benefits the job security of workers." By contrast, only 30% of U.S. workers believe that international trade benefits to workers.
course, the purpose of trade is not to protect jobs but to create wealth and global wealth is much greater today than two decades ago. Trade liberalization, the information revolution and financial integration have been combined with institutional changes that help the market to offer to China, and the world, a splendid future.
One of the lessons learned in China is that poverty is fought best with institutional changes that foreign aid and government intervention. Decades ago, the concentration of poverty was in Asia, not Africa. Today, the opposite happens and foreign aid has not improved the lives of the poorest Africans.
Similarly, the minimum wage is no panacea. Politicians offer to increase the minimum wage, but do not address the root causes of poverty. If the minimum wage is set above the indicates that the market, employers will hire fewer people and change their production systems, replacing labor by machines.
Hong Kong never had minimum wage and China does not enforce it nationwide. Although China has made great strides toward a market economy, is still missing. It requires the expansion of property rights, justice and transparency in the judicial system, while the free flow of information. Beijing should also allow full convertibility of its currency, the yuan. Open
Chinese Communist Party to capitalists and to amend the constitution to protect private property is not sufficient if there is no independent judiciary. But erected a statue of Adam Smith at the University of Finance and Economics in Chengdu, something not seen in Latin American universities.
If the future of China depends on free trade, must also be present political freedom because the free market does not exist without a free people. The challenge is to institutionalize the rule of law that protects the government to the people and their properties.
* Cato Institute's academic vice president and director of the Cato Journal
James A. Dorn
A survey covering 20 countries, conducted by GlobeScan in 2005, discovered that the Chinese are the ones who believe (74%) that "the market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world." This is a surprising result, until 1979 when the Chinese government took absolutely all economic decisions. That same poll found that people in the United States also supports the free market (71%) while in Russia the support of capitalism is weak (43%) and France (36%), even weaker.
The big change in thinking about the Chinese capitalism is confirmed by a 2006 study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs: 87% of respondents in China believe that "globalization, especially the greater interconnectedness of the economy their country with others around the world, benefits the nation. " That compared with 60% in the U.S. and 54% in India.
not surprising that the Chinese support globalization, which opened his country to the world, fired economic growth and social change, enabling millions get out of poverty. By expanding the horizons and opportunities of people, globalization has put pressure on the Communist Party to allow privatization and market performance, achieving a positive impact on civil society.
The Chinese can now own their homes, run their own business and seek employment in the private sector. Such economic freedom was impossible under central planning and autarky before. In a major Chinese business magazine, Caijing, a photograph of the Statue of Liberty on the same page as the notice of a condominium in Beijing. And high school students in Shanghai read discussions on globalization and economic reforms in their textbooks with no mention of Mao.
Trade liberalization has benefited China and the global economy. Although millions of Chinese workers have been affected, the Chicago Council survey shows that 65% of respondents in China believe that "international trade benefits the job security of workers." By contrast, only 30% of U.S. workers believe that international trade benefits to workers.
course, the purpose of trade is not to protect jobs but to create wealth and global wealth is much greater today than two decades ago. Trade liberalization, the information revolution and financial integration have been combined with institutional changes that help the market to offer to China, and the world, a splendid future.
One of the lessons learned in China is that poverty is fought best with institutional changes that foreign aid and government intervention. Decades ago, the concentration of poverty was in Asia, not Africa. Today, the opposite happens and foreign aid has not improved the lives of the poorest Africans.
Similarly, the minimum wage is no panacea. Politicians offer to increase the minimum wage, but do not address the root causes of poverty. If the minimum wage is set above the indicates that the market, employers will hire fewer people and change their production systems, replacing labor by machines.
Hong Kong never had minimum wage and China does not enforce it nationwide. Although China has made great strides toward a market economy, is still missing. It requires the expansion of property rights, justice and transparency in the judicial system, while the free flow of information. Beijing should also allow full convertibility of its currency, the yuan. Open
Chinese Communist Party to capitalists and to amend the constitution to protect private property is not sufficient if there is no independent judiciary. But erected a statue of Adam Smith at the University of Finance and Economics in Chengdu, something not seen in Latin American universities.
If the future of China depends on free trade, must also be present political freedom because the free market does not exist without a free people. The challenge is to institutionalize the rule of law that protects the government to the people and their properties.
* Cato Institute's academic vice president and director of the Cato Journal
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Transfer Orange Voicemail To Computer
The Constitution of Colombia is clear ...
Interpretation in Wonderland Jorge Orlando Melo
The Constitution is clear: even if they threaten public order, economic stability or personal honor, you can not use censorship.
Until 1991 the Colombian constitutions recognized the freedom of press, but left a gap that would restrict it. A long history of censorship in 1991 meant that seek to avoid it altogether. The government project Gaviria said "It prohibits censorship" and explained, to reduce the risks of interpretation or misrepresentation, "the exercise of freedom of expression shall not be subject to prior checks but later responsibilities in order to avoid economic panic, protect life, privacy, dignity, personal honor and public order. "
Constituents Alberto Zalamea, Augusto Ramírez Ocampo, Misael Pastrana Borrero and others were clear: there should be no censorship. The proposal that the government could establish a limited time to avoid economic panic, or other serious cases, was rejected. Finally, the Framers adopted a formula sharp and clear, that they thought would prevent any prior restraint of information: "There will be no censorship." And to suppress and punish the evil that could occur was established following a proposal of the constituent Zalamea, that the media have "a social responsibility."
Thus, our Constitution is clear: anyone can publish anything to prohibit, in any case. Any ban or condition is a form of censorship and violates the constitution. But as journalists are not saints, and potentially affect other rights, individual or social, the law may punish them afterwards. It is as if instead of saying that people do not steal others are hands tied, had said that they steal from another shall be punished.
In the case of other fundamental rights, the letter simply states, without defining how to resolve the conflict that may arise between them. Where those affected are children, said their rights had priority. Left to the legislature or the judges the task of regulating the conflict of rights or to decide in individual cases which had priority. With regard to freedom of expression is not left this possibility even if it endangers public order, economic stability or personal honor, you can not use censorship as a means to protect those rights. Will have to seek other remedies, to establish penalties when journalists violate the rights of others.
The reason for this is that they wanted to defeat a tradition of misrepresentation which had led to legally restrict the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. And he acknowledged, as the paper said in Article 20, freedom of information was the core budget of democracy. Indeed, behind the total rejection of censorship is the idea that this limits the ability for citizens to form their opinions freely and, therefore, undermines the very foundations of democratic participation.
So you have to wonder if when the Constitution says "No censorship" a judge can say, "Yes there will be censorship, when what is published affects the rights of others" or "I shall be no censorship, if it causes economic panic "or" I shall be no censorship, if published incite crime. " In such cases, the judge is saying that the Constitution is wrong to prohibit censorship as bluntly as that, and being corrected, it assumes that it is wiser than she. O claims that when the Constitution says "No censorship" to say "yes there will be censorship, in certain cases." That is, states that the term means the opposite of what anyone reads it.
In Alice in Wonderland, a blighted ovum and presumptuous, Humpty Dumpty, Alice replied, protesting because he uses the terms with a meaning that does not have: "When I use a word, 'said Humpty Dumpty, in a tone of voice rather scornful mean what I say ... no more, no less.
"The question is, 'said Alice," whether you can make words mean so many different things. "
"The question-Humpty Dumpty-settled is who is in charge ... that is all."
The question, it seems, is whether some judges Colombians live in wonderland. Jorge Orlando Melo
Taken from El Tiempo Sunday 18 February/2007
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Slogans For Healthy Foods
The end of private property in Venezuela
The end of private property in Venezuela, Carlos Alberto Montaner
began the assault on private property in Venezuela. The excuse is the elimination of factories and supposedly unproductive estates. How are you companies do not create wealth or jobs with the intensity that the President wants, the government expropriated. Once in the hands of the state, Mr. Chávez, always kind to oil revenues and taxes paid by the Venezuelans, they will inject capital and will provide thousands of employees earning lavish salaries. These companies, of course, they will lose huge amounts of money, but for revolutionary thinking this is a negligible figure. The losses will be wiped away with plenty of public money, as they create a multitude of grateful stomachs, presumably, will join the revolutionary side. That is precisely the essence of populism.
The economic consequences of this stupidity is the collective impoverishment of society. While most public companies lose money, more poor is becoming the society that must support them. Why do you think Mr. Chavez that communist countries were hopelessly miserable? Those thousands of unnecessary workers crowded companies, led by apathetic bureaucrats dedicated to repeat political slogans and inflexibly governed by price controls inevitably led into the general disaster. That explained patiently and in vain Ludwig von Mises Lenin in a book called Socialism published in 1922, when the Bolshevik revolution had just premiered.
not heeded him. But not because the Communists did not understand the impeccable reasoning of the Austrian economist, but because the decision to seize Private property was ideological, not economic. Marx, who was an enlightened prophet, had said that changing the ownership system (structure) would change social attitudes and institutions (the superstructure), giving rise to the new man, a virtuous and caring creature built paradise on earth. A Lenin a damn if all companies sank: I wanted was an obedient Soviet mass to test the crazy theories of Marx, and, incidentally, to rule as despotic autocrat who was relentless.
Chavez, Castro's hand, his dearest mentor, will exactly the same way. Behind the dismantling of private property is the pursuit of economic efficiency but of political control. Where there is no private property can not simply rebellion or civil disobedience. Where the state owns the means of production, society servile stooping head because the government controls your way of eating, and because each company becomes a link in the chain of repression. This explains why no communist dictatorship disappeared as a result of massive popular rebellion. The citizen in the hands of the state is a defenseless being. Those who remember clearly the process that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall know all too well: communism collapsed when the Germans began to run toward the border and Gorbachev refused to shoot. No running to the barracks to dispute the power of the military, or to the offices of the party to confront the officials of the dictatorship. Trying to escape, not fight, because the experience, with the exception of a handful of heroic dissidents, had tamed.
The goal of eliminating private property in Venezuela is this: start the housing of society in order to submit it without mercy. The institutions will become stable. Venezuelans will be controlled in your neighborhood by the Bolivarian Circles and the companies will work under the watchful eye and relentless union official. The families, afraid, be split into pieces hostile. The parliament, in turn, adopt the laws necessary to secure them with a strong flange, while the courts, obedient to the authority of the executive, be ruthless with any breach of rules deliberately vague and imprecise, so that sanctions can be imposed according to the situational needs of the revolution.
When you close the circle of terror, there will be no free press or other voices of protest heard the screams of the victims. But how terrible is the general indifference to these monstrous acts. It has always been.
October 2, 2005 Taken from http://www.firmaspress.com
The end of private property in Venezuela, Carlos Alberto Montaner
began the assault on private property in Venezuela. The excuse is the elimination of factories and supposedly unproductive estates. How are you companies do not create wealth or jobs with the intensity that the President wants, the government expropriated. Once in the hands of the state, Mr. Chávez, always kind to oil revenues and taxes paid by the Venezuelans, they will inject capital and will provide thousands of employees earning lavish salaries. These companies, of course, they will lose huge amounts of money, but for revolutionary thinking this is a negligible figure. The losses will be wiped away with plenty of public money, as they create a multitude of grateful stomachs, presumably, will join the revolutionary side. That is precisely the essence of populism.
The economic consequences of this stupidity is the collective impoverishment of society. While most public companies lose money, more poor is becoming the society that must support them. Why do you think Mr. Chavez that communist countries were hopelessly miserable? Those thousands of unnecessary workers crowded companies, led by apathetic bureaucrats dedicated to repeat political slogans and inflexibly governed by price controls inevitably led into the general disaster. That explained patiently and in vain Ludwig von Mises Lenin in a book called Socialism published in 1922, when the Bolshevik revolution had just premiered.
not heeded him. But not because the Communists did not understand the impeccable reasoning of the Austrian economist, but because the decision to seize Private property was ideological, not economic. Marx, who was an enlightened prophet, had said that changing the ownership system (structure) would change social attitudes and institutions (the superstructure), giving rise to the new man, a virtuous and caring creature built paradise on earth. A Lenin a damn if all companies sank: I wanted was an obedient Soviet mass to test the crazy theories of Marx, and, incidentally, to rule as despotic autocrat who was relentless.
Chavez, Castro's hand, his dearest mentor, will exactly the same way. Behind the dismantling of private property is the pursuit of economic efficiency but of political control. Where there is no private property can not simply rebellion or civil disobedience. Where the state owns the means of production, society servile stooping head because the government controls your way of eating, and because each company becomes a link in the chain of repression. This explains why no communist dictatorship disappeared as a result of massive popular rebellion. The citizen in the hands of the state is a defenseless being. Those who remember clearly the process that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall know all too well: communism collapsed when the Germans began to run toward the border and Gorbachev refused to shoot. No running to the barracks to dispute the power of the military, or to the offices of the party to confront the officials of the dictatorship. Trying to escape, not fight, because the experience, with the exception of a handful of heroic dissidents, had tamed.
The goal of eliminating private property in Venezuela is this: start the housing of society in order to submit it without mercy. The institutions will become stable. Venezuelans will be controlled in your neighborhood by the Bolivarian Circles and the companies will work under the watchful eye and relentless union official. The families, afraid, be split into pieces hostile. The parliament, in turn, adopt the laws necessary to secure them with a strong flange, while the courts, obedient to the authority of the executive, be ruthless with any breach of rules deliberately vague and imprecise, so that sanctions can be imposed according to the situational needs of the revolution.
When you close the circle of terror, there will be no free press or other voices of protest heard the screams of the victims. But how terrible is the general indifference to these monstrous acts. It has always been.
October 2, 2005 Taken from http://www.firmaspress.com
Fantage Virtual World Where You Can...
Fascism in Latin America
Latin America or the time of fascism
Carlos Alberto Montaner
The observation was made by English essayist Fernando Díaz Villanueva:''America America is reinventing fascism.'' It's true. His statement came a tale of the mob hurled parliament Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa a few days of taking office. The police did not protect the legislative building and the deputies had to flee in a hurry. The newly appointed president wants a new constitution and a new parliament to be able to dictate at will measures which he said would end quickly with injustice and poverty in the South American country. Correa, who has no support among lawmakers, has the support of eighty percent of the population, while the parliament is the institution most discredited of the nation.
Actually, it is not uncommon for companies despise members elected to parliament. The parliamentarian is the quintessential politician and no disreputable profession on earth. Peron said, and rightly, that''when you go into politics, what it does is throw his honor to the dogs.'' It's true. In England, which invented the parliamentary modern, placed limits on the unrestricted authority of the king and led the revolution of freedom, only 25% of the population has a high opinion of their legislators. This negative perception is summed up better than any poll a phrase popular among Britons: `` lawmakers and children's diapers should be changed often for the same reasons.''
early twentieth century Western world was shaken by the war in 1914. As a result of this terrible disaster - triggered by an incredible string of miscalculations - that killed tens of millions of people and sank three empires - Russian, Turkish and Austro-Hungarian - Western societies saw the emergence of the fascist phenomenon. Some charismatic leaders, mainly Benito Mussolini - the most colorful of them - and then Adolf Hitler, supposedly would end the disorder brought about by the liberal democracies and market economies. These were the main enemies, accused of having caused the Great War, who later added, laterally, communism, but without forgetting that both political forces came from the same trunk socialist, more anti-Semitism, centuries-old aberration that was gaining strength like a hurricane murderer to become the most appalling and unjustifiable genocide reminiscent of humanity.
obviously Latin American circumstances are unlike those of the West after 1918, but have something in common: frustration with the persistent poverty of a substantial part of society, disorder and state inefficiency, lack of opportunities and widespread corruption . Who are the culprits in this situation? According to the neo-populist and neo-fascists committed to boosting''''XXI century socialism - Chavez, Morales, Correa, Castro, dean of them all - the responsibility lies with the liberal state and the republican design, with its separation of powers and market economy. Want to demolish it (they did in Cuba 48 years ago) to build on their debris a strong, led by a strong leader who makes the laws, control the judges, will lead the economy and its iron will order out of chaos and make us happy to stick and whack: that is, fascism.
is a pity that these fascist-neo-populist not realize that the thirty most prosperous nations of the earth are, indeed, rule of law founded on the existence of separate powers and limited by law, in which the system Economic guided by respect for private property and market, while the thirty poorest nations and unfortunate, however, are satrapies governed by enlightened leaders filled of good intentions, ready to impose prosperity and justice with the sword. It is unfortunate that the neo-fascists ignore the disasters that led to his destructive ancestors. Repeat history.
February 4, 2007 Taken http://www.firmaspress.com
Latin America or the time of fascism
Carlos Alberto Montaner
The observation was made by English essayist Fernando Díaz Villanueva:''America America is reinventing fascism.'' It's true. His statement came a tale of the mob hurled parliament Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa a few days of taking office. The police did not protect the legislative building and the deputies had to flee in a hurry. The newly appointed president wants a new constitution and a new parliament to be able to dictate at will measures which he said would end quickly with injustice and poverty in the South American country. Correa, who has no support among lawmakers, has the support of eighty percent of the population, while the parliament is the institution most discredited of the nation.
Actually, it is not uncommon for companies despise members elected to parliament. The parliamentarian is the quintessential politician and no disreputable profession on earth. Peron said, and rightly, that''when you go into politics, what it does is throw his honor to the dogs.'' It's true. In England, which invented the parliamentary modern, placed limits on the unrestricted authority of the king and led the revolution of freedom, only 25% of the population has a high opinion of their legislators. This negative perception is summed up better than any poll a phrase popular among Britons: `` lawmakers and children's diapers should be changed often for the same reasons.''
early twentieth century Western world was shaken by the war in 1914. As a result of this terrible disaster - triggered by an incredible string of miscalculations - that killed tens of millions of people and sank three empires - Russian, Turkish and Austro-Hungarian - Western societies saw the emergence of the fascist phenomenon. Some charismatic leaders, mainly Benito Mussolini - the most colorful of them - and then Adolf Hitler, supposedly would end the disorder brought about by the liberal democracies and market economies. These were the main enemies, accused of having caused the Great War, who later added, laterally, communism, but without forgetting that both political forces came from the same trunk socialist, more anti-Semitism, centuries-old aberration that was gaining strength like a hurricane murderer to become the most appalling and unjustifiable genocide reminiscent of humanity.
obviously Latin American circumstances are unlike those of the West after 1918, but have something in common: frustration with the persistent poverty of a substantial part of society, disorder and state inefficiency, lack of opportunities and widespread corruption . Who are the culprits in this situation? According to the neo-populist and neo-fascists committed to boosting''''XXI century socialism - Chavez, Morales, Correa, Castro, dean of them all - the responsibility lies with the liberal state and the republican design, with its separation of powers and market economy. Want to demolish it (they did in Cuba 48 years ago) to build on their debris a strong, led by a strong leader who makes the laws, control the judges, will lead the economy and its iron will order out of chaos and make us happy to stick and whack: that is, fascism.
is a pity that these fascist-neo-populist not realize that the thirty most prosperous nations of the earth are, indeed, rule of law founded on the existence of separate powers and limited by law, in which the system Economic guided by respect for private property and market, while the thirty poorest nations and unfortunate, however, are satrapies governed by enlightened leaders filled of good intentions, ready to impose prosperity and justice with the sword. It is unfortunate that the neo-fascists ignore the disasters that led to his destructive ancestors. Repeat history.
February 4, 2007 Taken http://www.firmaspress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)