Evo Morales Becomes Bolivia's Next Presiden, Now His Real Challenge Begin

[Castro]

^ So Morales gets the narco-trafficking business going again. Hugo starts selling oil to China and Russia exclusively in Euros and Castro sends them both doctors and engineers to build their countries while he gets cheap oil. Lula insists his neighborhood has chosen a path that he cannot go against and once the US erects the 2000 mile wall to prevent migrant workers from coming across, the Mexicans will realize who their real allies are. Once all these things come into place, the US bombers will be in the air that same day. That's where the second front will open up in the global war on terror. The terror of high gas prices, that is.

[Paragon]

^^^ The tide is turning, Comrade, it is indeed turning . Look below;

 

--

 

--

Chavez Welcomes Morales’ Victory in Bolivia

 

Wednesday, Dec 21, 2005 Print format

Send by email

 

By: Venezuelanalysis.com

 

Caracas, Venezuela, December 21, 2005—The election of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia last Sunday marks the beginning of a new era, said Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez in a letter to Morales. According to Chavez, Bolivians had to wait 500 years until they were finally able to have an Aymara Indian as President and this represents, “a real and true historical vindication,†said Chavez.

 

Last Sunday, Evo Morales, the leader of the party Movement Towards Socialism and a former organizer of Coca plant growers, won Bolivia’s presidency with 51-55% of the vote. This represents the highest percentage with which a Bolivian has been elected to the presidency in the history of the country.

 

The Bush administration repeatedly accused the Chavez government of contributing to unrest in Bolivia and of supporting Morales financially. Chavez, however, has forcefully denied these allegations. It is, though, generally assumed that Morales will follow similar policies as Chavez has. Morales rejects U.S. drug control policies in the region and promised to nationalize Bolivia’s natural gas fields. Chavez and Morales have enjoyed close ties for several years now.

 

Chavez’s letter of congratulations to Morales went on to say, “Without a doubt, Evo, our joy is also great: the Fatherland of Bolivar and of Sucre [two 19th C. liberation fighters of Latin America] begins its new and definitive battle for dignity and sovereignty, and the great family of peoples finds in your fatherland a new reason to affirm the cause of humanity and to negate the neo-liberal fallacy of the end of history. It is time for the re-founding of Bolivia: it is a new beginning for history.â€

 

Venezuela’s Vice President José Vicente Rangel also expressed satisfaction over Morales’ election, saying he felt this way not just “for what it represents politically and ideologically, but also for the human.â€

 

Rangel went on to say that Morales, “Is a man who came form the people, son of a peasant family, forged in the everyday struggle for survival and in addition it is the first time that an indigenous person from Latin America reaches the presidency of the Republic.â€

 

Rangel also denied that Chavez had anything to do with Morales’ victory. “For all the satisfaction the government of Hugo Chavez feels, it will not become involved in the policies and government of Morales,†said Rangel.

Castro, the economic shift you so rightly allude to is in rapid pace, just as Pax Americana is in rapid decline. I am reminded of the empire of Rome and its decline .

[Faarax-Brawn]

Thus there needs to be a strong state in the developmental process, a state that can protect itself from such interest groups pressures.

Paragon,that’s a very interesting fact-point. But in a modern economy that is already established ,why should tax payers money go into boosting a semi-private company? If that company looses money,and they have for most parts in most countries, wouldn’t that further sink a govt's budget further?, that would be one huge bad debts account?

 

Unless of course the venture is of national security[As is the case of money printing, gun production and such] or an economic casastrophe such as the one faced by the airline industry in the wake of 9-11,befalls a country; Is this guided type of economic policy a very 'practical economic' solution in a market dominated economy? Mise it’s a band aid solution for a lagging group of economies?, perhaps a catch up sort of recovery programme?

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Paragon: No. Actually, in the study of development economics, illuminating neo-statist assertions claim that pricisely (in Johnson Chalmers) the

'developmental state'

can be attributed to the economic miracle of East Asia (read for example, the 'guided market' of Robert Wade in the case of Taiwan, Amsden's 'governed' market in Korea). So yes, while state-ownership could have detrimental effects, state direction of the market, as opposed to 'market-led' (yet not precisely

Laissez Faire

as we know it), is key to economic development. You see market led economies lead to

conglomorates

(such as pre-war

Zaibatsu

of Japan, which was later dissolved and replaced by the

Keiretsu

) and interest groups that dominate the market itself by inducing into it economic factors that limit economic growth, while at the same time forcing the

weak state

to their own benefits.

Market led economies do not produce a weak state. You are right you can't have a weak state if you want economic development. But you can a have a semi-strong state and market led development. The key is proper regulation. Ie. Anti-trust laws, competition regulator, labour regulator etc. Your description of pre-war Japan is correct and it is consistent with the situation in the US in the early 1900s with monopolies like Standard Oil and US Steel. They were dealth with and the playing field level through Teddy Roosevelt's introduction of Sherman Anti-Trust. At this point, 'strong' state becomes semantic. If you have a state that has strong regulations and protections, market led development is best. Unless, of course, the government prostitutes itself out to big business through campaign contributions!

 

 

Thus there needs to be a strong state in the developmental process, a state that can protect itself from such interest groups pressures. A strong Communist state, especially that type of China doesn't necessarilly distort economic development, in fact if you ask some Asian Model economists, it appropriates suitable policy of resource allocation for industries (there is broad literature on this) that work towards the national developmental goal of the nation.

Strong state issue discussed above. The 'Communist' government of China has had many of its policies distort economic development although they are doing enough right for economic development to forge ahead. Witness the Chinese banking sector which has a huge amount of bad loans. Why? Because loans went to people with party connections, not necessarily to the best business people. Also, witness the Chinese stock market, another indicator of the quality of business decisions, many of which are promulgated by the government. It is one of the worst performing markets in the world even though Chinese GDP growth is among the highest in the world. 'Suitable policy of resource allocation for industries' smacks of the infamous and useless Soviet style 5-year plans. It is not a reasonable argument to think that the state best knows how to allocate resources just as it not reasonable to argue only private companies know how best to allocate resources. However, given the choice, private companies are definitely better at allocating resources - why? Because they are directly connected to where the demand is coming from - the market.

 

But where state let go of their markets and indulge in all out liberalizations, such as in the mid-1990s, what happens is indeed financially catastrophic (think: the

1997 Asian Financial Crisis

and the Malaysian remedy to the crisis). In East Asian social and economic rights rather than civil and political rights matter most. So as long as the state guarantees, the peoples' economic welfare, it can adapt whatever political approaches it so wishes. The same applies to Morales' case: to recover from economic disaster and poverty that had been resulted by rampant capitalism.

It's important to keep cause and effect seperate to know what factors were really involved and what were incidental. The East Asian collapse had to do with massive foreign short-term borrowing by governments/companies, loose monetary policy and an underlying base of bad loans and asset bubbles. When the foreign money was pulled quickly as these imbalances worsened -it caused an awful and devastating chain reaction. The 'strength' of the state had little to do with it. You are right that capital controls were instrumental in shielding Malaysia to a large degree but that is hardly a demonstration for a strong state.

 

OK. I won't say much about the quote above, but I will give you four economic categories in which all states of the world fall in: market ideological, plan ideological, market rational, and plan rational economies. USA falls in the first category, Japan falls in the fourth category. Try to get hold of Johnson Chalmers' writings and try to figure out the rest of the countries and the categories in which they fall

Not sure what this had to do with the fact that socialism as practiced by Canada(if one can call it that) has little to do with what Morales proposes. He has said publicly that Cuba is a model. The Cuban economy, rightly called socialist/communist has been a disaster and is entirely and completely different from Canada's economy.

[Castro]

^ Could the 45 year embargo on Cuba have anything to do with its economy being a 'disaster'? Talk about economic distortion in its most covert form.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Castro:

^ Could the 45 year embargo on Cuba have anything to do with its economy being a 'disaster'? Talk about economic distortion in its most covert form.

No doubt. It could even be the major cause of the economic problems of Cuba. But if the US dropped the embargo tomorrow - would Castro let people own productive assets so that the economy can grow??? I doubt it. The embargo and its economic effects is not covert in the least - it's basically - how dare you kick us out of your country and defeat us in Bay of Pigs. It is essentially an arrogant attitude. But that doesn't preclude Mr. Castro from being the Deng Xiaoping of Cuba and moving the country slowly to a more of a capitalist society much like China and Vietnam. Does he do it? No. Most problems in life are of one's own doing.

[Castro]

^ I meant to say overt.

 

We don't know what Castro would have done. It's really a matter for speculation. The reality as we know it is that Cuba was never given a chance to be anything but a failed state. Just about every US client state has become a basket case. May be it's a blessing in disguise the US imposed the embargo. Without it, we may have another Haiti on our hands.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Castro:

^ I meant to say overt.

 

We don't know what Castro would have done. It's really a matter for speculation. The reality as we know it is that Cuba was never given a chance to be anything but a failed state. Just about every US client state has become a basket case. May be it's a blessing in disguise the US imposed the embargo. Without it, we may have another Haiti on our hands.

No, we don't - but we can speculate based on evidence we do have. I totally disagree with - 'Cuba was never given a chance to be anything but a failed state' - that conveniently sidelines one's own failings. People have the ability to change their lives - they are not always getting acted on by an outside force. Your phrase leans towards that mindset. If you look at Vietnam and how ravaged it was by the US forces - and now how intelligent leadership is guiding the country and producing one of the fastest GDP growth rates in SE Asia - you would understand that Cuba has a chance. The question is: will leadership be intelligent or not?

[LANDER]

Originally posted by LANDER:

[qb]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

Well, I didn't use the term extreme if you will notice above. But in some ways it fits. Morales wants to free up the planting/harvesting of coca - notwithstanding its traditional medicinal uses - that has an adverse effect on countries around the region through increased availability of cocaine. Morales brought down or helped to bring down the previous several presidents - 2 of them in a matter of months. Does anything change drastically for the better in a matter of months? No. Is that the course of action a wise leader would take? I doubt it. Morales also has publicly said that Cuba is an example for him - Notwithstanding the good healthcare - Cuba has little going for it economically. Communism and state ownership of large chunks of the economy are not a recipe for economic development - that has been pretty much established.

 

The comparison with Canada is incorrect. Canada is a socialistic country in terms of trying to equalize income disparity and the associated ills thereof(ie. access to decent healthcare/education etc) Canada does not actively manage its economy and dicker with the ability of people to own productive assets through corporations.

 

In general, I don't like rabble-rousers and extreme populists as leaders. That sort of style is not conducive to rational, well-thought out policies and recommendations that will make a real dent in poverty and despair in the long-term.

Well, notwithstanding the coca policy, nothing else to me seems outlandish about what Morales is proposing. He his getting help from a Ph.D latino professor from an ivey league school and he will hopefully negotiated better terms with the TNCs. Judging the wisdom of his future actions serve no purpose at the moment and much of it will depedend on reaction from the TNCs operating in Bolivia and to a larger extent reaction from Washington. Taking his rhetoric about “Cuba being a model†at face value doesn’t necessarily reflect the reality on the ground. It’s interesting the points brought up about Cuba between you and Castro really. The government over there like many others in this world does a lot of things to be admired (Morally) and than some other economic matters that are not to be emulated. That being said, I think Castro is absolutely right about the economic sanctions. We wouldn’t know how Communist policies would or wouldn’t have been successful under Castro if the U.S hadn’t imposed those economic sanctions. When talking about Communism seems to me there are two mistakes often commited. One being to equate communism with the broader definition of “socialism†and the second taking empirical evidence of Communism as absolute proof of the non-viability of the theoretical system itself. A few modern Marxist theorist would argue to the opposite, but that’s another discussion all together. Cuba’s largest trading partner was the U.S if you could call that a “partnership†in the past as it was really a total domination of U.S investment. Take away a small country like Cuba’s overwhelmingly largest trading partner and you have an instantaneous collapse of the Economy. Due to its geographical location too, Cuba didn’t really have much elsewhere to turn hence the reason for its international isolation today. Can you picture the U.S. border being closed to Canada? (Each others largest trading partners) that would bring about strong recessionary forces in the U.S. and all but the collapse of the Canadian economy.

 

 

Canada does not actively manage its economy and dicker with the ability of people to own productive assets through corporations

Are you sure about that? I’ll give you this much, there is a strong trend towards privatisation of what use to be Natural Monopolies such as Ontario or B.C. Hydro. That being said, every country does “actively manage its economy†contrary to what you wrote be it the U.S. federal reserve or the Bank of Canada. Maybe you were simply alluding to capital controls and even there your still mistaken, as I previously stated the Canadian government will control certain sectors of the economy. A prime example is that of Chartered I banks (i.e. Scotia bank, CIBC etc..) no such bank can have more than 25 % foreign ownership or more than 10% ownership by any individual or group of individuals. Any mergers are to ask for government approval and can be turndown if perceived to be against public Interest. For a more blatant example let us reach back to a time of Mild Welfare state system in Canada (According to Dr. D. Williamson), there was still a a competitive market system but there also much government involvment in the general economy. This was the period between 40s-70s in Canada, it was Characterised by increasingly extensive and continuous gov. involvment to fine tune the business cycle and to bring about ecomomic growth and high level of employment as inspired by John Maynard Keynes. These days though we follow closer the ideas of John Kenneth Galbraith in Mixed economy still with stage direction from gov. of resources, prices, investment wages, profits. For example in 73 the government set up the A.I.B(anti-inflation board) which controlled prices and wages for ALL firms in Canada. It proved to be inefficient and was disbanded in 75. Also in 73 there was a Foreign Revenue Agency set up which controlled the take over or merger involving ANY company that was wholly or partially owned by non-canadians. So you see all of these matters were characterized by increased gov. direction of the economy in the goal of National Interest much like the Bolivians are doing(Mind you the two situations differ in matters implied, but the desired outcome is quite similar). Back then there wasn’t too much noise made by these policies by foreigners as compared to Bolivia for several reasons that extend to the political realm. For one Canada is a western nation and doesn’t talk rhetoric about “communismâ€, secondly its a middle economy and could not so easily be ignored by the U.S., thirdly and most importantly Bolivia has not come up with "sophisticated" means to have the people of bolivia benefit from natural gas aside from outright threatened nationalization which would be I guess what you refering to as "extreme socialist values". so anyway this little thread has consumed a little too much time, what I would suggest to you The Point is to compared the merits of sociaslist policies with that of “cowboy capitalism†as practiced in latin America. Ask yourself which is in the greater interest of the people (by this I don’t mean the selective elite)? Why do governments regulate business? According to Williamson there a few reasons you might find compatible with the situation in Bolivia.

Intervene:

1-When undesirable Market Structure exist

2-When there is a perceived need to preserve a natural resource(not necessarily a reality only perceived by the public)

3-When there are significant externalities connected with a firms conduct in a Mkt. I.e. pollution

4-**When the Market conduct of firms generate public discontent. Na’mean power to tha BEOPLE

5- When public discontent is to control or dilute large power blocks in the economy

[Castro]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

If you look at Vietnam and how ravaged it was by the US forces - and now how intelligent leadership is guiding the country and producing one of the fastest GDP growth rates in SE Asia - you would understand that Cuba has a chance. The question is: will leadership be intelligent or not?

Atheer I'm not disputing leadership in a country and its willingness to positively change its destiny are important. What I am saying is there's only so much any nation can do if, for one reason or another, it faces powerful entities such as the IMF/World bank, the EU, the WTO, and last but not least, the CIA and US army. There is economical intervention of one or more of these entities in just about every country in the world. And more likely than not, they're not interested in the economic wellbeing of the citizens of these states. What they are interested in is making sure global multinationals have unfettered access to resources (natural or human) and to markets in these states. Cuba is being punished, outright, for siding with the Soviets during the cold war. Whether Castro would have made it an economic power house is open to debate. But even with this four decade long embargo it is not the hell hole that other countries in the Carribean (Jamaica, Dominican Republic and Haiti) are without any trade sanctions.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Castro:

quote:Originally posted by ThePoint:

If you look at Vietnam and how ravaged it was by the US forces - and now how intelligent leadership is guiding the country and producing one of the fastest GDP growth rates in SE Asia - you would understand that Cuba has a chance. The question is: will leadership be intelligent or not?

Atheer I'm not disputing leadership in a country and its willingness to positively change its destiny are important. What I am saying is there's only so much any nation can do if, for one reason or another, it faces powerful entities such as the IMF/World bank, the EU, the WTO, and last but not least, the CIA and US army. There is economical intervention of one or more of these entities in just about every country in the world. And more likely than not, they're not interested in the economic wellbeing of the citizens of these states. What they are interested in is making sure global multinationals have unfettered access to resources (natural or human) and to markets in these states. Cuba is being punished, outright, for siding with the Soviets during the cold war. Whether Castro would have made it an economic power house is open to debate. But even with this four decade long embargo it is not the hell hole that other countries in the Carribean (Jamaica, Dominican Republic and Haiti) are without any trade sanctions.

It seems whatever disagreement we have is based on a matter of degree. Yes, Cuba is facing a formidable array of opponents but so many others have faced those same opponents and gone to better their respective countries. And I still believe that the majority of the blame for Cuba's problems lie at the feet of its leadership. If I understood correctly, you seem to be suggesting more of it lies at the feet of the organizations listed above. If that is the case, then we agree to disagree.

 

Absolutely right on the last point - whatever the faults of Castro - he is no Mobutu or the other crap that rule countries like Haiti and Jamaica. Why is it that the black man is cursed with such poor leadership!

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by LANDER:

 

Well, notwithstanding the coca policy, nothing else to me seems outlandish about what Morales is proposing. He his getting help from a Ph.D latino professor from an ivey league school and he will hopefully negotiated better terms with the TNCs. Judging the wisdom of his future actions serve no purpose at the moment and much of it will depedend on reaction from the TNCs operating in Bolivia and to a larger extent reaction from Washington. Taking his rhetoric about “Cuba being a model†at face value doesn’t necessarily reflect the reality on the ground. It’s interesting the points brought up about Cuba between you and Castro really. The government over there like many others in this world does a lot of things to be admired (Morally) and than some other economic matters that are not to be emulated. That being said, I think Castro is absolutely right about the economic sanctions. We wouldn’t know how Communist policies would or wouldn’t have been successful under Castro if the U.S hadn’t imposed those economic sanctions. When talking about Communism seems to me there are two mistakes often commited. One being to equate communism with the broader definition of “socialism†and the second taking empirical evidence of Communism as absolute proof of the non-viability of the theoretical system itself. A few modern Marxist theorist would argue to the opposite, but that’s another discussion all together. Cuba’s largest trading partner was the U.S if you could call that a “partnership†in the past as it was really a total domination of U.S investment. Take away a small country like Cuba’s overwhelmingly largest trading partner and you have an instantaneous collapse of the Economy. Due to its geographical location too, Cuba didn’t really have much elsewhere to turn hence the reason for its international isolation today. Can you picture the U.S. border being closed to Canada? (Each others largest trading partners) that would bring about strong recessionary forces in the U.S. and all but the collapse of the Canadian economy.

What is oulandish about Morales is: the degree of change he is promising and the speed with which he is promising to change Bolivia. Big social and economic change hardly ever occurs fast - and it is irresponsible of any leader to claim otherwise.

 

Another outlandish thing and I quote from the Economist: If Mr Morales becomes president, he will “nationalise everythingâ€....

 

Wise - I think not.

 

"Judging the wisdom of his future actions serves no purpose" - that statement is a bit of a fantasy. People judge all the time. Especially with a politician that has so much power over people. That said - I am judging Morales' statements and actions as to how he would govern and basing my opinion on that. I am not judging him in a vaccum. There is a basis there.

 

"Taking his rhetoric about 'Cuba being a model' at face value...." If one doesn't take individuals at face value, is that a recipe for the good? I am supposed to impute something else about his character? - that is mistaken. You take people at face value unless they take actions that contradict that.

 

Communist policies have not worked anywhere around the world on a reasonably long time frame. Once you can name me a country that is communist that is thriving and growing economically - we'll talk further. Please don't mention the likes of China and Vietnam - those countries maybe communist politically but their economies certainly are not.

 

With regard to Cuba and the embargo - hopefully we can agree that trade is a good thing subject to robust regulation - yet Castro will likely not have conducted trade with the US even if they dropped the embargo unilaterally. Why do I say that? On the basis of previous actions and statements by him. Cuba has plenty of other trading partners - the EU/Canada etc. But trade cannot be properly conducted if people are unable to own productive assets and can't engage in contractual relationships etc.

 

With regard to Canada, trade with the US really took off after NAFTA - but Canada still conducts trade with plenty of other nations. Additionally, trade while a large part of the economy, is not the only thing Canada has going. A robust domestic economy is also present. Trade is a two-way thing - both sides benefit otherwise trade wouldn't be conducted so the likelihood of US closing its border with Canada is remote.

 

 

Canada does not actively manage its economy and dicker with the ability of people to own productive assets through corporations

Are you sure about that? I’ll give you this much, there is a strong trend towards privatisation of what use to be Natural Monopolies such as Ontario or B.C. Hydro. That being said, every country does “actively manage its economy†contrary to what you wrote be it the U.S. federal reserve or the Bank of Canada. Maybe you were simply alluding to capital controls and even there your still mistaken, as I previously stated the Canadian government will control certain sectors of the economy. A prime example is that of Chartered I banks (i.e. Scotia bank, CIBC etc..) no such bank can have more than 25 % foreign ownership or more than 10% ownership by any individual or group of individuals. Any mergers are to ask for government approval and can be turndown if perceived to be against public Interest. For a more blatant example let us reach back to a time of Mild Welfare state system in Canada (According to Dr. D. Williamson), there was still a a competitive market system but there also much government involvment in the general economy. This was the period between 40s-70s in Canada, it was Characterised by increasingly extensive and continuous gov. involvment to fine tune the business cycle and to bring about ecomomic growth and high level of employment as inspired by John Maynard Keynes. These days though we follow closer the ideas of John Kenneth Galbraith in Mixed economy still with stage direction from gov. of resources, prices, investment wages, profits. For example in 73 the government set up the A.I.B(anti-inflation board) which controlled prices and wages for ALL firms in Canada. It proved to be inefficient and was disbanded in 75. Also in 73 there was a Foreign Revenue Agency set up which controlled the take over or merger involving ANY company that was wholly or partially owned by non-canadians. So you see all of these matters were characterized by increased gov. direction of the economy in the goal of National Interest much like the Bolivians are doing(Mind you the two situations differ in matters implied, but the desired outcome is quite similar). Back then there wasn’t too much noise made by these policies by foreigners as compared to Bolivia for several reasons that extend to the political realm. For one Canada is a western nation and doesn’t talk rhetoric about “communismâ€, secondly its a middle economy and could not so easily be ignored by the U.S., thirdly and most importantly Bolivia has not come up with "sophisticated" means to have the people of bolivia benefit from natural gas aside from outright threatened nationalization which would be I guess what you refering to as "extreme socialist values". so anyway this little thread has consumed a little too much time, what I would suggest to you The Point is to compared the merits of sociaslist policies with that of “cowboy capitalism†as practiced in latin America. Ask yourself which is in the greater interest of the people (by this I don’t mean the selective elite)? Why do governments regulate business? According to Williamson there a few reasons you might find compatible with the situation in Bolivia.

Intervene:

1-When undesirable Market Structure exist

2-When there is a perceived need to preserve a natural resource(not necessarily a reality only perceived by the public)

3-When there are significant externalities connected with a firms conduct in a Mkt. I.e. pollution

4-**When the Market conduct of firms generate public discontent. Na’mean power to tha BEOPLE

5- When public discontent is to control or dilute large power blocks in the economy [/QB]

What do I mean by 'actively managed economy'? I mean government that owns the majority of the factors of production, makes decisions as to how to allocate resources, actively prevents private individuals from owning factors of production, restricts the ability of private individuals to enter into mutually beneficial contractual relationships. That is my definition. Obviously, Canada or the US do not fit that mold. You state the Federal Reserve as an example of 'actively managed economy' yet, in other places, you decry its cowboy capitalism. That is a contradiction. The US can't have an actively managed economy and yet be the poster child for cowboy capitalism.

 

Canada and the US have a well-regulated market economy with Canada having more of a mixed economy through crown corporations etc. Well-regulated does not equal actively managed. Simple as that. The regulations and rules are clear and economic players are allowed to do their own thing as long as it is within the rules. Hardly an example of governments actively managing their economy.

 

You are right - this thread has taken quite a bit of time. If anything, I want to convince you of the baselessness and utter uslessness of Communism/heavy Socialism as an economic and political philosophy. You don't have to take my word for it. Our own religion is unsupportive of that. This does not mean I don't support strong social welfare programs - in fact, that is one of the reasons I like Canada so much vis-a-vis the United States. That is based on progressive taxation and a strong committment to equality of opportunity - both very admirable, although people do resent the mandatory taxation. Again, I will refer you to our religion - it is supportive of capitalism in the sense that is how resources can best be used/allocated but it also calls for a strong degree of social awareness/justice. It, however, relies more appealing to a person's heart and humanity. That is ultimately the best way of ensuring social justice - because as we full know - laws/rules/taxes can be subverted, especially by the rich and powerful.