Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All the Reasons America is Retarded (Dona

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dierienow
    started a topic All the Reasons America is Retarded (Dona

    All the Reasons America is Retarded (Dona

    Donald Trump not included d
    --------------------------------------------
    Well there's my covfefe moment why the fuck did it post like that. Anyway here's a list of the main reasons why America sucks not including Trump:

    Wealth Inequality

    1. The richest 1% own more than the "bottom" (relative use of the term here) 90% of Americans combined. But it's ok because America is super fair and only the most talented of con-artists and snake oil salesmen can reach the top.
    2. The richest 0.1% (which is still 300,000 people) make what? more than $5 mill a year? Now imagine the richest 0.01% which is still 30,000 people - they probably make $50 mill a year or more.
    3. Here's the kicker: the richest 0.1% or 0.01% have convinced idiots like Kthx that the system is fair through an elaborate propaganda network and an appeal to certain economic grey areas (more on this later I guess)
    4. Now people like Kthx go around mocking people who make less money, or are poor, unaware that they are a small fish as well on account of never meeting anyone from that 0.01%. If people like Kthx make $100k a year that is quite a good salary - but remember there are people who spend your yearly salary in a week. You aren't anybody important by any stretch.
    5. The rich keep the poor arguing against each other, perhaps not as a sinister conspiratorial plan but a logical game theoretical pathway that each player can reach independently. To assume rich people don't know they are rich, and wouldn't spend a good amount of money and effort to keep it that way, isn't giving enough credit. Far from brilliant tacticians, I'm sure if you put the average educated American in their shoes they could reach the same or similar conclusions. The rich want to stay rich and they are also the most empowered.
    6. Most problems in America stem from this dynamic, nay, most problems in the world arise from this dynamic as I hope to show. Let's move on to another topic but keep in mind they all arise from this root cause.

    How Wealth Inequality Relates to the Average American
    - Millions of Americans cannot afford health care, in contrast to countries like the rest of the civilized world (great country btw) that can afford, on much smaller economies, to provide healthcare for their citizens.
    - While productivity has risen predictably, wages have stagnated due to forces arising from this inequality.
    - General quality of life suffers predictably but in unseen ways. 40 million Americans live in poverty. Poverty is a strong causal factor of further life issues such as crime, mental illness, poor family planning, poor health, drug use, homelessness, education and it all spirals downward.The Military-Industrial Complex
    1. Prior to WW2, America was incredibly isolationist. This is a suitable strategy if you can imagine: America is the newest country and it occupies ALMOST an entire continent that was only recently discovered. It's also an ocean away from any world superpower of the time. Any strategist could tell you this is very beneficial, and it would be just as beneficial for America not to overeach their nascent power and instead focus on building and growth in your relative safety. In Starcraft when you find out your opponent is at the furthest possible starting point, expanding early becomes a good strategy: time is perhaps the most valuable strategic resource and America with its position in the world had plenty of it before WW2.
    2. After WW2 the geopolitical landscape was changed forever due to the nature of technology. 20 years before, enemy planes were barely a thing to be considered for America at least. Now, after WW2, planes can strike globally with massive bombs that can wipe out entire cities. There was hardly a resting moment between the two but the geopolitical dynamics changed dramatically.
    3. The Korean War, Vietnam War, arming rebel groups that align with your interests, the Gulf War, then the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. Hope I'm not missing any. After WW2 there are two threats that serve essentially the same purpose: the red scare (communism) and the Islamic scare (dictators and terrorists).
    4. The communist threat was arguably more grave: as a political system it would pave the way for ruthless dictators to terrorize their people, not because communism itself is flawed although it well could be, but rather because brutal authoritarians love a good power vacuum. The Islamic threat is not as grave: power in the late 20th/early 21st century is a lot more decentralized. Only a country like North Korea, which has intentionally kept its population in the dark for decades, is able to pull it off. With the communications of today people are a lot less susceptible to being controlled on such a mass scale. Even ISIS, which at its peak controlled a good portion of Syria and Iraq, could only do so in such a poor area of the world, and even then there's no saying how long they could maintain it even without foreign intervention. If they held Syria for even 5 years is that really any amount of time in a geopolitical context?
    5. Iraq did not have nuclear capabilities, they were not hiding Bin Laden evidently and why should they - Saddam and the Saudis had no particular good relations. Iraq and Afghanistan don't even share a border. There was no reason to ever enter Iraq besides oil and don't tell me the Bush administration or Americans in general had a soft spot for the Iraqi people being oppressed. It was all about oil and relieving pressure on a key US ally Saudi Arabia. The fact that we were VERY ARGUABLY doing some good in the region is a very minor point - it is not America's job to police the Middle East.

    How the MIC Relates to the Average American
    1. In 2016 the Department of Defense had a budget of $580 Billion. The military is an investment in many ways: it employs people, opens up new resources (Iraqi oil for example) and partnerships, it protects the image of America as a strong and safe investment, and more.
    2. Meanwhile in America there is a gun in almost every home, cities like Chicago have a shooting every 3 hours and a person is murdered every 12 hours. The Middle East is likely safer than some American neighborhoods.
    3. Some "Most Manco-Like:" character shoots up a school every year or so in a mass shooting spree. Everyone feels bad, the cable news shows have their programming for the next few days, newspapers sell more copies, and people buy more guns ironically.
    4. Americans are somehow convinced that if they needed to rebel against their 580 billion dollar/year government, they're going to do it with their household firearms. Let me tell you idiots something. If the government decided to turn against the population the best use for the gun in your home is to shoot yourself in the head and save yourself the trouble. Of course nobody has a gun for that reason, they have it because it makes them feel powerful and hey, I didn't shoot anybody so why should my toy be taken away?
    5. Of course even if you wanted to destroy all the guns in America there would just be a black market. Create more conflicts so you can create more arms so you can create more jobs (and by jobs I mean wealth for the people who matter). America would be shooting itself in the foot economically by banning guns, since they are one of the biggest suppliers. Which brings me to the next topic.

    Corporate America

    One of my favorite topics, almost every problem in America can somehow be traced to the corporation. Nobody in America became rich without it - it is the vessel of greed and corruption and its properties make it especially valuable. The corporation is legally required to maximize the profit of its shareholders. While someone without a mental handicap might imagine the goal of a corporation to be something like, "maximizing the welfare of its stakeholders" that just didn't have the same pizazz. No, the modern corporation is required to be the legal incorporation of excessive greed. No shareholder can be held responsible - all they did was fund the operation! No employee is responsible either - they were only listening to the boss. Your boss isn't responsible either, he was following his boss' orders and so on. So you pay a single dude a bunch of money to be accountable. But they're rarely held accountable because that would be intellectually dishonest to the extreme - everyone is culpable to an extent there's simply no way of pursuing everyone. So the whole idea of holding someone accountable is thrown to the wind - great job, America. The system works so well (not at improving your country, mind you, but in generating wealth anonymously for the top 0.01%) that it's implemented fucking everywhere: healthcare (which by definition should be PERMANENTLY REMOVED from the private sector, as far as actual care goes), prisons (America's prison pop. per capita is the highest in the world lol), defense (perverted incentives when you mix unaccountable greed with a powerful military), schools, you name it. Here's how the private sector works, in principle:

    1. There are three ways for a business to make more profit: increase revenue, decrease costs, or pay less taxes. Some accountant will tell you there are only two (the first two) but I list three for simplicity.
    2. Increasing revenue is difficult since its not entirely within your control: you can try to increase your sales or introduce a new product/service but it is never a guaranteed success. Decreasing costs is within your control and therefore much easier.
    3. Your prison needs new clothing for its inmates. There is no reason not to purchase the cheapest option, as your goal is to maximize profit within your legal boundaries. Your private school needs a new building. The cost of building a new school is less than the cost of dealing with a few potential lawsuits (injuries and such) down the road, if they were to occur. You are legally required to not build that new school. As for the customers, the next closest school is 10 miles away so they won't be switching any time soon (search wikipedia: inelastic demand)
    4. Your employees are amazing - they really add value to the company. Labor is just another cost, though, and everyone is replaceable. Except you, the one making the final decision on everything. It doesn't matter if you sit behind a desk all day signing papers, you're the star. Not the employees who do the actual work for your business. Imagine if businesses paid their labor their true value (not some artificially inflated or deflated value based on supply/demand relating to a superficial imposed authoritarian hierarchy). The CEO would be paid far less and that's unacceptable, not for any reason besides that's how the structure is.
    5. Change (internal and external) and innovation is a cost, as well. Covering America in broadband coverage sure is expensive, let's charge Americans for the services they already pay for. Developing new drugs is really expensive, too, so let's increase the price of insulin. Title II sucks - we liked it when we could price discriminate and you didn't have the option to switch providers. Now THAT was a great time for us. Under Title II we'd lose hundreds of millions in potential revenue, so let's pay the government a few million to heavily consider keeping things as they were. Change costs money and businesses aren't about spending more money - there's no mandate that says they have to care about Americans or progress or poor people.
    6. Also we want less taxes. Not so we can pay our employees more, or give our prisoners better beds and clothing - that would be absurd. We simply want more money, is that so difficult to understand? BUT HEY WAIT LISTEN HEY - it's good for the economy I promise! Sure you could simply give money to people who need it and it would enter the economy immediately (and not some rich 0.01%'ers bank account) but that's socialist talk. Eventually people will benefit, after I've benefitted by 10x more, but come on. Hey, I'll give you $150,000 if you give me $500,000 - is that such a bad deal? Don't you want money you sick, corrupted husk of a human being?

    The Media

    1. People are right to question the media. Here's an idea: no media outlet, especially if its privately owned, is without bias. It's usually good business, though, to pratice fair and unbiased journalism and media practices because many people aren't stupid and usually don't want biased news.
    2. If people knew the news was fake they wouldn't watch it. They'd watch Game of Thrones or read PPS latest book or something. I think pps should be writing books for the public at large or at least be a celebrity outside of TW - he's said some of the most original but stupid things I can think of and therefore embodies the American spirit.
    3. News channels like Fox News prey on the average American. They feed you biased bullshit and foster the divide between Americans because it makes Rupert Murdoch and his rich buddies richer. If you ever want to know if a news org. is biased just follow the money. What does CNN gain by pushing anti-gun opinions (if they are even biased in this way)? Does it make Ted Turner money? What do Rupert Murdoch and friends have to gain by telling you Obamacare is terrible? It costs them nothing to say it, either, but they have everything to gain from it. What does Fox News have to gain by pushing anti-Islam opinions? Well, half the population will probably be cool with the next invasion of Iraq, for one.
    4. Often the bias is so subtle that even otherwise intelligent or good people can fall for it if they're already leaning conservative. Make no doubt that Rupert Murdoch and his friends see the media as a tool for protecting their other investments, or the Fox News brand itself. If Fox News decided to report on the news accurately and fairly tomorrow there'd be nothing to distinguish it from CNN, and other news channels that already do a good job of just reporting the news. By advertising yourself as the "other viewpoint" of the news you create a brand that is only sustained by continuing that viewpoint. It's how Alex Jones made a news network off of "InfoWars" and alternative news: in reality he has zero advantages over an established new network but by fabricating a viewpoint he's created a product - and people love it. Problem is they confuse it with reality.

    In truth, people have the most power in this world. If we were of a single mind, would there be anything stopping us from eradicating poverty, war, nuclear weapons - anything, really - from this planet? Of course not. It's all as possible as landing on the moon, traveling to Mars, or opening your balcony window. Break free of the propganda and individualistic mindset that you did everything yourself - that no luck was involved, that nobody deserves your help. Kthx: if you were born in Uganda you wouldn't even be here making 10k posts like a complete poop stain, how do you not realize this? From the very start you had some advantage in the world, so why do you treat others like they are subhuman for not having as much as you do? Is that what you base your entire value on - wealth and circumstance that you didn't even earn? And you don't even realize how truly worthless you are compared to people with real power in the world. So what is the point of you, and millions of other Republicans and Democrats (mostly Republicans lets be fair) dividing yourselves when if you worked together you could overcome every obstacle in the world, if that was your goal. Or is it your goal to shitpost on Trenchwars forums all day long? Many people look at America with contempt - it's not just America's fault of course, the whole world is starting to use this corrupt capitalist system because it's so effective. Do you really want such a great nation, founded on such promising ideals, to become a wasteland of decerepit morals and greed? It's not just Republicans either I have to emphasize, but they are by far the worst offenders. Seems to me people in America like being evil, like being greedy, like being cruel to their neighbour, and don't see the irony in their situation: that they are far more similiar to the peoplen they mock than they realize, far closer to poverty than they know, and much farther from good than they'd like to think. Enjoy your elitist shithole of a country that divides and conquers you like all the other peons, that makes 10000x more off a tax cut than you do, and looks at you with the same contempt that you have for your poorer neighbour. Enjoy sitting on your computer coming up with such original insults like "fag" and.. well that's it and patting yourself on the back for your supreme contribution to this world. Faggot.

    Might be updating this list but this is a general outline of the corrupt nature of American political economy in my opinion. Take it, leave it, research more, update your opinions, don't, I don't care. I can log onto this game and destroy the zone within minutes dare me. I'll probably donate when I have money (likely not this month, definitely wasn't last month when I first thought of donating). Normally I could donate $20/month or so, and for all the enjoyment I've had these past months I think I owe something. I give away my pub money as well so nobody can say I'm greedy or don't practice what I preach. Fly safe idiots, don't be like that one warbird on the right tube.
    Last edited by Dierienow; 12-02-2017, 06:01 PM.

  • Jerome Scuggs
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Zeebu
    replied
    i mean yeah, flint is bad and all, but:

    pay your fuckin water bill

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerome Scuggs
    replied


    roger stone is already writing a book about trump's downfall. kek

    Leave a comment:


  • Zeebu
    replied
    didnt roy moore basically go into hiding the last week? i feel like witness protection is not a good look for a candidate. i'll bet over the last 2 weeks alone 10% of the votes shifted away from him

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerome Scuggs
    replied
    kind of a tragic fucking election to watch, no idea who doug jones is but i'm sure he's going to suck shit, but gotdamnit i just wanna know how this fits in with trump's brilliant 4d chess he's supposedly doing.

    and 2018 is right around the corner. another fun year in america. i fucking love this country for real, and 2018 is going to be hilarious, just somehow even more bizarre and fucked up than 2017 was

    any of yall see the daniel shaver video?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dierienow
    replied
    Anyone else watching the Alabama election? Roy Moore 49.9%, Doug JONES 48.6%. 79% counted. The guy that's ahead usually wins tbh kind of like kill-o-thon. SPeaking of kill-o-thon, if Alabama elects a literal child predator and independent voters fuck up another election, who else is going on one? I kid (and Roy Moore liked it). Jones has been catching up the past few minutes but I'm trying not to be overly optimistic

    Moore 49.3% Jones 49.1% let's fucking go boys put on your comeback goggles and plug in those twang guitars it's happening

    LMFAO Jones 49.7 Moore 48.7 87% of da votes
    Last edited by Dierienow; 12-12-2017, 11:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dierienow
    replied
    The things that stood out to me:

    - price of water increased 3x. This had to be done either through the state or a private company, but at least through the state they can keep the price of essential resources artificially low through subsidies, shifting priorities, raising taxes and tariffs. This is assuming the state isn't already corrupt. But a private "consortium" has two options: raise the price to make a profit or turn the taps off. It's never even a consideration that this company would use some of its 32 billion in revenue to keep the cost of water low, but the state has this this in their self-interest.

    - The consortium wanted a guaranteed minimum return on investment, per year, of 15%. It's insane to expect a guaranteed return in any project but especially a utility company in South America. One, because there is no such thing as a guaranteed return as evidenced here. And two, they were the only bidders on the project and likely had an upper hand in the bargaining so they can ask what they want and the gov't isn't exactly in a position to say no. Three, the consortium lacked the cultural knowledge (or just didn't care) to know that such a price increase would be gouging customers and turning their $7/month water into $20/month water when the average Bolivian's budget is $100/month. They still have rent, food, and other utilities to pay as well. And they likely understood that their project was funding corruption but didn't care as long as they had their return.

    - Obviously corrupt local governments are partly to blame. Part of the contract was that the consortium would finance building the rest of a dam that was favoured by the local politicians but the World Bank warned against it. "Had the advice of the World Bank been followed, the construction of the dam would not have been part of the concession, the tariff increase would have been unnecessary and Aguas del Tunari would have had to face competition in its drive to win the Cochabamba concession." But that doesn't say anything against socialism, only against corrupt, poor South American governments that just exited 20 years of military dictatorships in 1985. And the dam was likely a vector for illegal funds to gov't officials, since the deal was the consortium would fund the construction, not build it themselves. The funding side would have no idea about the true cost of the project and would be overcharged. The companies doing the project had to have known this.

    - The gov't turned on its own citizens because they couldn't leave the contract without putting up a fight or they'd be out tens of millions over nothing. They probably had no qualms about turning on them anyway, but they couldn't easily revert or fix the situation either without co-operation from the private consortium. You can see in the Aftermath section, they tried to sue afterwards for $40 million due to "lost profits" which is ridiculous considering the original terms and the state of Bolivia. As a result people died (with many more injured), property was destroyed, freedoms withheld, some were temporarily jailed. The company that caused the outrage to begin with, though, was essentially untouchable.




    I just found it ironic how someone mentioned Bolivia, someone before mentioned Venezuela and how the government is repressing voters or something. As if repressing voters is a socialist thing, get the fuck out of here idiot. Then I find a perfect, well-researched example about one of the more flagrant abuses of privatization from an American company no less and there is no way capitalism as an ideology can't be held partially responsible in this case. In America you see the good and the bad side of capitalism, but if you want to see the ugly side you need to look at the real vulnerable, fucked up parts of the world. The reason your living condition is so good, kthx, isn't because you're smarter, better, or anything greater than anyone else sorry to say. It's because what you see is the result of plundering the world through business, and you were lucky enough to be born in America and not some street in Bolivia. And I assure you street kids without ever having a computer or book to read have NO idea what is happening or why they are poor. You DO have the possibility knowing and you act like a complete twat - you know we're right you just like the idea that you have it better off than someone else (let me guess you did it all yourself, too?) You know none of these articles prove your point, you're just wasting the potential for dialogue and shutting down genuine conversation . You're so much fucking smarter than everyone else why don't you do something useful with your time and make the world a better place? You cant start by helping your country and not working against them - the ideology you've divined from years of Fox News is not helping anyone outside of the 0.2%.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerome Scuggs
    replied
    Originally posted by Zeebu View Post
    so the world bank folks should have stayed the hell out of it?
    I suppose so, but they were nowhere near Flint or Flint's water supply and the privatization effort there... well, I don't think I have to explain what's *still* going on there

    Leave a comment:


  • Zeebu
    replied
    Originally posted by Jerome Scuggs View Post
    privatization is just as extreme a concept as nationalization, and this is one of the great examples of this
    so the world bank folks should have stayed the hell out of it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerome Scuggs
    replied
    btw ltc is taking off, kthx if you'd put 30 bucks into ltc when i posted, you'd have 90 now

    ofc as soon as i hit "post reply" its going to crash to 50 cents but whatever, this has been a fun ride

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerome Scuggs
    replied
    Originally posted by Zeebu View Post
    yeah, not sure what to make about that.
    privatization is just as extreme a concept as nationalization, and this is one of the great examples of this

    Leave a comment:


  • Zeebu
    replied
    yeah, not sure what to make about that. the bolivian govt made a stupid agreement with a company that had no business investing that amount of money to a country ill-equipped to provide an adequate return on investment. the world bank should have stayed out of it unless they were willing to fork over their own money with generous rates to the bolivian govt.

    ultimately, the bolivian govt effed that business up under pressure from world bank. i dont see any fault in the private investors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dierienow
    replied
    Looking into Bolivia led me to an interesting event that I had no idea existed called the Cochamochabambaboom Water War.

    The Cochabamba Water War,[1] was a series of protests that took place in Cochabamba, Bolivia's third largest city, between December 1999 and April 2000 in response to the privatization of the city's municipal water supply company Semapa. The tensions erupted when a new firm, Aguas del Tunari – a joint venture involving Bechtel – was required to invest in construction of long-envisioned dam - so they had dramatically raised water rates.
    Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel Group, Inc.) is the largest construction and civil engineering company in the United States,[5] and the 8th-largest privately owned American company in 2017.
    $32.9 bn (2017)[2][3]
    Bechtel family
    In April 2000, Hugo Banzer, the former President of Bolivia, signed a contract with Aguas del Tunari, a private consortium, to operate and improve the water supply in Bolivia's third-largest city, Cochabamba. Shortly thereafter, the company tripled the water rates in that city, an action which resulted in protests and rioting among those who could no longer afford clean water.[65][66] Amidst Bolivia's nationwide economic collapse and growing national unrest over the state of the economy, the Bolivian government was forced to withdraw the water contract.
    Aguas del Tunari consortium

    Prior to privatization the water works of Cochabamba were controlled by the state agency SEMAPA. After pressure from the World Bank, the Bolivian government put SEMAPA up for auction for privatization but not capitalization. Only one party was willing to bid on the project.[7] This was Aguas del Tunari, a consortium between the British firm International Waters (55 percent) - itself a subsidiary of the construction giant Bechtel Enterprise Holdings (USA) and United Utilities (UK) - the engineering and construction firm Abengoa of Spain (25 percent) and four Bolivian companies (5 percent each) including Constructora Petricevic, Sociedad Boliviana de Cemento (SOBOCE), Compania Boliviana de Ingenieria and ICE Agua y Energia S.A., all involved with the construction and engineering industry. The water network that they envisioned was projected to provide drinking water to all the people of Cochabamba. This was set to double the existing coverage area and also introduce electrical production to more of the region.[8]

    Without regard for its weak bargaining position, the Bolivian government under President Hugo Banzer agreed to the terms of its sole bidder Aguas del Tunari and signed a $2.5 billion, 40-year concession "to provide water and sanitation services to the residents of Cochabamba, as well as generate electricity and irrigation for agriculture."[3][7] Within the terms of the contract the consortium was guaranteed a minimum 15% annual return on its investment, which was to be annually adjusted to the United States' consumer price index.[3] The implementation of Aguas del Tunari's program was set to correlate with a government plan to present a $63 million rural development package to peasants with funds for crop diversification, and extending electric and telephone services to remote areas.[9]
    Protests and state of emergency

    In April 2000, demonstrators again took over Cochabamba's central plaza. When the leaders of the resistance (including Óscar Olivera) went to a meeting with the governor at his office they were arrested. Though they were released the following day, some, fearing further government action, fled into hiding. More demonstration leaders were arrested, with some being transferred to a jungle prison in San Joaquin, a remote town in the Amazon rainforest on the border with Brazil.[3][16] The demonstrations spread quickly to other areas including La Paz, Oruro, and Potos* as well as rural areas. The protesters also expanded their demands calling on the government to resolve unemployment and other economic problems.[15] Soon demonstrators had most of the major highways in Bolivia barricaded.[3] The protest even inspired officers in four La Paz police units to refuse to leave their barracks or obey superiors until a wage dispute was settled.[16]
    State of emergency

    The Bolivian Constitution allows the President (with the support of his Cabinet) to declare a 90-day state of siege in one or more districts of the nation as an emergency measure to maintain public order in "cases of serious danger resulting from an internal civil disturbance".[17][18] Any extension beyond 90 days must be approved of by the Congress.[18] Anyone arrested at this time must be released after 90 days unless criminal charges are brought against them before a court.[17] With the roads cut off and fearing a repeat of past uprisings, President Banzer on 8 April 2000 declared a "state of siege".[3] Banzer said, "We see it as our obligation, in the common best interest, to decree a state of emergency to protect law and order."[3] Information Minister Ronald MacLean Abaroa described the rationale for the decree, saying "We find ourselves with a country with access roads to the cities blocked, with food shortages, passengers stranded and chaos beginning to take hold in other cities."[16] The decree suspended "some constitutional guarantees, allowing police to detain protest leaders without a warrant, restrict travel and political activity and establish a curfew."[15] Meetings of over four people were outlawed, and the freedom of the press was curtailed with radio stations being taken over by the military and some newspaper reporters being arrested. The police moved in to enforce the policy with nighttime raids and mass arrests.[10][15] At one point 20 labor union and civic leaders were arrested.[15] The police's tear gas and rubber bullets were met by the protesters' rocks and Molotov cocktails.[16] Continuing violent clashes between the demonstrators and law enforcement led to internal exile, 40 injuries, and five deaths.[10][15] International Human Rights Organizations decried the "state of siege" declaration.[17][19] This was the seventh time since Bolivia returned to democracy in 1982 that the "state of siege" decree had been employed.[16]



    On 9 April 2000, near the city of Achacachi, soldiers met resistance to removing a roadblock and opened fire, killing two people (including a teenage boy) and wounding several others. Angry residents overpowered soldiers and used their weapons against military leaders. They wounded Battalion commander Armando Carrasco Nava and army captain Omar Jesus Tellez Arancibia. The demonstrators then found Tellez in hospital, dragged him from his bed, beat him to death and dismembered his body.[20]



    Also, on 9 April 2000, 800 striking police officers fired tear gas at soldiers (to which the soldiers then fired their weapons in the air).[20] In response the government gave a 50% pay raise to the La Paz police to end the strike. This brought their monthly income up from the equivalent of $80 to $120.[20] The police then returned to enforcement procedures against those still demonstrating.[20] A group of soldiers soon demanded their own raise, declaring that there was racial discrimination in the pay scale. Police in Santa Cruz, the nation's second largest city, also went on strike demanding a raise.[20]
    Resolution

    After a televised recording of a Bolivian Army captain, Robinson Iriarte de la Fuente, firing a rifle into a crowd of demonstrators wounding many and hitting high school student V*ctor Hugo Daza in the face, killing him, intense anger erupted.[3] The police told the executives of the consortium that their safety could no longer be guaranteed. The executives then fled from Cochabamba to Santa Cruz.[3] After coming out of four days of hiding, Oscar Olivera signed a concord with the government guarantee the removal of Aguas del Tunari and turning Cochabamba's water works over to La Coordinadora. Detained demonstrators were to be released and Law 2029 repealed.[4] The Banzer government then told Aguas del Tunari that by leaving Cochabamba they had "abandoned" the concession and declared the $200 million contract revoked. The company, insisting that it had not left voluntarily but been forced out, filed a $40 million lawsuit in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, an appellate body of the World Bank, against the Bolivian government, "claiming compensation for lost profits under a bilateral investment treaty."[10] On the day following V*ctor Hugo Daza's funeral, Óscar Olivera climbed to his union office's balcony and proclaimed victory to the exhausted crowd.[3] The demonstrators declared that they would not relent until Law 2029 was changed. To get a quorum to amend the law the government even rented planes to fly legislators back to the capital. In a special session on 11 April 2000 the law was changed.[20]
    Aftermath

    On 12 April 2000 when asked about the outcome in Bolivia, World Bank President James Wolfensohn maintained that free or subsidized delivery of a public service like water leads to abuse of the resource; he said, "The biggest problem with water is the waste of water through lack of charging."

    Legal settlement

    On 19 January 2006 a settlement was reached between the Government of Bolivia (then under the Presidency of Eduardo Rodriguez Veltze) and Aguas del Tunari, it was agreed that "the concession was terminated only because of the civil unrest and the state of emergency in Cochabamba and not because of any act done or not done by the international shareholders of Aguas del Tunari". With this statement both parties agreed to drop any financial claims against the other.[23]


    Who needs water when you can have the delicious thirst-quenching bottle of Coca-Cola? Ahhh, that hits the spot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerome Scuggs
    replied
    whoops im a bit late to the thread cuz quite frankly i was busy trolling some other MAGA chud on facebook who has mentally melted down so hard that he's straight up posting, publicly, on facebook, about how we need to homogenize our country and to prove it, he used... murder statistics from serbia?

    like i know irl when you have to talk to ordinary people you don't post staged youtube videos and harass transgender people, you probably act normal, but after a year of constant maga-chud owning some of y'all are starting to lose it and watching this dude i went to hs with slowly admit that yeah, he'd totally support concentration camps for minorities... it's gold.

    anyways where were we? something about those 4channers who staged some videos and more talk about venezuela, which i mean, i guess i'll just chuckle and remind myself there's a reason you never mention it's neighbor, Bolivia, also a socialist country, nor its other neighbor, Chile, who has been under the control of literal chicago school, conservative economists ever since the CIA murdered allende in '73 because his successful socialist country was literally scaring the shit out of the very elites and "mainstream" people you claim to oppose

    you never mention Burka Fasino / Sankara either, which should be an easier one for you, but still, lol "venezeula venezuela venezuelaaaaAAaAAaaAaaAAAaaa"
    Last edited by Jerome Scuggs; 12-12-2017, 03:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X