Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notes on El Salvador

mattlakeman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 210 posts

Re: Notes on El Salvador

#181

Post by Georgelemental »

1270018080 wrote: post #98
roshin wrote: post #89

If the extremely low crime rate is true, that is amazing. However, my concern is that as a de facto dictator, he can fudge the statistics. Just like Mussolini was credited for making the trains run on time only to later be found out that he simply forced the news to report that the trains ran on time. Although, if, as the author writes, people on the street love him and they all claim that crime is down. Then maybe t…

I think this reduction in crime is only temporary. You still have a poor country full of desperate people, and it's only a matter of time before the criminal enterprise vacuum gets filled by the next generation. The slate did get wiped clean, but the root cause is still there.

Extortion was one of the biggest impediments to economic growth, eliminating it should help the economy, no? And he is building schools, hospitals, etc too

Re: Notes on El Salvador

#182

Post by Georgelemental »

jenny91 wrote: post #166

I think the author is a tad naive on the worst-case scenarios. Bukele sounds a bit sociopathic: for now he seems good, but it doesn't seem he has the most principled world-view. With the god-level worship from his people and crazy high levels of support, I would worry about him turning into a lifetime dictator. You have to remember that Hitler was democratically elected for seemingly bringing back the glory of his co…

You have to keep in mind the alternative. Salvadorans before Bukele lived under a violent and oppressive regime (the gangs); so even if Bukele becomes a tyrant, it won't be any worse than what they had before. At best people are massively better off, at worst they are no worse off, so it's an easy bet to make.

Re: Notes on El Salvador

#183

Post by weweweoo »

fvdessen wrote: post #9

Gang crime seem to be a common weakness of democracies. There's a notable list of countries that had to resort to elect a quasi-dictator to get rid of gangs. As my hometown is coming to grip with a bubbling gang war, I wonder if there is a better way.

Gang crime is primarily a symptom of poverty, inequality and lack of opportunities. Many rich Western European countries had very little gang crime, at least until they decided to create a new class of working poor from exploited migrants. Nordic countries in particular would have a super low crime rate, had migration been handled better.

Re: Notes on El Salvador

#184

Post by eszed »

nemothekid wrote: post #101
cjbgkagh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make a distinction between western culture of Magna Carta onwards as distinct from mass marketed corporate manufactured culture. Encouraging the later probably serves Chinese interests.

> as distinct from mass marketed corporate manufactured culture From a hegemonic view, I don't. The "mass marketed corporate manufactured culture" ensures that the West retains an avenue for soft power in the country. As long as they watch american tv, play american games, and read american stories, the country is subtly primed to be more palatable to American view points. It might not matter now, as Bukele has demon…

A nuance: many American mass-market entertainments are now being subtly steered towards palatablity to the Chinese government / market.

Re: Notes on El Salvador

#185

Post by eszed »

philwelch wrote: post #56
bitcurious wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: France and the United States, you have the timeline mixed up a bit. France & the French intellectuals of course played a large role in the American revolution, but it was America that became a democracy first. Lafayette, one of the key players in the French Revolution, served under Washington and lead troops in the US before coming back to France and playing a key role in the founding of the First Republic.

I don’t think France successfully became a democracy at all during the Revolution; the First Republic quickly fell into the mass murdering reign of terror under Robespierre, who was ousted by the Directory, who remained in power for four years until Napoleon’s coup. Lafayette himself was basically driven out of France by the radicals. On the other hand, Britain itself was already fairly democratic by 1776, and the th…

Just to go further down the historical-nuance rabbit hole: France had been an absolute monarchy, under Louis XVI's grandfather. Both Louis XV and Louis XVI were reformers (which arguably created the conditions for revolutionary sentiment to coalesce), and XVI accepted (more or less willingly, depending on your point of view) a role as a constitutional monarch modeled on the British crown. That whole governmental model / regime fell apart, of course, and cue the reign of terror, but the First Republic was an attempt by most of the power bases in France at something more enduring.

Re: Notes on El Salvador

#186

Post by [deleted] »

Swizec wrote: post #57
Gimpei wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. Japan and South Korea both experienced the majority of their growth as democracies. Eastern Europe only took off after the fall of the USSR. Chile experienced most of its growth after Pinochet. India is the largest Democracy on earth and it is growing at a very fast clip. That being said, there simply aren’t very many countries and even less ones that made the successful leap to rich world status re…

> Eastern Europe only took off after the fall of the USSR The Balkans maybe don't count as Eastern Europe, but before ww2 we were predominantly agrarian. 75% of the population worked on farms[1]. By the 1970's Yugoslavia was a modern industrial economy with all the accoutrements you would expect from a European nation (power, sanitation, roads, etc). Only 29% of the population worked on farms[2]. Then in early 1990's…

[deleted]

Re: Notes on El Salvador

#187

Post by philwelch »

bluish29 wrote: post #157
philwelch wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran had already ceased to be a democracy by the time the coup happened. That was actually one of the precipitating causes for the coup, which had a ton of popular support at the time. Mossadegh was essentially a dictator ruling by means of emergency powers at the time he was overthrown, and even before that point, he had also interfered with the 1952 parliamentary election by stopping the counting of votes once the…

> That was actually one of the precipitating causes for the coup Are you suggesting that the CIA was worried about democracy in Iran so they ousted him to give the absolute power to the king?

No, and if you hadn’t disingenuously quoted me out of context, that would have been obvious. The complete sentence you should have quoted was: “That was actually one of the precipitating causes for the coup, which had a ton of popular support at the time.” By which I meant popular support within Iran.

It turns out that Iranians have agency of their own and don’t just do whatever the CIA tells them to do. In fact the role of the CIA in the 1953 coup has been deliberately overstated by multiple sides, including the CIA itself: https://web.archive.org/web/20150603235034/https://www.forei...

But even if you still want to blame the CIA, they still needed enough supporters inside of Iran who were angry at Mossadegh, and one of the reasons they were angry at Mossadegh is because he had turned himself into a dictator.

Re: Notes on El Salvador

#188

Post by bluish29 »

philwelch wrote: post #187
bluish29 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That was actually one of the precipitating causes for the coup Are you suggesting that the CIA was worried about democracy in Iran so they ousted him to give the absolute power to the king?

No, and if you hadn’t disingenuously quoted me out of context, that would have been obvious. The complete sentence you should have quoted was: “That was actually one of the precipitating causes for the coup, which had a ton of popular support at the time .” By which I meant popular support within Iran . It turns out that Iranians have agency of their own and don’t just do whatever the CIA tells them to do. In fact th…

I quoted the important part of your point. Adding that it did have popular support is a fact that is not established. The CIA and US media propaganda spread false reports about the situation then and still to this day. i.e this article you attached is a pure piece of western propaganda. And even if that was a reason, the reason why US abd CIA involved is much more obvious. It is the oil right getting nationalized. All other points are just cover up.

Edit: I replied before you edit your comment

Re: Notes on El Salvador

#189

Post by lcc »

keiferski wrote: post #165
tayo42 wrote: post #138

Skipping El Zonte (aka bitcoin beach) but covering btc use seemed like an odd choice. I was told it was mostly used by bitcoin tourists and foreign idealists. It was funny being told by a shop they don't accept credit, but only bitcoin or cash lol. Skimmed it, interesting thoughts overall.

Is Bitcoin Beach different from Bitcoin City? Because the latter is talked about extensively.

They're different. El Zonte (aka Bitcoin Beach) is a town that exists in the west of El Salvador, and Bitcoin City is a new development project being proposed in the east.

Re: Notes on El Salvador

#190

Post by thisislife2 »

screye wrote: post #102
thisislife2 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite true - and even with democracies like Japan and India, it is quite apparent from their early history that they were kind of autocratic democracies with one large party / leader / family in power for a long period. In India, the Indian National Congress ruled for nearly 5+ decades since independence, and 3 of its Prime Ministers were dynasts (Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi) from the same family. Note also th…

I'm Indian, I would seriously question anyone who considers India to be an 'economically successful' democracy. 400 million Indians still make less than many sub-saharan African nations. India is admittedly stable. But it was very much an economic failure. Things only started turning around in the mid-90s.

> I would seriously question anyone who considers India to be an 'economically successful' democracy.

I am an indian too.

I consider Modi to be a useless, corrupt, duffer of a Prime Minister with no role in India's economic growth. His regime will be known as the "lost decade" of India where it failed to seize the momentum and even damaged India's economic prospects with his idiocy that also pushed a lot of people back to poverty.

However, India's economic development under capable governments are just as visible as the poverty that remains. PM Nehru laid a solid foundation for our country's democracy and created the foundational infrastructure for manufacturing, defence, and scientific research. PM Shastri and Indira Gandhi focused on self-sufficiency in food production and India today is the largest producer of grains, oils, vegetables, milk, livestock etc. etc. that it can feed its 1+ billion population. Indira Gandhi boosted our military and gave extraordinary impetus to our defence, space and nuclear industries. Rajiv Gandhi focused on creating the foundation for India's electronic and IT infrastructure. PM Rao, based on the plans of his predecessors, implemented the policies for private enterprises to thrive. Dr. Manmohan Singh created and implemented one of the largest rights-based welfare scheme in the world to reduce the wealth-gap in India, while fostering economic growth with a focus on services. During his administration, and due to the continuing momentum of the economic growth that he nurtured 270 million indians were lifted out of poverty between 2005-6 and 2015-16 – the most in a global study of 75 countries ( https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-lifted-270-m... ). (I suspect Modi's policy have sent half of them back again to poverty).

It's all easy to say that economic growth happened only from the 90's. That belays an understanding of both state craft and indian history. We chose to focus on building a sustainable and strong nation-state because of our colonial history, at the expense of faster economic growth (and an emphasis on ensuring everyone benefited from the economic growth). On the other hand look at South Korea and Japan. Their economic policies were certainly better than ours at one point. But look at other aspects of their state - they are even today totally dependent on the US to safeguard their borders and thus having to sacrifice some of their sovereignty (on foreign policy) to the US. Korea even has had a history of military rules.

My point is that everything is not as simple as it appears and you have to consider the whole system - due to our democratic system and our huge population, we are operating on whole different level compared to the rest of the world. We have actually done quite well with the handicaps we have ...

Post reply on HN