The results are predictable: lithium contracts signed with favorable terms for multinationals. IMF loans with austerity conditions attached. Social programs cut in the name of “fiscal responsibility.” Public assets sold to private investors.
The elites get richer. Foreign corporations get access. And ordinary Bolivians? They get the bill
Policy is dictated not by ballots, but by the tables where investment deals are signed.
This is the model. It worked in Chile in the ’70s. It worked in Bolivia in the ’80s. It’s working again now.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
The problem is that the rich actually do fear for their lives. That’s why they have literal armies to protect them. We are unfortunately in an age where even if literally half the country stood up to openly rebel they would be annihilated by our juiced up military that we’ve been paying for for the last century.
Nah, if they feel like they have to make a choice between their lives and their money, that’s when change happens.
Why is he called a neoliberal instead of a conservative? What’s the distinction that needs to be highlighted in this case?
I think it’s referring to neoliberal in an economic sense: deregulate (“liberalize”) industry, privatize (“liberalize”) public services, etc.
This is following the decades old strategy for maintaining dominance over latin America. The autobiography Confessions of an Economic Hitman is an interesting read on the subject from someone who was directly involved and eventually left that world
For the tl;drers
Reagan was a neoliberal. Reaganomics describes neoliberal economic policy. The economic difference in policy between Carter and Reagan was just a matter of scale and manufacturing of consent.
A neoconservative is a neoliberal that only half bothers to hide their racism.
That guy looks sane. Lol.
This article seems to imply the Bolivians are too ignorant to vote for their own interests. Here’s the wikipedia article about the election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Bolivian_general_election?wprov=sfla1
Would you consider an article about billionaires, Super PACs, and Russian election interference to be implying that U.S. citizens are too ignorant to vote for their own interests?
Yes
Well, then they are. The point of both articles is that people are being manipulated. It is hard not to be manipulated.
What? I just don’t think my fellow people are that stupid. Saying they are prevents us from finding common ground and creating a new coallation.
Edit: Also I didn’t follow your argument at all. You said would this example imply Americans are being manipulated, I said yes, then you said they are being manipulated, which doesn’t follow from my original point that the articles are flawed by implying people are dumb/manipulated.
I don’t think it’s stupid to be swayed by the hundreds of millions of dollars being used to control the conversation and steer us in the direction they want. Media sources are increasingly centralized, candidate choices are tightly controlled, “scandals” are only published when it’s time to get people angry and emotional and push them to make a rash decision in an upcoming election; otherwise they’re covered up. The people who are aware of how rigged everything is—and I think that’s a lot of them—are still stuck in the mindset of voting for the lesser evil, because that’s the best you can do in an electoral system where the people don’t decide the candidate. I think pretending that elections are some sort of fair fight prevents us from finding common ground.
Where we differ is the idea that you have to be dumb to be manipulated. I don’t think so. I think some people are; I think some people bury their head in the sand; but being manipulated comes from being social. It’s natural to believe in other people. It would be very hard to form connections with other people if you couldn’t trust them. And we’re in an arms race with advertisers, politicians, newsrooms and PR firms where they keep coming up with new ways to pretend to be a trustworthy voice in our lives while our actual connections with our neighbors become more and more distant.
Okay? Great soapbox speech, A+. You had a misunderstanding earlier, when I said “yes.” What was I agreeing to?
