
Who Wants To Buy Honduras? - gruseom
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/who-wants-to-buy-honduras.html?_r=2&smid=tw-share&pagewanted=all
======
jacobolus
> _He eventually realized something that seems obvious to any nonacademic,
> that poor countries are saddled with laws and, crucially, customs that
> prevent new ideas from taking shape. [...] The United Arab Emirates, Hong
> Kong and Singapore were able to build well-designed cities that housed and
> employed millions, in part by persuading foreigners to invest heavily._

It’s really obnoxious that the author allows this facile analysis to pass
without any attempt to provide context. Hong Kong and Singapore were Western
colonial corporate/financial/trade centers for a giant continent which was
otherwise mostly blocked off, and so were bottlenecks through which massive
amounts of capital flowed (and goods: HK, Singapore, and Shanghai are the
busiest ports in Asia). The UAE is a tiny country with one of the largest oil
reserves in the world.

The claim that the main problem poor countries have is “customs that prevent
new ideas”, as compared to – at least in the case of Honduras – 500 years of
quite shocking exploitation and violence (diving into Honduran history books
is not for the faint of heart), and for most the last 100 years political
control by US-backed strongmen and American fruit companies and frequently the
US military, as the original “banana republic”, is offensive. [He did mention
that Dole/Chiquita “have controlled its agricultural exports”, but left it at
that.] Cf.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Honduras#Honduras_in...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Honduras#Honduras_in_the_twentieth_century)

Disclaimer: I grew up in southern Mexico, and a couple years ago took a course
on Mesoamerican colonial history from the former Honduran Minister of Culture,
who fled to the US after the 2009 coup.

~~~
moldbug
This is standard 20th century history. It's also the standard Communist line
(Galeano, Zinn, etc). Its only correspondence with reality is the statement
that everything wrong with Latin America is the US's fault. While this is
true, everything else is a lie.

The truth about Latin America is that it's suffering from 200 years of
revolutionary ideology exported from El Norte. All its functional institutions
date to Spanish rule (which is why "colonial" is applied indiscriminately to
anything that isn't ugly in Mexico). Things started to suck in the 19th
century when revolutionary Enlightenment ideology, all of Anglo-American
origin, destroyed first colonial, then clerical and aristocratic rule, in the
process producing approximately a zillion very very nasty civil wars.

And of course comparing 19th-century revolutionary ideology to its 20th-
century successor is like comparing strychnine to cyanide. Where did all these
ideologies come from? Dude, do you really have to ask? Ergo "pobre Mexico, tan
lejos de Dios, tan cerca a los Estados Unidos."

For instance, it's grimly hilarious that today, with Mexico the world capital
of decapitation, anyone could conceivably praise the Mexican Revolution. If
Woodrow Wilson and Americans like him hadn't been so intent on "teaching
Mexico to elect good men," the Porfiriato could easily have lasted another
century:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porfirio_D%C3%ADaz>

Instead, thanks to John Reed and his ilk:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reed_(journalist)>

You wind up with this dude:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teodoro_Garc%C3%ADa_Simental>

whom I'm pretty sure neither the Porfiriato nor New Spain would have wasted
much time in hanging. Etc, etc, etc.

 _took a course on Mesoamerican colonial history from the former Honduran
Minister of Culture, who fled to the US after the 2009 coup._

And no doubt wishes the State Department would repeat its usual trick of
deposing all Latin American governments which aren't headed by Harvard
professors, or completely Americanized natives acceptable to such. Strangely,
this position is commonly referred to as "anti-Americanism" - possibly for the
same reason tall men are called "Tiny."

Needless to say, the _golpistas_ in Honduras are a hell of a lot more Honduran
than anyone who has ever taught a course at Harvard (or wherever). If you
prefer them to the Harvard professors, you're an imperialist. Hell of a world
we live in, ain't it?

Disclaimer: my father was a US vice-consul in the Dominican Republic. Don't
hate the player, hate the game.

~~~
jacoblyles
At the turn of the 20th century, Argentinans enjoyed living standards fully
90% of contemporary Western Europeans[1]. Today, that is just 37%. In fact, 6
of the world's 30 richest countries were in Latin America in 1900. Today,
Latin America's richest country ranks #55 in GDP per capita.

[1]
[http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/thebearslairview?art_id...](http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/thebearslairview?art_id=10653)

What is plaguing Latin America is NOT the legacy of colonialism, but the
legacy of revolutionary left-wing leaders and the bad economic ideas of the
left.

~~~
rbreve
Argentina's default in 2003 was caused by the right and the IMF policies,
Nestor Kishner a left-wing leader saved Argentina from that crisis.

~~~
cualunque
That's a good one... maybe you don't remember what the "left-wing leader" did
in the '70s, or '90s, or what happened up until 2003. Or maybe you are reading
6,7,8's account of history, very well written in Newspeak.

------
DanielBMarkham
We see this same thing in huge development shops. The rules, structure, and
culture has become such that it's impossible to get real progress done. In
such cases, if we can get firm commitment from management to leave high
performing cells alone come what may, we can create small packets of high-
performance that can then set an example.

I think this is a great idea.

However, from personal experience I can tell you that the rest of the system
will actively seek to kill these pockets -- mostly through well-meaning
efforts and concerns. It'll be a tough row to hoe for Honduras.

I'd also note that in environments like this it's typical for everybody to
have a story about how they (and they alone) could fix it if only one thing
was changed. If their pet cause was addressed. These stories can sound very
attractive, and no doubt contain a great deal of truth, but you must remember
that it's stories like this that perpetuate a system that gets more and more
complex and unwieldy as patches are applied and then as patches are applied to
the patches. Nope, starting over is their only shot. I wish them well.

------
jayferd
I sit on a man's back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure
myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any
means possible, except getting off his back.

\-- Leo Tolstoy

Any solution to the suffering in Honduras will have to involve stopping the
injustice there - which means Dole and Chiquita will have to give up the
notion of "basically-free labor".

You don't need to help the poor - just get off their backs.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
> ... which means Dole and Chiquita will have to give up the notion of
> "basically-free labor".

If we can build a self-driving car good enough to carry the rich and famous, a
self-picking banana cart is a no brainer. Then nobody will be on the poors'
backs.

They had better have a service economy ready when it happens.

~~~
planetguy
It's not like bananas are even one of those crops which requires cheap labour
in order to be economical.

The Australian banana industry gets by somehow, paying sky-high Australian
wages, and you can still buy Australian bananas for no more than you'd pay for
an Ecuadorian banana. (At least, in those years when the Australian banana
crop hasn't been wiped out by a cyclone.)

~~~
quadhome
Australia has its own cheap labour: working holidays and people (students) who
want visa extensions.

------
cynicalkane
It's a little odd seeing the old stories about why poor nations fail to be
popping up again on a forum of predominantly libertarian-minded hackers.

Lots of places have wealth; but some squander it and some don't. Lots of
places have been touched by the smelly hand of imperialism, but some prospered
and some are ongoing failures. Lots of places have driven out Western
"strongmen" as one poster called them, and lots haven't, and they have
succeeded and failed economically in various ways.

The Honduras experiment is an experiment in the latest theories of
developmental economics, that arose as a reaction to the failure of the old
stories. The idea is that some kinds of institutions are conducive to growth,
and others aren't. Importing institutions from successful countries can be
anti-growth but it doesn't have to be, nor does the absence of foreign
investment somehow magically empower the citizens of a country.

The rejection of this charter city because it 'smells of colonialism' seems a
dishonest reason to reject things--motivated by clinging to old, feel-good
ideas; refusing to try things that might or might not work because one would
rather see the poor definitely starve than give up one's sense of moral
righteousness on a risky endeavour.

~~~
hristov
This forum is not one of predominantly libertarian hackers. I have been here a
long time and have not found any predominant political leaning of this forum
other than on specific issues related to technology law, intellectual property
and privacy. So that statement is presumptive and wrong.

Regarding the rest of your post, it will take me all day to point out all the
various misconceptions and racisms there.

But I should say that in my old country we had a 50 year experiment called
communism forced upon us by a more powerful foreign country and it was no fun
at all. That experiment also came highly recommended from the best minds in
academia.

That's why the whole idea of powerful countries doing experiments on weaker
ones seems incredibly wrong and offensive to me.

And no this is not "importing institutions from succesful countries." There is
not a single successful country that has anything similar to this -- i.e., an
autonomous region that is ruled by some economics professor and is not subject
to the country's laws or democratic institutions. In fact if any politician
even suggests this for America, their career is doomed.

How about we don't experiment on poorer nations. How about we let them decide
for themselves. This way if they do something wrong it will be their own
fault. And if they want to pass laws that favor foreign investment they can
pass those laws using their lawfully elected parliament and they can take
their own responsibility for them.

The current president of Honduras is the result of a military coup and very
dodgy elections held by that same military after many arrests and
disappearances.

If this deal goes through it will not be considered by ordinary people in
Honduras as something they chose. It will be considered as something dictated
from the U.S. I am not sure how much that is true, but it is obvious that this
is what the Hondurans will believe. The coup is already being blamed on the
US.

~~~
jpsierens
I'm Honduran. Zelaya was going against the constitution when he decided to be
re-elected on a third consecutive term, without the vote of the people. As
stated somewhere else, he was bringing over rigged votes from Venezuela.

The current president is not the result of a military coup. After Zelaya was
overthrown (without violence), the military set up an interim government with
a temporary president. He was president until democratic elections took place.
We all voted and chose our current president (at least the majority).

I really pity how the rest of the world views this as a coup and say that our
current government is not a valid one. Thanks CNN.

~~~
rsanchez1
Too bad Zelaya didn't have the brilliant idea of packing the Supreme Court wit
sympathizers like Ortega did down south, so that when he announced he was
going to seek an illegal term the sympathizers in the court would give him
legitimacy. Now, inexplicably Nicaragua has yet another Ortega term. Guess
Chavez's oil money works better in Nicaragua than it does in Honduras.

------
blahedo
If the problem is that the government is dominated by a few wealthy families
and heavily-invested foreign corporations control the exports, how could it
possibly be solved by creating an area that is dominated by a board of a few
wealthy people and tries to attract heavy investment from foreign
corporations?

This doesn't "reek of" colonialism. This _is_ colonialism.

~~~
waterlesscloud
The idea here seems to be to transition from a system focused on extracting
wealth to a system focused on creating wealth.

This is definitely something that will have to happen in poor nations
exploited by internal and/or external sources, there's no question about it.

Whether or not this particular plan can actually succeed at making the
transition is certainly up for debate, but the goals it sets seem to pretty
clearly be good ones.

~~~
blahedo
Well the goals are good, but if you buy into the whole "noble savage" thing,
the goals of a lot of the first-round colonialists weren't so bad either. I
think the distinction between extracting vs creating wealth is a narrow one,
when the mechanism for creating wealth is essentially mining the local native
population for its labour rather than its natural resources---and extracting
the created wealth.

I mean, if you think colonialism has a net-positive effect on the natives, you
would not be alone, and there are certainly some positive effects (which may
or may not outweigh the many negative effects). But denying that the OP
proposal is a form of colonialism seems disingenuous at best. If you're going
to promote it as a good thing, you might as well embrace it.

~~~
quadhome
I think the idea is that you can't _mine_ someone for _skilled_ labour.

------
toemetoch
Paul Romer's ...

selected publications:
[http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~promer/selected_publications.sht...](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~promer/selected_publications.shtml)

TED talk: <http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer.html>

Not my field but worth a peek I guess.

~~~
Jach
I'll add to this with a link discussing Romer's blatant ripoff of colonialism,
and what the state of the evidence is about whether colonialism produces good
results: [http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-
cr...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cromer-to-
romer-and-back-again.html)

~~~
mseebach
I think you've got the wrong link there. You seem to have meant to add
something of substance, but the link is to a post that appears to do little
more than say "niggaz" a lot and throw mud in pretty much all directions.

~~~
Jach
Both "substance" and "a lot" are entirely a matter of personal taste in this
instance, I guess. I don't consider a word "x" appearing
0.04482294935006723442402510085% of the time in a post to be "a lot", but I
recognize the existence of people who believe more than 0 of anything is a
lot.

For the substance, well, there's a lot of words there, but of course I've read
posts with 40 words and posts with 11,000 words that both conveyed the same
small amount of substance. I do think the link has a non-zero not-
insignificant amount to add (or why bother sharing as a child of another link-
sharing comment) especially if you include the links from that link; I think
it has at least as much substance as the actual submission here. (And look,
the author himself has even posted here, splendid. If you think his light-
weight comments here have substance, make sure you give him an upvote.)

------
civilian
Okay! This NYtimes article is not a good introduction to the concept.

Here's the main website: <http://www.chartercities.org/> (with an FAQ!
<http://www.chartercities.org/faq/11/faq> )

Here are the related TED talks:

<http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/paul_romer.html> from July 2009

[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/paul_romer_the_world_s_firs...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/paul_romer_the_world_s_first_charter_city.html)
from 2011

To the people screaming "colonialism!", please read/watch these things first.

------
_delirium
Discussion of a much more negative take on Romer's "charter city" idea from
two years ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=850900>

------
malandrew
Why would you choose a country to be the custodian of a city state instead of
choosing a city or several cities to act as custodians?

I hardly think that nations are fit to manage a special economic zone.

Hong Kong, Singapore, NYC, San Francisco, etc. are better equipped to manage a
special economic zone than England or Switzerland are.

~~~
zader
Countries have military forces that can ensure the settlement of international
disputes.

~~~
malandrew
Yeah, but from what I gathered from the article, the discussion going isn't
about the custodianship of the entire country (although it's titled to give
that idea), but the custodianship of a special economic zone governed
according to Romer-istic policies and principles. Nicaragua could still serve
as the protectorate of this SEZ.

~~~
zader
Yes, Nicaragua would be the protectorate, but the terms of the contract for
the economic zone ultimately can only be enforced by someone with a large
enough military to impose justice of the last resort -- or at least have the
opportunity to do so. Cities can't do that. Legal clout comes from military
cloud. Cities have no military clout. Therefore, they have no legal clout,
except as provided for by some country.

------
btipling
This may be relevant:
<http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp>

See criticism of the above link here:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn#Criticism>

------
jameswilsterman
Does anyone know any more specific proposals for how the city will be laid out
or what laws will be adopted?

~~~
civilian
Yes, you can find more here: <http://www.chartercities.org/>

------
RobPfeifer
I didn't see the original article in the Atlantic anywhere here which is where
I heard about this first.
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-
poli...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-politically-
incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/8134/?single_page=true)

It's considerably more indepth and worth reading for a fuller view. I came
away from it originally thinking it was worth a shot

------
vorg
> The United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong and Singapore were able to build well-
> designed cities that housed and employed millions, in part by persuading
> foreigners to invest heavily.

In part, yes. But rich "countries" generally exist as low-population centers
keeping many people out with strong borders. The UAE keeps out the more
numerous Yemenis next door, Hong Kong (all 7 million of them) the mainland
Chinese, and Singapore (all 5m) the Malaysians and Indonesians. The richest
countries, like Norway, Canada and Australia, are low populations with large
natural resources.

------
erik_nygren
I for one cannot believe that we (Sweden), passed on this opportunity.

------
Seich
I for one am glad to see Honduras on the news for something positive. In it's
current state Honduras will continue to spiral down as everyone becomes poorer
and the government becomes even less dependable. I think that actually getting
giving free enterprise more freedom is the way to go to actually start
generating wealth and stop poverty. Hopefully the idea will get somewhere and
will continue to be supported by the governments to come.

------
amalag
The real way out of poverty is self sufficiency. This TED fellow is doing that
in Africa, creating self-sufficient villages: <http://workingvillages.org>

------
finalword
me! me!

