A Latin American decade?
The reformers have won, but they have yet to consolidate their success
A special report on Latin America
Sep 9th 2010
Sep 9th 2010
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Advertisement
Readers' comments
Sort:
Transformers you'd mean. A generation of mutant politicians with a flamigerous past and a social speech which at the very end governs through their central banks (ie Alan garcia, Michelle Bachelet, Ignazio da Silva) cautiously not messing with the finance global mafia. This is another form of political degradation and a bitter proof that capitalism on its present format seem totally unable to build a legitimate political leadership. This mocking alliance with the frendlier lefty transformers is doomed.
It is disappointing that climate change and the shift to a low carbon economy receive little if any treatment in this special report. This considerable omission is unfortunate given the substantial climate change impacts the region is likely to face. Latin American leaders including Lula, Morales, Calderon and Correa, amongst others, are feeling the climate change vibe and are voicing high levels of concern.
The Economist usually has some great stuff on low carbon technologies and clean energy. It is therefore a shame that this angle in the context of Latin America’s impressive record on renewables and massive potential for low carbon growth were not also covered.
Let’s not forget that CEPAL has focused its climate change work in Latin America on carrying out Stern Review type studies looking at the high economic costs of global warming. Climate change could cost Latin American economies a considerable wedge of their GDP in the future unless global carbon emissions are reduced and adaptation is prioritised.
Climate change has the potential to transform the Latin American region as we know it. Its transformative power necessitates linking more traditional topics treated in these reports to this new paradigm - sooner rather than later.
Embraer is not a "multilatina", it is a MULTIBRASILEIRA.
The technological success and prestige of Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica is exclusively the result of effort - for decades, by the way - of Brazilian engineers, Brazilian work and Brazilian money.
Latinos have never had anything to do with Embraer.
Indeed it seems that The Economist tries to steal the merits of the Brazilian company to share it unduly with the Latins, with this talk of "multilatina". To Caesar what is Caesar's.
Indeed one can see that this TE issue tries to steal the merits of the current economic success of Brazil - and perhaps one or another country - to give it to Latin America.
It is an outrage and infamous. Brazil actually is not even Latin. The actual Latin America in the one that speaks Spanish. Brazil, Jamaica, Haiti, Suriname, Guyanas, part of the Caribbean etc, were never part of Latin America, really.
This magazine did a work of fiction. Bad fiction.
Otacýlio, calm down. What the Economist means when it says Multilatina, is a company that has grown out of it's home market and expanded in to other Latin American markets. Just like multinationals operate in multiple countries worldwide.
They are not saying that Embraer is made up of bits from different countries. They are praising Embraer, as it is Brazilian.
You've misread the English there my friend
Shall Latin America be renamed Amerindia, and elect Amerind leaders?
Is this not the decade for foreigners to pump out most of the Amerind's oil, mine most the Amerind's metals and minerals, cut down most of Amerind's forests, and kill most of the Amerind terrorists?