[1967 R50/2]

I tend to think the Hugo Chavez, Evo Moralez thing is way over blown. I was down in Peru back in April when they were having their own run-off election with a leftist candidate.

THe thing that most people don't understand is that although things have gotten much better in South America, 60% of the population is still below the poverty line and there is very little being done in terms of civil projects such as building roads, aqueducts, out into the country side to help them.

The people I talked to regarded Chavez as an overblown, big talking nut-case.

Morales is less a communist than he is a populist. He wants to do what is good for the people at the lower end of the income scale.

Humala in Peru was the same type of candidate. Neither were talking about doing away with democracy or the free market. Humala's main position was to renegotiate the long-term tax free contracts that Fujimora handed out too mining companies. At a time when commodities are flying through the roof, it would take A LOT of justifying to the compensios (peasants) why these companies are paying nothing back into the countries that they are taking so much out of. Of course Humala lost the run-off election, so it is really neither here nor there.

Morales of course is more extreme in that he just nationalized the gas industry outright. Now whether this turns out to be a good move in the long term, is something completely different. Mexico's oil industry basically is nationalized as is anyway, with Pemex being the 800lb gorilla.