Who Wants To Buy Honduras?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/who-wants-to-buy-honduras.html?_r=2&smid=tw-share&pagewanted=all

by gruseom • 14 years ago

143 96 14 years ago

nytimes.com

jameswilsterman• 14 years ago

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

civilian3• 14 years ago

Yes, you can find more here: http://www.chartercities.org/

blahedo2• 14 years ago

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.

gee_totes2• 14 years ago

I think the idea is that there will be a more diverse group of wealthy people to dominate the new cities, as opposed to just a few wealthy families.

Quite a neo-conservative (or is it neo-liberal) idea: More freedom through more rich people dominating the under classes!

Of course, some would claim that the writer of this article is just a shrill for the 1%[0]

[0] http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/adam-davidson-parrots...

viggity• 14 years ago

I hate to be pedantic here, but I think you mean "shill" instead of "shrill". Technically what you did there is called a malapropism, where two similar sounding words are misused because the alternative wording could make sense as well. I always thought the saying was "for all intensive purposes", but the actual saying is "for all intents and purposes".

waterlesscloud• 14 years ago

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.

blahedo2• 14 years ago

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.

Daniel_Newby2• 14 years ago

> ... how could it possibly be solved by creating an area that is dominated by a board of a few wealthy people ...

Some wealthy people want to tax a million prosperous citizens, not rule a million peasants. Not only do you get richer that way, it is safer.

jacobolus6• 14 years ago

> 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...

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.

its_so_on2• 14 years ago

I don't know, what you call "really obnoxious" is, I would say, par for the course in journalism - but not because that's a low standard! The facts are there, and what is missing that you provide is, well, not a low standard.

You're just a stranger to me so this is nothing personal, but I would say your analysis is 'particularly deep' and insightful. In other words, it's not that journalistic standards are low: it's that I think you (jacobolus) are inordinately insightful on this front and probably worth millions (over a few years) if you leverage this in the right international context.

its_so_on2• 14 years ago

I don't remember if I was being hasty and didn't read your whole comment, or if you added to it, but I only thought your first paragraph was insightful. ("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.")

tptacek• 14 years ago

Is it possible that both things are true? That the current conditions in Honduras are the result of a legacy of imperialist and corporatist exploitation, and that part of that legacy is a system of laws and customs that retards economic development and condemns many of its people to a life lived in shacks or subsistence farms?

Your whole comment can be right on the money (I'm inclined to think it is) without saying anything about Romer's belief that the best vector to improve Honduras is "special economic zones" with different laws.

(We had to read Eduardo Galeano's last Memory of Fire book in high school; probably the most memorable and durably changing experiences I've had with any book. I'm guessing you're being charitable about how bad Honduran history has been for Hondurans.)

jacobolus6• 14 years ago

I think the omnipresent external force has been much more important in determining outcomes than local culture (but of course these are complex systems which can’t cleanly be broken into parts – “culture”, “law”, “economy”, “government”, “power structure” are all linked together).

I do agree though that it’s necessary to have some combination of land reform, capital accumulation and investment (and perhaps local reinvestment of export profits?), education, industrial development, and strengthening of civic and political institutions to build a successful functioning society. These are hard problems for poor countries, and the last 60 years of academic political science have pretty convincingly failed to turn up any easy explanations or solutions. I wouldn’t hold my breath that building a foreign “special economic” enclave unaccountable to the rest of the country will ultimately save Honduran peasants. But that’s not the part of the article I’m offended by.

look_lookatme• 14 years ago

I wonder if Romer's systems can be used to stave off the encroachment of the cartels and continued growth of MS-13 (and the speculated alliances between them). As healthy as it seems to unwind the western corporations binds on the country and come to terms with centuries of exploitation, it could be even more important to suggest that radical developments like this are necessary in a race against the expulsion of the cartels from Mexico (where are they going to go but south?) and thus, time.

moldbug7• 14 years ago

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.

Perceval• 14 years ago

I'm very interested in the relationship between decolonization, liberalism, and the civil wars that raged through Latin America since then. Can you point me toward any good resources that tie those subjects together? I've been considering a country-by-country approach to the subject, but would really appreciate any resources that have a broader or more holistic look at the history of Latin American civil war.

mynameishere• 14 years ago

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

Was this a...typo or something? Do you actually think that?

jacoblyles• 14 years ago

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...

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.

nopassrecover• 14 years ago

Was about to say this sounds awfully like Unqualified Reservations until I read the username.

kanwisher• 14 years ago

2009 was hardly what I would call a coup, only people not familiar with Honduras politics would call it that. The president was trying to rig the election so they made sure to get him out so they could resume legitimate elections and not have a puppet government in control by Hugo Chavez

jf2712• 14 years ago

They deserve a lot of praise for defending their constitution without violence. The interim president stepped down when he said he would and did not run for the office. Elections went off without problems. It should serve as an example for the rest of the world.

ktizo5• 14 years ago

Is funny that he mentions the Madagascar coup.

That was a strange mess.

The President who was looking at charter cities there had just sold half of Madagascar as farmland to China.

This annoyed a lot of people and in the ensuing kerfuffle, apparently supported by the French and some bits of the UN, the former radio DJ Andry Rajoelina was put in charge of the country, with his first action being to throw out the agreement with China.

rbreve4• 14 years ago

I am from Honduras, it was clearly a coup, even the current president accepted it

dudeguy999• 14 years ago

When Singapore became independent, GDP per capita was $500.

toemetoch• 14 years ago

Paul Romer's ...

selected publications: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~promer/selected_publications.sht...

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

Not my field but worth a peek I guess.

Jach2• 14 years ago

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...

mseebach• 14 years ago

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.

jneen4• 14 years ago

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.

ChuckMcM2• 14 years ago

So here is the question, do dole and chiquita get away with this because there is nothing else for these people to do? Or do they get away with it because they have created a system which effectively creates indentured servants? I am not familiar enough with Honduras to comment on that.

I noted in the article that the proposed city would have room for the entire population + 2 million. So if this city provides opportunities for the people who now labor in the fields, and they all migrate there, Dole and Chiquita would be out of workers would they not?

If this is how the Hondurans envision it working it seems that they are trying to 'get off the backs' of the labor pool.

sp332• 14 years ago

Ever wonder where the term "Banana Republic" came from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic#Honduras Cuyamel Banana Company literally staged a coup to install a more friendly government in Honduras.

edited because I had the wrong banana company. Lest you think Chiquita is innocent, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre and a more thorough description of Honduras in particular: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras#International_influen...

Daniel_Newby2• 14 years ago

> ... 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.

ktizo5• 14 years ago

Robotic harvesting without damaging the plant is a hell of a lot more difficult than robot cars for highways. For these kind of problems you need walkers and climbers that can deal with a very wide variety of terrain.

Will happen eventually, but if you automate all labour I don't see why you should expect the poor to work any more than the rich. Already many of the jobs available in the richer countries are only there to make up the numbers and provide the illusion of employment.

planetguy• 14 years ago

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.)

bluekeybox5• 14 years ago

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

That's a very naive and over-simplified point of view. During the 1980s' Perestroika, everyone in my country of origin (which was one of Moscow's Cold War satellites) assumed basically the same thing you're assuming: that as soon as those "russkies" got off their backs, they would become rich and prosperous. Well, 22 years had passed since the russkies left, and hopes for prosperity are few and between (some progress has been made but nowhere to the extent that was hoped). BTW, I'm in no way nostalgic for the USSR era; I just don't like when naive opinions like this that have nothing to do with reality propagate because they sound "just".

I now believe that the whole contemporary educational system which teaches students that colonialism was uniformly bad needs to be revised. I have yet to see something good come out of nationalism (with Israel a possible exception).

jneen4• 14 years ago

I might have rephrased, "It's very difficult to help the poor unless you also get off their backs".

Perhaps it's not helpful to think "everything will be better if those people get off our backs", as you mention.

But I'm a U.S. citizen, and I've only recently given up bananas for good. When we're the ones doing the oppressing, it's also not helpful for us to pretend it doesn't exist.

DanielBMarkham• 14 years ago

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.

cynicalkane3• 14 years ago

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.

jacobolus6• 14 years ago

I think you’re responding to me? I never said anything about this charter city one way or another. I merely said that the analysis of causes of relative success of Honduras vs. Singapore, Hong Kong, and the UAE is facile and offensive, because it mostly ignores the context.

cynicalkane3• 14 years ago

It's to a general idea exhibited by several people in this thread, including in a post you made. But were it a direct response to you I would have posted it as a direct response to you.

civilian3• 14 years ago

> I never said anything about this charter city one way or another.

Why didn't you? It's really weird that you have the top-rated comment in the thread, and gave a good perspective on the history of the region, yet you didn't actually say how your history lesson relates to Charter Cities.

jbooth• 14 years ago

I think you're a bit too hung up on the -isms here. Libertarianism! Colonialism! I better take my place on the line in defense of my -ism!

The comments I saw were providing context on how Honduras is different than other places where the economic development zone city idea worked.

Personally, I'd be most worried that the city can't really deliver on it's supposed guarantee of freedom from the surrounding climate. There was a coup there a few years ago, laws don't stop armed forces. Investors know this and might not invest.

On the other hand, gotta try something.

cynicalkane3• 14 years ago

Actually, I thought I was speaking against -isms. I oppose -isms in general and only commented that a libertarian-leaning forum of hackers would normally be expected to support a charter city.

hristov• 14 years ago

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.

TheCowboy• 14 years ago

The best minds in academia also advocated the "shock therapy" approach to post-communist countries, which was also forced upon these countries if they wanted loans and aid from the IMF, World Bank, and the west in general. Things didn't turn out well.

What actually worked best was a more gradualist approach dictated from within. Which is not to say that external advice was disregarded, but was taken selectively.

To root this more for HN viewers, imagine if VCs or Harvard MBAs dictated to your startup everything, such as your strategy, what to build, etc. It's best when solutions are grown from within coupled with advice and support.

Relevant reading material for this view: economist Frederic Mishkin's The Next Great Globalization: How Disadvantaged Nations Can Harness Their Financial Systems to Get Rich (don't let the title turn you off) and nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz has a number of books on this topic

webXL• 14 years ago

Only a coup if you say it is:

"Still, many people in Honduras, including most of the country's official institutions, claim that there was a constitutional succession of power. In a statement to a subcomittee of the U.S. House Committee on International Affairs, former Honduran Supreme Court Justice, Foreign Affairs minister, and law professor Guillermo Prez-Cadalso said that all major governmental institutions agreed that Zelaya was violating the law."

Prepared Statement of the Hon. Guillermo Perez-Cadalso Before the U.S. House Committee on International Affairs, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere". U.S. House Committee on International Affairs. 10 July 2009. Archived from the original on 16 December 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

Linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_cr..., which was the first hit from searching "Honduras coup" on Google.

To your other points, I have sympathy that communists forced their views on your country, but if a country or groups within a country want to peacefully solicit me in order to perform "an experiment", and convince me that I will benefit in return, then why should anybody have the power to deny me or them that right?

A friggin' border? A line on a god damn map??

jpsierens• 14 years ago

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.

btipling• 14 years ago

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

erik_nygren• 14 years ago

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

amalag• 14 years ago

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

Seich• 14 years ago

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.

_delirium• 14 years ago

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

civilian3• 14 years ago

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... from 2011

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

malandrew2• 14 years ago

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.

zader2• 14 years ago

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

malandrew2• 14 years ago

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.

finalword• 14 years ago

me! me!

RobPfeifer• 14 years ago

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...

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• 14 years ago

> 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.

Who Wants To Buy Honduras?

Related Stories