Democracy At Its Worst – Colombians Choose War

“Polls conducted ahead of Sunday’s vote suggested a comfortable win for the “yes” campaign.
 
But in a surprise result, 50.2% of voters rejected the agreement compared with 49.8% who voted for it.
 
The difference with 98.98% of the votes counted was less than 54,000 votes out of almost 13 million ballots.
 
Turnout was low with fewer than 38% of voters casting their votes.Colombians reject a landmark peace deal with Farc rebels in a shock referendum result, with 50.2% voting against it.”
 
See Colombia referendum: Voters reject Farc peace deal
Democracy is a great system. It allows everyone in society to have a voice to make clear decisions about directions. However, like any system it can fail:

  • when participation/turnout is very low and some splinter can decide the matter, or
  • when killing a small number of voters could give the opposite result, or
  • when some charmer leads the flock astray.

The recent result in Colombia is very unsatisfactory. It allows both sides to see victory is achievable with a little more killing or screaming or whatever…

The world is not a better place when democracy decides that war is better than a few compromises and wider participation of groups in society. Let’s hope that cooler heads prevail and people care enough to do the right thing sooner or later.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Democracy At Its Worst – Colombians Choose War

  1. ram says:

    This is why true democracy requires the population to be well armed!

  2. oiaohm says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout
    Obviously you do not. .I see no point in arguing with you. You do a fine job of proving your complete ignorance on your own.
    LOLOL
    I did not mention that
    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bailin.asp
    That Bail-in has a far nasty meaning when bank depositors are not secured by central bank.

    So fully understanding how bail-in applies in Canada is understanding how bail-in works in countries with central bank secured bank deposits.

    Cyprus is the example of what would happen if a bail-in was performed in the USA. Where depositors would be given bank shares instead of their money.

    Bail-in term exists when a Bail-out is not performed.

    I also like the claim that the bail-in term is new. The term Bail-in was first used in Australia in 1930~ with the great depression correction measures. Guess what Canada also first used the term back in the same point of history.

    Interesting point using bail-in with a system without central bank protection on bank deposits gets very nasty.

    Attempts to pass bail-in legislation in Australia, during 2013-2015, were defeated by the Citizens Electoral Council’s mass mobilisation.
    You see this in a few places this was attempt to broaden existing bail-in so it could be applied to depositors.

    http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2016_03_22_Bail_In_PR.html

    Remember how you said Australia is not important.
    Although none of the 30 megabanks classified by the BIS as Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions (GSIFI) is Australian, each of Australia’s Big Four banks ranks among the top 50 banks worldwide. Therefore Australia’s financial system as a whole is ranked by the IMF as “systemically important”, meaning that a banking crash in Australia could bring down the entire Anglo-American system.
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Anglo%E2%80%93American

    Yes Australia banking system is the key stone holding up the USA and Canada banking systems. This is what is so funny about the G7 is without Australia 2 of them would not be there. So it might pay to learn how the Australian banking system works.

  3. dougman says:

    “dougman do you know the difference between bail in and bail out.”

    Obviously you do not. .I see no point in arguing with you. You do a fine job of proving your complete ignorance on your own.

  4. oiaohm says:

    Basically countries with a dissolved response to failing banks due to having depositors money protected by central bank don’t care if they sink a bank out of existence so don’t use bail out. Better long term to dissolve a bank and have a new bank start with no debt than keep a bank limping in existence with too much debt load. So there is very sound economics to the central bank protected deposit model as it normally results in faster recovery.

  5. oiaohm says:

    dougman do you know the difference between bail in and bail out.

    Company debt it talked about in terms of a ship containing water.

    Bail in increases the debt that has to be repaid. Bail out decrease the debt that has to be repaid.

    Ok fine, secret…undocumented call it what have you, but there was one that took place.
    The reality is government money what happened is not secret.

    Canada Government did not do a bail out. They only did bail in where ever cent that gave has to repaid. There system is like Australia government does not do bail out instead they do bank dissolved if they get to that point of needing a bail out in other systems. No bank got dissolved in Canada right so they did not get to Bail out level of trouble.

    Sorry Dougman you are an absolute idiot if you say it secret you are fairly much saying you don’t have the documents to back you ass and following idiots making stuff up.

    Also do note in Australia borrowing money is far more nasty. Bank defaults you in Australia and sells the property out from under you and you still owe the difference between the value you had on loan and the value the property sold for if it less than what you owed. If the property sells for more than what you owed the bank gets to pocked the difference. That is the other thing I have not checked about Canada. Do they have our evil.

    dougman the MR HAM-DONG, the Keynesian Economist! who does not understand the basic differences between bail-in and bail-out. Then decided to act as a economist to win a point.

  6. dougman says:

    “This is wrong.”

    No you’re an idiot.

    “Canada is in the G7”

    Duh

    “..it does not have a documented Bail-out”

    Ok fine, secret…undocumented call it what have you, but there was one that took place.”

    “Bail-in is a profit making move.”

    LOL…yep they steal your money and charge you for holding it for you. Even though the money in question is digital in nature, just numbers in a computer.

    “So banks give X amount of money and expected to give back X amount of money +Y and Y interest lower than the bank could get else where and not negative and at or above state interest rate.”

    I present, HAM-DONG, the Keynesian Economist!

  7. oiaohm says:

    dougman
    Bail-outs have happened in every country in the G7.
    This is wrong. Canada is in the G7 it does not have a documented Bail-out of bank only a documented bail-in. Bail-in is a profit making move. So banks give X amount of money and expected to give back X amount of money +Y and Y interest lower than the bank could get else where and not negative and at or above state interest rate.

    Of course accepting that one of the G7 has not used bail-out does ask a question why did the other 6 have to.

    dougman Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden are special cases. In all 6 countries the only bank that under writes deposits in banks is the reserve/national bank. “So the banks individually do not need to hold a reserve or capital to protect depositors money. So zero reserve or lack of capital is not in fact a problem for those who deposited money.”

    YES!…it’s called *drum-roll*…… a FIAT money system.

    Drum-roll dougman the idiot who cannot quote or read strikes again. Read the bit in bold carefully. The bit you quoted of mine has nothing to-do with a FIAT money system.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
    FIAT money system does not say that a central reserve protects depositors in banks. FIAT money system you have a reserve that defines how much money is in circulation and how much that money is worth. Yes the term Fiat money has nothing to-do with when ever you are talking about depositors money and banks and the protection method used.

    FIAT money allows government bank reserve to print money to deal with particular issues if the depositors money protection goes back to central bank. Of course different FIAT money countries have that banks have individual responsibility for depositors money like the USA so if bank is allowed to fail all the depositors loses their money.

    Dissolving Banks, Bail-ins and Negative interests rates are systems used by countries with central bank under writing bank deposits. Bail outs, Bail-ins and Negative interest rates are used by countries where central bank is not under writing bank deposits. Country could be FIAT in both cases.

    It quite a special case to find countries that the central bank under writes bank deposits. Only 6 countries out of all the countries on earth.

    Yes government finds too much money in circulation to keep it value the solution is negative interest rates.

    “Panama papers” come on.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
    Panama Papers is tax avoidance. Not how the banking system operates or anything about how money is to operate in fact. Sorry not one of the subjects you listed is in the Panama Papers try again you bogus bit of crap.

  8. dougman says:

    Bail-outs have happened in every country in the G7. Australia is not in this grouping of countries, as it is a not economically viable enough.

    As bail-outs have already been used to save banks, bail-ins and negative interests rates are the next new thing to happen. It will cost you money, to keep money in your accounts.

    Next, will be a coordinated global effort with a push to go cashless. It’s all about knowing where the money is and who owns it, in order to tax it, regulate it, “sanction” it, or confiscate it.

    All of this these subjects can be read about in the release of the “Panama papers”

  9. dougman says:

    “So the banks individually do not need to hold a reserve or capital to protect depositors money. So zero reserve or lack of capital is not in fact a problem for those who deposited money.”

    YES!…it’s called *drum-roll*…… a FIAT money system.

  10. dougman says:

    “I see dougman so googling and quoting someone else work without reference.”

    Oh yes, copying key points, pertinent to and countering Roberts delirium. *rolls-eyes*

    At least, what I post here is concise and legible, unlike you.

  11. dougman says:

    “You should not believe all the crap you read on the Internet. A lot of it is hooey.”

    Unfortunately you seem too. AT least you re-used the word”hooey” as used in the article.

  12. oiaohm says:

    kurkosdr
    Most of the no votes came from areas who have suffered most from the leftard rebels and do not want to see those rebels get away with it easily.
    Do note the word most. Some of the no votes also come from areas where the Colombia government has been badly behaved as well and did not want the Colombia government side getting of free either. So because the rebels and Colombia government had been pain in ass to the population vote run into trouble. If ether side has been perfectly behaved the vote most likely would have passed.

    This is the problem neither sides are clean.

  13. oiaohm says:

    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/01/bank-bailout-claim-pure-propaganda
    Nice link Robert. So the 2008-2009 stuff was bail-in were they injected more money to make profit. Not bail out were you make a lose out of it.

    So I was wrong because dougman site said the wrong.

    Bail-in is correct in the Canada and Australian systems. Bail-out is something that should not happen ever in Canada or Australia to banks. If bank is in big enough mess that it cannot dig itself out in Australia or Canada it time to dissolve it.

  14. oiaohm says:

    http://www.economicreason.com/economiccrisisexplained/canadian-banking-system-exposed/
    I see dougman so googling and quoting someone else work without reference. Would be helpful if you had quoted someone who knew topic.

    https://barnabyisright.com/2011/06/24/our-banking-system-operates-with-zero-reserves/
    dougman Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden are special cases. In all 6 countries the only bank that under writes deposits in banks is the reserve/national bank. So the banks individually do not need to hold a reserve or capital to protect depositors money. So zero reserve or lack of capital is not in fact a problem for those who deposited money.

    So cross off
    2. The key reason underlying this bailout was that Canadian banks are actually under-capitalized.
    3. Canadian banks operate under a fractional reserve system, with 0% reserve requirement.

    Neither of these is technically a problem. Due to the way the system is designed.

    4. The Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation does not hold enough cash on hand.
    This is kind of what the is that. Australia and Canada does not need this to protect depositors. Reserve bank in Australia if required with a failing bank can in fact print money to give the depositors their cash then work out how to get the money latter on. If the Reserve bank is forced to print money to cover a bank that bank will be dissolved to recover the money. In fact the same trigger exists in Canada. So that insurance thing is banks attempting to protect own ass from automatic solution designed into the system.

    5. Canadian banks hold the majority of their balance sheets on non-productive assets.
    The fix to this problem is dissolved the failed bank not bail them out and at worst form a new bank or at best merge banks.

    6. The Bank of Canada has virtually no gold left to back their monetary system.
    This is kinda stupid but you don’t need gold to back a monetary system. Canada has a stock pile of platinum. So more value less vault space required. Bank of Canada back the monetary system with platinum and oil. So that line is true but totally miss leading and based on the idea you need gold to back a monetary system that is false.

    1. Canadian banks received a bailout in 2009 from the Fed, BoC, and CMHC.
    So point 1 should have never happened. It purely interfered with how the system in Canada was designed to operate.

    dougman never underestimate how much of a idiot political groups can be. Canada and Australian systems are design that you never bail out a bank. Yet in Canada 2008-9 this is done. Bail in yes can happen and does not mess the system up. Bail out should be never in a system design like Australia or Canada as it just preventing the system from responding the way it should. Why dissolving of banks is meant to be a punishment against those who miss manage banks and get them into trouble in the first place so that every other bank acts more carefully. Dissolving bank is never popular because it means all loans the bank has issued becomes payable now or face liquidation.

    Canada and Australia bank system is design that you can never have a point that a bank is under capitalised to the point that depositors don’t get their money back. If that money will still have value that is another problem.

    USA system lacks depositor protection design so if a bank fails depositor loses their money. Systems with depositor protection are very different beasts where dissolving banks should not be feared but classed as normal operation.

  15. dougman wrote, “Canadian banks received a bailout in 2009 from the Fed, BoC, and CMHC.”

    Nonsense. See Bank bailout claim pure propaganda

    You should not believe all the crap you read on the Internet. A lot of it is hooey. In 2008/9 banking in Canada trundled on as before, making money hand over fist. They make a ton of money from my mortgage despite the interest rate being tiny because their’s is tinier. I pay my bank per transaction on my personal banking account. How can they lose money? Some consumers and small businesses were distressed at tightening credit supply but there wasn’t a huge wave of bankruptcies and foreclosures that anyone noticed. Canada rode through the ~2008 recession quite smoothly.

  16. dougman says:

    Robert, the banker says “This is alarmist crap. Canadian banks charge such exorbitant service charges and are so heavily capitalized that there is little or no risk. ”

    Obviously he is mistaken, let’s layout as to why.

    1. Canadian banks received a bailout in 2009 from the Fed, BoC, and CMHC.

    2. The key reason underlying this bailout was that Canadian banks are actually under-capitalized.

    3. Canadian banks operate under a fractional reserve system, with 0% reserve requirement.

    4. The Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation does not hold enough cash on hand.

    5. Canadian banks hold the majority of their balance sheets on non-productive assets.

    6. The Bank of Canada has virtually no gold left to back their monetary system.

    If Canadian banks are as strong as the Robert portrays them to be, then why did they need to be rescued in 2008? And why did they get rescued by the combination of the US FED, Bank of Canada and the CMHC in that and the following year? The exact details of these bailouts are not even accessible to the public, even though, quite ironically, Canadians paid for it through their taxes.

    Eh. Pass me the beer and back-bacon you knob!

  17. kurkosdr says:

    I find it VERY hard to believe in a legitimate election the population would vote for civil war.

    Because you live in the first world where the government has a monopoly of force in all of the territory. Most of the no votes came from areas who have suffered most from the leftard rebels and do not want to see those rebels get away with it easily.

  18. oiaohm says:

    Ram Colombia case is both Government and the FARC were both pushing for the people to vote yes. People voted no mostly because they worked out by voting yes those on both side who had committed war crimes was not going to get charged.

    In fact all sided of Colombia government wanted the peace deal to go though as both sides have guilty parties. Also its optional voting and only a small percentage of votes turned up. Remember they have a ceasefire at the moment what means from activity on street not going to change very much with or without the formal peace deal as long as the ceasefire holds.

    So if parties did attempt intimidation in Colombia it backfired.

    Australian mandatory voting may have made the Colombia peace vote come out differently. Remember less than 30 percent of the people voted with the result going against peace so you could say 70+ percent did not give a rats either way. Yes 70 percent not giving a rats does make sense with a formal ceasefire in effect.

    Remember North and South Korea are still technically at war just have technically been in a ceasefire for the past 50+ years. So there is really no rush to-do anything once you have a solid ceasefire. You do have to start wondering when there starts to be rushing to move from ceasefire to formal peace.

  19. ram says:

    I find it VERY hard to believe in a legitimate election the population would vote for civil war. This sounds to me like government goon squads prevented/intimidated the people from voting — not dissimilar to what the LNP government in Australia has been doing. We’ll probably get our own “FARC” soon.

  20. oiaohm says:

    http://www.cecaust.com.au/bail-in/AASVol18No0102m-Australia-already-under-effective-bail-in-regime.pdf

    Australia has had a bail-in system on banks for a very long time. How it works is quite effective. Number 1 bank bonds and depositors are protected. If you have a loan from the bank and it fails you may be call on it pay it instantly.

    dougman basically bail-in implemented like Australia creditors don’t cover everyone. Creditors other parties that have lent the bank money who are not depositors or bank bonds where the bank was holding that money in trust that they were only trustee of not owner of.

    How it works is quite effective. We in Australia have had small banks stuff up. What happens is government steps in forces over 50% new share allocation on the market some other bank buys up over 50 percent of the shares. The idiots who stuffed up managing the bank get all fired as the customers of that bank end up with all their accounts moved to the bank that bought them any customer losing a cent.

    So a bank going tits up in Australia is fairly much every staff member of that bank getting fired as another bank takes their customer base.

    Bail in method does not ball out banks but bails out customers and banks that stuff up just get dissolved. Lot cheaper for the government this way. Bank personal understand in Australia screw up bank management fairly much kiss good bye to your job.

    Also banks in Australia will not go to the government and beg for help because they know exactly how the Australian government will respond by automatically issuing and selling new shares in there bank to raise the money they requested and if the government happens to sell 51% of the bank shares to a competitor before it hits that figure bad luck to the bank it going to be consumed.

    Of course this bail in being Australia is extremely evil. Why because if the bank get dissolved and customers and bonds transferred to another bank the Australian government might pocket all the money made from the share sales by mandated bail in that lead to that event as it not legal for a party to purchase something then be given the money back. So a failing bank is a boost to Australian government money so the Australian government regulator has every reason to be looking at banks closely as due to the Australian system is profitable for the government to end a bank existence. Lets just say Australian system is hostile to banks and if banks forget that they will find out fairly quickly.

  21. dougman wrote, “To protect Canadian taxpayers in the unlikely event of a large bank failure, the Government is proposing to implement a bail-in regime that would reinforce that bank shareholders and creditors are responsible for the bank’s risks—not taxpayers. This would allow authorities to convert eligible long-term debt of a failing systemically important bank into common shares to recapitalize the bank and allow it to remain open and operating.”

    This is alarmist crap. Canadian banks charge such exorbitant service charges and are so heavily capitalized that there is little or no risk. Further, I am not a creditor of my bank, except to a tiny extent. My funds are registered with the government as part of the pension system, not just an account with the bank nor a loan to the bank. They are managing my funds to the extent they apply governmental regulations to my accounts, nothing more. For example, my funds are 92% invested in securities, shares of businesses that are not connected with my bank. The bank does not own those securities. I do. They are shares not dollar amounts that can be shifted around willy-nilly.

  22. dougman says:

    For example, Robert could be focusing on this: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/budget2016-en.pdf

    Scroll down the page 223 and find “INTRODUCING A BANK RECAPITALIZATION
    “BAIL-IN” REGIME”

    To protect Canadian taxpayers in the unlikely event of a large bank failure, the Government is proposing to implement a bail-in regime that would reinforce that bank shareholders and creditors are responsible for the bank’s risks—not taxpayers. This would allow authorities to convert eligible long-term debt of a failing systemically important bank into common shares to recapitalize the bank and allow it to remain open and operating.

    So if a bank starts to go tits-up in Canada, and you have money in that bank, the bank can take your money to bail itself out. When you have your life savings (read that as your pension), or your kids college fund, or even last week’s paycheck in the bank that you need to pay your rent, you are technically a creditor of the bank. As in, they owe you that money.

    But the above proposal says that if the bank has trouble, they can just take your cash, and give you shares in the worthless bank instead. If you want to know more, look at Cyprus three years ago.

  23. dougman says:

    With a title like, “One man, closing all the windows”, I do not see the correlation to Roberts political rants. I mean, I could understand if he was an activist of sorts, but that’s not the case.

    Eh.

  24. DrLoser says:

    It might just be me, Robert, but a referendum that comes up with a 50.2%/49.8% result isn’t exactly “choosing war.”
    You really have no clue how the world works outside of Canada, do you?
    Scratch that. The world outside of Manitoba.
    Scratch that. The world outside of your own back yard.
    Scratch that. Any tiny little bit of the world that your “little woman” allows you to believe you have some nugatory control over.

  25. oiaohm says:

    http://dailyreckoning.com/fiat-currency/
    dougman really reading the history of fiat currency put up some large alarm bells.

    Most of what trump puts forwards as idea could trigger the historic repeating event of fiat currency turning into toilet paper. We are kinda over due to a major fiat currency to go bell up.

  26. dougman says:

    “He will lower taxes, boost the economy and make US military strongest than it has ever been, all at the same time, help derp.”

    Obviously you have NO CLUE on how America’s fiat money system works.

  27. kurkosdr says:

    TRUMP – 2016

    He will lower taxes, boost the economy and make US military strongest than it has ever been, all at the same time, help derp.

  28. kurkosdr wrote, “Why should the legitimate government make a “deal” with violent unelected terrorists?”

    Well,

    • the government does not have clean hands,
    • the agreement is not unlike the end of WWII, for instance, with POWs on all sides being free to return home (although some were forced and ended up being killed by their home countries…), and
    • the costs of war are huge and the benefits few…
  29. oiaohm says:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36605769
    Really calling Farc a Terrorist Group is kinda wrong. Rebel force is correct term for them.

    kurkosdr the difference between a Terrorist Group and Rebel Force is mostly by action. As a Rebel force Farc never once intently attacked own civilians. Farc goal was never to have the civilians fear them. Terrorist group is after civilians to fear them. Really with government and Farc fighting has been resulting in both killing civilians.

    Unfortunately UN rule of war do cover kidnapping as a legal action by a rebel force to raise funds.

    Something else to remember Farc and Government in this case has agreed to a ceasefire and both parties are sticking to it. Now its how to go from a ceasefire to war ended that is not always a straight forwards process.

    Farc history is the group formed because the government at the time was in fact using violence against civilians. So in this Colombia problem if you go by action the historic government of Colombia was the terrorist. This is what makes problem so hard is neither side hands are clean of civilian blood. Really if Farc leaders and so on should be facing court so should some of the prior government people for their actions against civilians as well.

    Also it pays to look at the Farc requested deal as well. The Farc requested deal is basically we will disarm and you will not punish us. In fact this common cease fire to peace agreement method that has been used over and over again. Sometimes it fails of course this is such a case.

    Key thing is Farc was not getting anything other than their personal not punished in the deal they had asked for.

    There is a problem here that I would like to draw attention to. Farc was not using improvised explosive devices for most of the civilian harm but USA producers of landmine were selling them to Farc. Remember it landmine that caused the most civilian harm in this conflict. It not legal for civilian USA to own them so why was it fine to sell them to civilians in other countries.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-declares-it-will-not-produce-any-more-antipersonnel-land-mines/2014/06/27/f20f6f74-fdf5-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html
    It took until 2014 for the USA to stop producing landmine. But USA still has stockpiles of them. Maybe if Farc can get proper peace agreement USA will finally agree to ban anti-personal land mines out right with mandated destruction of stock pile.

    So Farc leaders living giving testimony on how they acquired their weapons could deal with some of the UN illegal arms trade. No army government or rebel is meant to have anti-personal mines by UN rules.

  30. kurkosdr says:

    Why should the legitimate government make a “deal” with violent unelected terrorists? Wouldn’t that encourage other terrorist groups to use violence as a means to secure deals with the governemt? Shouldn’t this be a no-no? Freedom requires virtue and bravery, Pog.

Leave a Reply