The paper uses persuasive arguments, for instance, in noting that the Latin Americans are the predominant group hence the majority. As the dominant group, it can only follow that they get the most out of minerals and natural resources. This also means that policies mineral policies should be in their favor. As such, these mineral policies only serve to destabilize them politically. In this regard, therefore, politics takes central stage.
Various political factions are only interested in controlling the mineral market once they get into power. The paper notes that the shift in policies is simply political and not well intended. In any case, politicians have used the issue of equitable mineral distribution to gain favor with the electorate. Noting that the state has no mandate to interfere with mineral distribution unless it is for genuine reasons, the article is perhaps a revelation towards the dirty nature of politics and how the electorate is usually swayed by empty rhetoric, the politicians make. Using relevant facts such as an increasingly emerging Chinese market and the growing political control in mineral extraction policies, the article uses relevant arguments to show that the proponents of mineral policies have no genuine agenda, but just to improve their political relevance and economic base.
This paper is without doubt a tip of an iceberg of political undoing and sources of corruption, and inequitable distribution of resources. Minerals are an important commodity to any community and one that must be equitably shared for economic growth of not every member of the community. Latin America has abundant natural resources and hence a huge potential for growth and development, factors that can greatly improve the economy. For a long time, the Latin American economy has been referred to as a political economy, perhaps meaning the heavy political interference and involvement, so much so that