[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-325267-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-325267-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","hansons-latin-american-letter-two-claims","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - Two Claims","","Weekly Washington business letter analyzing two specific White House claims about U.S. export policy and international intervention to protect the value of the dollar in Latin America. Contrasts official statements with executive surveys ranking the United States lowest in export promotion and predicting continued losses in world markets during the 1980s. Argues the documents fail to define the economic problem accurately and substitute rhetoric for facts, linking export policy fallacies to broader failures in how sacrifices, inflation, energy, and dollar defense are addressed, with examples involving Carter administration actions toward Brazil and Argentina.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/hansons-latin-american-letter-two-claims/325267/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/hansons-latin-american-letter-two-claims/325267.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Aurora","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What are the two White House claims examined in the letter?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The letter highlights (a) that the President developed the nation's first comprehensive export policy, and (b) that international intervention protected the value of the dollar.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the letter challenge the claim about U.S. export promotion?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It cites an executive survey giving the United States the worst export-promotion rating among major countries and reports executives expected the U.S. to keep losing ground in world markets through the 1980s.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why does the letter say the White House documents fail to define the problem correctly?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It argues the documents cannot even define the issue accurately and, if the truth is admitted, rely on rhetoric rather than factual analysis of the economic problems facing the United States.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},325267,1790193646,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":97,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},4810365810221,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER  \nThe authoritative Washington Letter on developments affecting trade and investment in Latin Americo  \nWASHINGTON24 November 1979Number 1810  \nDear Sir  \n\"Babcock&Wilcox division of J.Ray McDermottand Co.was negotiating with a Mexican companyfor $18 million of equipment for a power plant.The Exim Bank refused to offer financing unlessthe Mexican customer changed the specificationsfor the precipitator from the specified 97%to98%as required by United States environmentalstandards.The customer refused to modify thespecifications and the business was placed witha Swedish supplier.\"  \n\"In 1977 Ingersol1 Rand lost $3 million ofcompressors for Pemex in Mexico to Italiancompetitors.The Italian Government and theMexican government agreed on a low interestloan partially repayable by barter which wasmore favorable than the Exim Bank was preparedto grant.\"  \n\"Ingersoll Rand was negotiating for $6 millionof pumps and compressors for Sasol(South Africa)plant expansion.  Because of human rights con-siderations,Sasol decided not to consider U.s.equipment in view of the undependability ofsuppliers to obtain government authorizationsto meet commitments.\"  \nThe White House has released a handsomely printed document of 50 pagesFROM THEtitled \"The Record of President Carter's Administration October 1979.\"WHITE HOUSEIn addition,it has released a 12 page document titled \"The Recordof President Carter's Administration -A Summary.\"Presumably,SenatorKennedy's staff is reviewing the claims to determine whether the actualachievements require more than the head of a pin for enumeration.  \nOur interest in the documents is limited to two claims made by the WhiteHouse,namely:  \n# TWO CLAIMS\n\nBY THE(a)\"The President developed the nation's first comprehensive exportWHITE HOUSEpolicy.\"  \n(b)\"International intervention to protect the value of the dollar.\"  \nThese two claims are tremendously important to anyone concerned withtrade and investment in Latin America because:  \n# NATURE OF\n\nTHE CLAIMS(a)Simultaneously,a survey of executives of one thousand leading ind-,ustrial corporations gave the United States the worst rating of al1 coun-tries in the promotion of exports.A rating for the United States of 11,compared with 96 for Japan,76 for Germany,43 for Taiwan.  \nAnd even more importantly,the business executives predicted that theUnited States would continue to lose ground in world markets in the 1980s.  \n(b)The major guidelines to U.S.policy continue to militate againstany successful defense of the dollar,because when the President boasts of the wayhe achieved international intervention to protect the value of the dollar,he is  \nA weekly lerter for burinesmen pmblisbnd privsly in Wasbington,D.C.  \nignoring the fact that the future of the dollar rests with the expansion of exportsand with adequate defense against cartel manipulation of our imports,a requirementthat started with oil but wil1 now be spreading to other commodities such as coffee.  \nEssentially,the White House documents fail even to define the problemPROBLEMcorrect1y,and if the truth be admitted,the familar substitution ofILL DEFINED rhetoric for fact stems from the White House approach overall to theeconomic problems of the United States.  \nFor instance,when the Federal Reserve Board Chairman said that thefight against inflation will probably mean that \"the standard of living of the averageAmerican has to decline,\"President Carter was asked at a Press Conference on October20 if he agreed with Mr.Volcker.He replied:\"I don't agree with Paul Volcker.Iknow more about the nation than he does...If we can resolve the energy question andlet people see that it is not an unpleasant experience or a great sacrifice,ournation can survive this present series of challenges.\"  \nAny policy based on the myth that sacrifices are not required or thatthe experience ahead is not to be unpleasant or that the standard of 1iving need notbe affected simply dooms the country to an outlook five ","cbCaihYWq3molBYE","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihYWq3molBYE","pdf",1287169,"English","# Two Claims\n# Nature of the Claims\n## Export promotion ratings and 1980s outlook\n## International intervention and defense of the dollar\n# Problem Ill Defined\n# What Happened to Exports?\n# Brazil and U.S. policy shifts\n# Argentina and related U.S. actions\n# Environmental standards and supplier reliability","[{\"question\":\"What are the two White House claims examined in the letter?\",\"answer\":\"The letter highlights (a) that the President developed the nation's first comprehensive export policy, and (b) that international intervention protected the value of the dollar.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the letter challenge the claim about U.S. export promotion?\",\"answer\":\"It cites an executive survey giving the United States the worst export-promotion rating among major countries and reports executives expected the U.S. to keep losing ground in world markets through the 1980s.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the letter say the White House documents fail to define the problem correctly?\",\"answer\":\"It argues the documents cannot even define the issue accurately and, if the truth is admitted, rely on rhetoric rather than factual analysis of the economic problems facing the United States.\"}]","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - Two Claims | PDF",1789970083,13]