We are obviously witnessing a potential bias on the part of Mr. Lee. Ecuador's improved rating will not last since the country's new leadership seems to be emulating Castro & Chavez. Towards the end of the review, the S&P study also states: "On the other hand, the ratings could come under pressure if prospects for the oil sector deteriorate significantly or the political environment worsens, leading to instability. Creditworthiness could also come under pressure if higher fiscal deficits lead to a growing debt burden and balance of payments pressures."

Creditworthiness is a science of confidence, not of percentages and numbers. There is no confidence if investment prognosis is marred by contradicting variables ... punctured by so many "ifs". This is IBRD[World Bank]-IMF's traditional nightmare when it conducts a study and recommends measures to economically stricken Third World countries on the red that did not work. In project studies – the res gestae of economic investment -- the primary consideration focuses on how to minimize risks. Once you ponder upon so many imponderables, you lose momentum targeting a higher rate of returns, which means you become unsure of the outcome. Basing a rating out of this uncertainty always leaves something to be desired, believe me ... Reporter Lee has probably no idea what it is.

Yeah. Ask Gary Scott at http://www.garyascott.com/2012/06/05/21983.html.

Or visit International Living Magazine at http://internationalliving.com/countries/ecuador/.

Or ask Simon Black of http://www.sovereignman.com/, who writes articles in Freedom's Phoenix at times.

Then re-ask yourself the Ecuador questions.

 Ask any economist except Ron Paul -- and this one right below who hears voices between his ears and writes them down.

 I know JV -- he is a lawyer-economist. He has a lot of story to tell about Ecuador's economy, and what went wrong.  Don't listen to pseudo-economists whose economics is between their ears.