Argentine Economy

In the foreign exchange market, the peso <ARSB=> strengthened thanks to Central Bank sales of dollars. The official interbank rate <ARS=RASL> appreciated 0.8 percent to 3.0325/3.0350 per dollar. In informal trade between foreign exchange houses, as measured by Reuters, the peso strengthened 0.24 percent to 3.1175/3.1200 per dollar <ARSB=>.

Central Bank President Martin Redrado on Wednesday defended the use of foreign reserves to manage the exchange rate.

"We've marked a clear trend, moderating expectations in the exchange market and we've assured systematic stability," he said at a conference organized by LatinFinance magazine in Buenos Aires. (Reporting by Jorge Otaola and Walter Bianchi, writing by Fiona Ortiz; editing by Gary Crosse)

Unlike Tessan I am here on the ground and I was in the downtown area today. What is great about Argentina is that even when there are "strikes" and so forth you can still have fun. Like today. I took the train downtown and then the Subte to Lavalle and then I went to a whorehouse and had a great time. All the while I knew there was some plan to cut off Avenida de Mayo and 9 de Julio. So what? It just meant that instead of taking the #59 bus to my friend's house I had to either take the Subte or walk across 9 de Julio to take the #102, I chose the latter. All the (#146? #164? Some number) colectivos were on strike and all the "Escolares" buses were parked along Cerrito, and little traffic on 9 de Julio.

Still I was able to buy beer, fuck hookers, buy food, take the train, the bus, and the Subte. Now that could change but all this cut and paste from newspaper articles is a lot of bullshit. Taxis strike? Take a bus. Buses strike? Take a train. Trains on strike? Take a Subte. No beef in the store? Eat rice and fuck a hungry hooker.

The more the government intervenes in the currency market the more the chance the peso will collapse completely. If the peso collapses that will be a bad thing for a lot of people. But not for the average dollar or Euro holding monger. Mongering is a situation where the worse the economy, the better the mongering for those who are not broke. Furthermore we should be proud of being mongers at a point where we can help a desperate economic situation.

I think Jackson should ban the cutting and pasting of articles and should only allow the posting of links.

[QUOTE=Dickhead]I think Jackson should ban the cutting and pasting of articles and should only allow the posting of links.[/QUOTE]Agreed, and get rid of Peter "cocksucking" Europa, or his latest transparent incarnation.

[QUOTE=Dickhead]Unlike Tessan I am here on the ground and I was in the downtown area today. What is great about Argentina is that even when there are "strikes" and so forth you can still have fun. Like today. I took the train downtown and then the Subte to Lavalle and then I went to a whorehouse and had a great time. All the while I knew there was some plan to cut off Avenida de Mayo and 9 de Julio. So what? It just meant that instead of taking the #59 bus to my friend's house I had to either take the Subte or walk across 9 de Julio to take the #102, I chose the latter. All the (#146? #164? Some number) colectivos were on strike and all the "Escolares" buses were parked along Cerrito, and little traffic on 9 de Julio.

Still I was able to buy beer, fuck hookers, buy food, take the train, the bus, and the Subte. Now that could change but all this cut and paste from newspaper articles is a lot of bullshit. Taxis strike? Take a bus. Buses strike? Take a train. Trains on strike? Take a Subte. No beef in the store? Eat rice and fuck a hungry hooker.

The more the government intervenes in the currency market the more the chance the peso will collapse completely. If the peso collapses that will be a bad thing for a lot of people. But not for the average dollar or Euro holding monger. Mongering is a situation where the worse the economy, the better the mongering for those who are not broke. Furthermore we should be proud of being mongers at a point where we can help a desperate economic situation.

I think Jackson should ban the cutting and pasting of articles and should only allow the posting of links.[/QUOTE]Thanks for your on the ground reporting.

That was more informative than cnn or come copied bloomberg links.

I fully expect the government to collapse again, when it does I will be there.

What is up with the copied reports on a sex forum?

[QUOTE=Dickhead]I think Jackson should ban the cutting and pasting of articles and should only allow the posting of links.[/QUOTE]I also agree copy and paste is really out of hand. I often wonder if you guys don’t know how to post a link or if you just think we’re too stupid to use it?

[QUOTE=Sidney] I only post what I consider useful information. Cutting and pasting allows you to see the info in its entirety, without delay (some may choose to read a link at another time, then forget) And of course, the protesters have the option of ''blockage'' of those posters that copy and paste.-------Stupid Sid [/QUOTE]Thanks for saving us from ourselves, what would we do without you? I find it interesting that you quoted me and not Dickhead or Doggboy or Gato Hunter? All I did was agree with Dickheads comments. As for [I]“-------Stupid Sid ”[/i] you said it, and you won ’t get any argument from me!

BTW ''blockage'' works both ways!

You can almost feel it, the peso's weaking.

Less than a years I give it and the peso will collapse and when it does we'll return to the "Golden Era" of Mongering in Argentina. Back to the days of $5 dollar "Beefe De Lomo", $50 dollar pussy at Madaho's, the golden days. Back then pussy was $30 dollars at Excedra and Pravado's.

All the economic data we're getting points to total collapse of the peso against world currencies and I don't believe they can hold out much longer.

K & C have borrowed their way to prosperity, with the Argentine economy oweing more money today than they did before the last "Crisis", and inflation running 25 to 30 percent. This is the reason for the huge fight over the export tax's, the government needs the money to float their expanding debt and the farmers want to keep it.

As DickHead states so brilliantly below, "Mongering is a situation where the worse the economy, the better the mongering "

Exon

A lot has been said about the agricultural retentions. The fact is that almost anything that can limp accross the Argentina border for sale has a retention and / or export tax tagged on to it now.

At current world oil prices, Argentina oil producers are now looking at a 70% retention and when comparing residential gas prices to the price of imported gas from Bolivia, it amounts to over a 90% retention on gas. Those retentions do not distiguish if the stuff is exported or not, which hardly any is anymore. Similar stories on gasoline, diesel, propane, you name it.

On top of that, there are the royalties and taxes to be paid as any business would expect.

There is no doubt that these retentions are the quickest way to bring Mega $ into the Government where tax evasion is a national sport.

Unfortunately, it is a disincentive to do develop anything in the country and if it keeps up, one may see the country importing everything as the incentive to make anything in the country collapses. Well, there will be a few months of retained retentions to buy those imports before it all collapses.

I have a hard time thinking of any other country that has tried so diligently to thwart their exports in this fashion. If anyone has some examples I would like to hear of them.

Thanks,

MAG

[QUOTE=MiddleAgeGuy]I have a hard time thinking of any other country that has tried so diligently to thwart their exports in this fashion. If anyone has some examples I would like to hear of them.

Thanks,

MAG[/QUOTE]How about Cambodia / Kampuchea under the Pol Pot regime?

Andres,

This week's edition of 'The Economist' has an article on p.48 entitled "HOCUS POCUS Argentina's way with sums" with a sub heading,'The real-world consequences of producing unreal inflation numbers'. The article ought to be required reading for all forum members who have posted on this thread following along the general philosophies of Andres. They do not put any credibility to the national statistics or to the Peronist policies of the Kirchners. And for a general comparison, in something I read yesterday, probably Bloomberg, the per capita income of Argentina is U$6400 and in the USA, U$47,000. Even the mathmatically challenged Andres can work out that the USA system, (ie Europe, North America, Japan, Australia etc) delivers to their citizens a 700% greater per capita income and that is certainly reflected in their living standards.

The article specifically links the Kirchner's policies to stagnant wages and the increase in poverty and income inequality, all the direct opposite of what those policies purport to want to achieve.

So Andres, invest ARG$10, and see beyond your hip-pocket horizon.

Argento

47,000 is not 700% greater than 6,400. It is only 634.375% greater.

[QUOTE=Peter Europa]Protesting is also legal[/QUOTE]Blocking roads is not legal.

[QUOTE=Argento]No matter what spin Andres cares to put on how wonderful the policies of the Kirchner government are, the fact remains that plays on these policies have not worked in the 50 years they have been in play.[/QUOTE]If you really have lived for 30 years in Argentina, then you know that all policies from 1978 up to now are clearly not the same. Maybe you don't like them, but it's not serious to tag them with the same name.

[QUOTE=Argento]So there is a collapse in clear view.[/QUOTE]I heard collapse calls since 2002, and I'm still waiting for it. Will things get harder? Sure, but still far from collapse. Some people would desire collapse, but that's another issue.

[QUOTE=Argento]And Andres, in a recent post you made mention of the limited access Argentina has to the EC under the Hilton quotas. For the record, Argentina is short by 3500 tonnes this year. So your argument does not stand up. Command economies failed in all the socialist countries where they were instituted, so Andres, why do you think that they will work in this disfunctional mess of an economy?

Argento[/QUOTE]"Hilton quotas" is an excellent example of how regulated is the meat export market. I never claimed that these quotas were filled for 2008, but they surely were on previous years.

As of regulated or unregulated economies, I still have to see a truly unregulated economy. With very few exceptions (maybe Singapore) all systems have barriers to entry, para-legal regulations, etc.

Ironic enough that you trash on the Argentine socio-economic system and business climate, but you continue living there since a very, very long and still being a businessman.

Andres

[QUOTE=MiddleAgeGuy]A lot has been said about the agricultural retentions. The fact is that almost anything that can limp accross the Argentina border for sale has a retention and / or export tax tagged on to it now.

At current world oil prices, Argentina oil producers are now looking at a 70% retention and when comparing residential gas prices to the price of imported gas from Bolivia, it amounts to over a 90% retention on gas. Those retentions do not distiguish if the stuff is exported or not, which hardly any is anymore. Similar stories on gasoline, diesel, propane, you name it.

On top of that, there are the royalties and taxes to be paid as any business would expect.

There is no doubt that these retentions are the quickest way to bring Mega $ into the Government where tax evasion is a national sport.

Unfortunately, it is a disincentive to do develop anything in the country and if it keeps up, one may see the country importing everything as the incentive to make anything in the country collapses. Well, there will be a few months of retained retentions to buy those imports before it all collapses.

I have a hard time thinking of any other country that has tried so diligently to thwart their exports in this fashion. If anyone has some examples I would like to hear of them.

Thanks,

MAG[/QUOTE]That's an interesting point, thanks for sharing.

In fact, I see much more trouble on the artificial oil price than on the retenciones for food. Sooner or later the country will need to fully import oil at international prices, and then the society will need to choose on either raise prices to improve prospection or to significantly reduce consumption (Argentines are paying less than half of what I pay per liter) And without oil, the economy cannot run.

I read an article last week that mentioned that, on different degrees, every single country applies barriers to export some goods (not as evident as retenciones, but alike in their objectives) The toughest one I read about was on 18th Century Britain, where those caught exporting raw cotton suffered the mutilation of their right hand.

Andres

[QUOTE=Andres]Blocking roads is not legal.[/QUOTE]However if you are a picketer such as D'Elia or an anti-papalera in Gualeguaychu, then closing off roads is OK. Interesting that those particular parties broadly support the Kirchner politics. So it's OK if you support the Kirchners, but a hanging offence if you don't.

Argento

[QUOTE=Tessan]I do not expect them to do it out of the "goodness of their hearts". They do it because it make them more money. If they are allowed to make money, they want to make more, so they expand.[/QUOTE]They don't need more money. After reading Argentine history from different sources, you will find a handful of reasons that explain such behavior.

[QUOTE=Tessan]It is not that they do not like the rules, they do not produce, like some small child. It is, I am making a small profit, so no incentive for the farmers to spend money on irrigation, which cost allot, if you have to pipe in water, or spend allot of extra money on fertilizer. Or to bring on marginal land, since the cost are higher. Therefore it does not grow.[/QUOTE]Reality proves that agricultural production and conditioning of land to plant soy have boomed on the las years. How does this reality fit with your argument above?

[QUOTE=Tessan]Since the cattle men cannot make money, they are moving to soy, since it was the only real money maker.[/QUOTE]It was the MOST money maker, not the "only" one. Otherwise, most of the milk and cattle industry would be broken, which is not the case.

[QUOTE=Tessan]In Brazil they produce 20-30% more soy then Argentina so why are the also producing 350-400% more cattle then Argentina? Why don't they just produce soy?

The reason is the cattle producers in Brazil can make money. Many Gauchos prefer to raise cattle as long as they can make good money, even if it is less then soy. It is a different way of life. My understanding is many argentine ranchers are in Brazil raising cattle, since they cannot make much money in Argentina. [/QUOTE]Another reason may be that Brazil has 4 to 5 times the population of Argentina (which the country has also to feed) and 2 to 3 times its area. Also, I still have to see that a Brazilian cattle producer makes more money because, for what it is related to soy, Brazilians don't pay retenciones but their revenues from soy exports are even lower than their Argentine counterparts.

[QUOTE=Tessan]The subsidy is necessary, since if prices of meat where to go up to international prices, the people would revolt. [/QUOTE]Exactly. That's one of the reasons. You see that happening in Senegal and Haiti.

[QUOTE=Tessan]Again Brazil produces more soy 20%-30% , and 350%-400% More cattle. Something is wrong with your logic. Why don't they just produce soy?[/QUOTE]How many million tons of meat does export Brazil, and how many does export Argentina? Without those numbers, we cannot seriously find an answer to your question.

Andres

[QUOTE=Dickhead]47,000 is not 700% greater than 6,400. It is only 634.375% greater.[/QUOTE]Pedant!

Argento

[QUOTE=Andres]That's an interesting point, thanks for sharing.

In fact, I see much more trouble on the artificial oil price than on the retenciones for food. Sooner or later the country will need to fully import oil at international prices, and then the society will need to choose on either raise prices to improve prospection or to significantly reduce consumption (Argentines are paying less than half of what I pay per liter) And without oil, the economy cannot run.

Andres[/QUOTE]There is no incentive for anyone to spend big money exploring for oil in Argentina because of the government policies.

[QUOTE=Argento][QUOTE=Dickhead]47,000 is not 700% greater than 6,400. It is only 634.375% greater.[/QUOTE]Pedant!

Argento[/QUOTE]Also I am finding much higher per capita income / GDP figures than you are quoting, including $13,300 (for 2007) on the CIA's website. It could be a case of different sources using different definitions. Here is a link to my source:

[url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html[/url]

Another source, whose quality I cannot vouch for:

[url]http://siakhenn.tripod.com/capita.html[/url]

gives $13,000 and labels this per capita income, whereas the CIA site labels it per capita GDP.

[QUOTE=Argento]Andres,

This week's edition of 'The Economist' has an article on p.48 entitled "HOCUS POCUS Argentina's way with sums" with a sub heading,'The real-world consequences of producing unreal inflation numbers'. The article ought to be required reading for all forum members who have posted on this thread following along the general philosophies of Andres. They do not put any credibility to the national statistics or to the Peronist policies of the Kirchners. And for a general comparison, in something I read yesterday, probably Bloomberg, the per capita income of Argentina is U$6400 and in the USA, U$47,000. Even the mathmatically challenged Andres can work out that the USA system, (ie Europe, North America, Japan, Australia etc) delivers to their citizens a 700% greater per capita income and that is certainly reflected in their living standards.

The article specifically links the Kirchner's policies to stagnant wages and the increase in poverty and income inequality, all the direct opposite of what those policies purport to want to achieve.

So Andres, invest ARG$10, and see beyond your hip-pocket horizon.

Argento[/QUOTE]"mathematically challenged Andres"? Wow, that's what I call a classy way of stating disagreement.

I engage in respectful discussions only, regardless of my dislike to the other's participant point of view. I will grant you another opportunity to keep this conversation under at least the minimum acceptable standards of respect. Next insult, you get into my ignore list and it's the end of that.

I don't understand what the per-capita income issue has to do with all this discussion of retenciones. Argentina's one is lower than US and most Western Europe countries ones but higher than those of other Latin American nations that currently apply policies aligned to "international investors" (Colombia and Peru, for instance) Therefore, we cannot get much from it, specially when agricultural subsidies in Europe and the US are famous for distorting market rules (it was mentioned several times during the last Food Crisis Summit in Rome)

By the way, what does The Economist say about those EU subsidies?

Andres

[QUOTE=Tessan]There is no incentive for anyone to spend big money exploring for oil in Argentina because of the government policies.[/QUOTE]That's true, there isn't.

If we take the recent history as a clue, even if lifting such taxation rules, it's not clearly obvious that prospection would take place without subsidies and / or additional incentives. As far as I know, when YPF was privatized in 1992, the main oil fields remaining then (Puesto Hernandez, for instance) are the same top ones today.

Andres

[QUOTE=Argento]However if you are a picketer such as D'Elia or an anti-papalera in Gualeguaychu, then closing off roads is OK. Interesting that those particular parties broadly support the Kirchner politics. So it's OK if you support the Kirchners, but a hanging offence if you don't.

Argento[/QUOTE]Your point is valid because blocking roads is not correct. However, I distinguish pretty clearly the HARM provoked by losing 2 hours stuck in a "piquete" and that provoked by blocking any kind of commercial good for months. By any means, the latter one is more serious, especially if protesters have WAY many more means to voice up their disagreement (access to media, to opposition leaders, voluntarily holding of sales, etc)

Andres

[QUOTE=Andres]That's true, there isn't.

If we take the recent history as a clue, even if lifting such taxation rules, it's not clearly obvious that prospection would take place without subsidies and / or additional incentives. As far as I know, when YPF was privatized in 1992, the main oil fields remaining then (Puesto Hernandez, for instance) are the same top ones today.

Andres[/QUOTE]The fact that the government keeps changing the rules, is what keeping investment away from oil exploration in Argentina.

This is from the US government report.

[snip]

In late 2006, Economic Ministry Resolution 776 abolished export tax exemption enjoyed by oil companies operating in Tierra del Fuego Province.

[snip]

Other regulatory changes in 2002 added to creditor insecurity. The GoA announced in May 2002 that an emergency decree passed in late 2001 had voided the presidential decree that authorized oil and gas companies to keep 70 percent of their foreign exchange revenues offshore. This decree formed the financial basis for most foreign investment in the Argentine oil sector. The GoA's discovery that the decree had been voided inadvertently months before came at a time when the government of Argentina was worried about its access to foreign exchange and the devaluation of the peso. When the peso began to appreciate, the government of Argentina issued a new decree that gave the industry the same right to withhold 70 percent of revenues starting January 1, 2003, but the industry remains liable for failing to repatriate 100 percent of its revenues during the 13-month period from December 2001 and December 2002. The Central Bank opened proceedings against some oil and gas producers in 2004 for alleged criminal breach of the exchange regime.

The GoA issued a decree de-pesifying foreign currency-denominated contracts of foreign firms doing business in Argentina in 2003, but then withdrew the decree and said it was a mistake. In the energy sector, the GoA took measures to avoid energy shortages that arose from the increase in demand for natural gas and electricity in 2004, including ordering reductions in natural gas exports to Chile and electricity exports to Uruguay.

[snip]

There is concern that the above mentioned GoA actions in the energy sector, coupled with the GOA's efforts to control retail prices of fuels, have created disincentives for companies to invest in energy exploration and infrastructure. Inadequate investment in those areas could, in turn, result in energy supplies not keeping pace with demand generated by Argentina's rapid economic growth.

[url]http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/ifd/2008/101776.htm[/url]

I love Argentina but I would not invest jack shit. Ni siquiera un centavito. That goes for all sectors. Todo trucho.

[QUOTE=Andres]They don't need more money. After reading Argentine history from different sources, you will find a handful of reasons that explain such behavior.[/QUOTE]I will agree to disagree with you on this. I believe if they can make allot more money, they will.

[QUOTE=Andres]Reality proves that agricultural production and conditioning of land to plant soy have boomed on the las years. How does this reality fit with your argument above?[/QUOTE]Since prices are high that last few years, they should be investing to increase production to make more money. Soy production was growing about 10% a year.

[QUOTE=Andres]It was the MOST money maker, not the "only" one. Otherwise, most of the milk and cattle industry would be broken, which is not the case.[/QUOTE]They are not broke, but they are not expanding. They may even be getting smaller. When I was in Argentina a month ago, I saw on TV dairy farmers taking dairy cows to slaughter, in protest. They said they could not make money, with the government set milk price.

[QUOTE=Andres]Another reason may be that Brazil has 4 to 5 times the population of Argentina (which the country has also to feed) and 2 to 3 times its area. Also, I still have to see that a Brazilian cattle producer makes more money because, for what it is related to soy, Brazilians don't pay retenciones but their revenues from soy exports are even lower than their Argentine counterparts.[/QUOTE]Retenciones are the reason for the strike.

[QUOTE=Andres]Exactly. That's one of the reasons. You see that happening in Senegal and Haiti.[/QUOTE]I agree, the government cannot let beef prices go to international prices. So if they want production to increase, they will have to subsidize the local meat price. If they subsidized the meat price, tax income from the exports, over time will grow and will cover the subsidy, and make the government money.

[QUOTE=Andres]How many million tons of meat does export Brazil, and how many does export Argentina? Without those numbers, we cannot seriously find an answer to your question.

Andres[/QUOTE]Brazil is the world's biggest beef exporter, sending abroad almost 2.3 million tones per year, a third of total exports around the globe. Last year it earned 4.5 billion dollars from the trade.

[url]http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1202945521.32/[/url]

Projected Argentine beef exports for 2008 remain unchanged at 535,000 tons, a similar volume to last year. The Argentine government (GOA) continues to monitor and control beef exports closely. In order to keep domestic inflation under control, the GOA keeps a well-supplied domestic market by limiting exports whenever needed.
[url]http://www.cattlenetwork.com/International_Content.asp?contentid=203822[/url]

So Brazil exports about 429.06% more beef then Argentina, when they let them export.

[QUOTE=Dickhead]Also I am finding much higher per capita income / GDP figures than you are quoting, including $13,300 (for 2007) on the CIA's website. It could be a case of different sources using different definitions. Here is a link to my source:

[url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html[/url]

Another source, whose quality I cannot vouch for:

[url]http://siakhenn.tripod.com/capita.html[/url]

Gives $13,000 and labels this per capita income, whereas the CIA site labels it per capita GDP.[/QUOTE]My figures are from Bloomberg's Country profile sheet. Much the same numbers are in 'THE ECONOMIST' pocket book of figures for last year.

Argento

[QUOTE=Andres]Your point is valid because blocking roads is not correct. However, I distinguish pretty clearly the HARM provoked by losing 2 hours stuck in a "piquete" and that provoked by blocking any kind of commercial good for months. By any means, the latter one is more serious, especially if protesters have WAY many more means to voice up their disagreement (access to media, to opposition leaders, voluntarily holding of sales, etc)

Andres[/QUOTE]Ah! Only a little bit pregnant!

Argento

[QUOTE=Andres]"mathematically challenged Andres"? Wow, that's what I call a classy way of stating disagreement.

I engage in respectful discussions only, regardless of my dislike to the other's participant point of view. I will grant you another opportunity to keep this conversation under at least the minimum acceptable standards of respect. Next insult, you get into my ignore list and it's the end of that.

I don't understand what the per-capita income issue has to do with all this discussion of retenciones. Argentina's one is lower than US and most Western Europe countries ones but higher than those of other Latin American nations that currently apply policies aligned to "international investors" (Colombia and Peru, for instance) Therefore, we cannot get much from it, specially when agricultural subsidies in Europe and the US are famous for distorting market rules (it was mentioned several times during the last Food Crisis Summit in Rome)

By the way, what does The Economist say about those EU subsidies?

Andres[/ QUOTE]Against the subsidies.

The most successful economy in South America, on a per capita basis is Chile. Open to investment, export oriented and a population that is increasingly educated and a currency that is remarkable in its stability. So why not use that as your example. And to further the point. 18 years ago, Chile was none of these and had a per capita base below Argentina. Now it has an appreciating currency (against the U$) education rated highest in South America and a per capita income much greater than Argentina. And surprise, surprise; little corruption, minimum crime and a law abiding citizenship.

Argento

[QUOTE=Andres]If you really have lived for 30 years in Argentina, then you know that all policies from 1978 up to now are clearly not the same. Maybe you don't like them, but it's not serious to tag them with the same name.

Ironic enough that you trash on the Argentine socio-economic system and business climate, but you continue living there since a very, very long and still being a businessman.

Andres[/QUOTE]Clarification. Haven't lived here for 30 years. Have lived here for 1 year 19 years ago and also for the past 3 years. But I have been continuously involved here for 20 years. And haven't seen any improvements in the lives of the people and certainly a great drop off in education standards, massive increase in crime and a deplorable decline in business ethics, which were awful to start with.

I guess I am here because I can extract a profit here, I guess much the same reason that you work off-shore, it suits you financially, even though in your heart of hearts, Argentina is the greatest place in the world to live, make money and have a safe, contented life. The envy of the rest of the world.

Argento

[QUOTE=Tessan] Brazil is the world's biggest beef exporter, sending abroad almost 2.3 million tones per year, a third of total exports around the globe. Last year it earned 4.5 billion dollars from the trade.

[url]http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1202945521.32/[/url]

Projected Argentine beef exports for 2008 remain unchanged at 535,000 tons, a similar volume to last year. The Argentine government (GOA) continues to monitor and control beef exports closely. In order to keep domestic inflation under control, the GOA keeps a well-supplied domestic market by limiting exports whenever needed.

[url]http://www.cattlenetwork.com/International_Content.asp?contentid=203822[/url]

So Brazil exports about 429.06% more beef then Argentina, when they let them export.[/QUOTE]Some of you guys really aren't too good with numbers. 2.3 million is 330% more than 535 thousand, not 429%. Sort of hurts your credibility.

[QUOTE=Dickhead]Some of you guys really aren't too good with numbers. 2.3 million is 330% more than 535 thousand, not 429%. Sort of hurts your credibility.[/QUOTE]Your are right, I should have said, that Brazil exports 430% of what Argentina exports. Since 2300000/535000=4.29906. To say more, I would have had to subtract the 535 first.

Don't think my credibility is harmed.

Argentina Agro Strike to End.

Buenos Aires, June 20 (Prensa Latina) Argentina's four main agricultural employers organizations ratified the strike they have been holding against the mobile retention scheme on exports will end Friday at 24:00 local time.

[url]http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B5F359246-DD63-4FE3-B875-9C6CD399912D%7D)&language=EN[/url]

It's being reported on a Cuban news site. Non of the big news services have anything on this yet. If it's true, it should show up soon.

What do you think Sidney?

[url]http://buenosaires.en.craigslist.org/apa/728914158.html[/url]

Should we jump on this one?, we might even get Jackson as a Tennet

Exon

Argentina has been in the news a lot lately. These are two articles from The Wall Street Journal on the declining economy and the state of the currency. Makes me glad I didn't buy property there.

'This government won't allow itself to be seen stepping back,'' said Rosendo Fraga, head of the Buenos Aires-based Nueva Mayoria polling company.

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aMshkQwMMhZ4&refer=latin_america[/url]

Argentina is one of the 'breadbaskets' of the world. It exports more soybean oil than anyone else. It's also the second-biggest corn exporter (after the United States) the third-largest beef exporter, and the fifth-biggest wheat exporter. Argentina's farm exports have risen 48.2% since 2003. Farm exports were the main reason Argentina was able to rebound so fast from its economic meltdown in 2002.

With the bull market in commodities making farmers rich, you'd think Argentina would be one of the most prosperous countries on Earth right now.

Unfortunately, when the Argentine government saw how much money farmers were making, it slapped an export tax on food products. Farmers pay 46% to export soybeans right now. And if soybean prices keep rising, the tax will jump over 50%. The government has banned beef exports.

In Argentina, farmers are the upper class. The people there think of farmers as rich landowners. By taking the farmers' money with these export taxes and giving it to poor people in the cities, the Argentine government figured it would gain popularity. The politicians also figured the taxes would reduce exports, keep food in the country, and drive down prices. They'd win popularity that way, too.

They didn't count on the farmers.

[snip] called the farmers greedy. Last week, Interior Minister Florencio Randazzo said farmers were "intolerant, ungenerous and anti-democratic." He called them "coup-mongers."

[snip], Argentina now has more debt than when it announced the largest-ever debt default in 2001.

[snip]

Last month, I met an Argentine farmer in Paraguay. Paraguay is Argentina's neighbour. The farmer had come to buy millions of dollars worth of Paraguayan farmland on behalf of a small farming village in Argentina. This village used to be one of the richest farming towns in northern Argentina, he told us. But the government's new laws are ruining the way of life. So the town's farmers pooled their money together and sent this guy to Paraguay to buy up as much land as possible.

Paraguay's land is just as fertile; it's cheaper than Argentine land and the political risk there is a mere fraction of Argentina's political risk. This is why Paraguay's farmland is about to soar and Paraguay's currency – the guarani – is one of the top three best-performing currencies in the world so far this year.

I also like Brazilian meatpackers. Brazil's food industry is stealing Argentina's market share. Meanwhile, the shortage of Argentine food in world markets is supporting prices. And Brazilian meatpackers are earning higher profit margins.

[url]http://www.moneyweek.com/file/49348/how-to-profit-from-argentinas-farming-crisis-.html[/url]

BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - The world wants more wheat, but parched soils and anger over government intervention in the market could lead Argentine farmers to sow one of their smallest crops in 15 years.

Forecasts show farmers dedicating at least 10 percent less land to the grain this season following two years of government anti-inflation policies such as export curbs and price caps.

[snip]

"I've reduced my wheat area and it's not for climatic reasons, it's for political reasons," said Sean Cameron, farmer and president of the wheat growers' association AAPROTRIGO. "For more than two years we haven't received fair value for our crops. Some of us have become frustrated."

The country's center-left government has repeatedly halted wheat exports over the last two years as a way to keep a lid on the prices of everyday staples such as bread and pasta in a nation where nearly one in four people is poor.

As well as freezing exports for months at a time, which depressed local prices, officials irked farmers by setting maximum prices in the local market.

A three-fold increase in fertilizer costs this year is aggravating farmers' uncertainty over what price they will get Cameron said.

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN2748624820080627[/url]

It's strange, because historically price controls and market interventions work so well.

(cough, cough)

[QUOTE=Tessan]The fact that the government keeps changing the rules, is what keeping investment away from oil exploration in Argentina.[/QUOTE]Changing rules is only one part of a complex equation. If there were huge profits to be made, investors wouldn't care that much about changing rules.

For instance, the article you posted mentioned several "urgence decrees" and presidential decrees that set the investment frame. During the 90s, Menem issued thousands of "emergency decrees", something not very reliable from a legal point of view since an opposite congress could quickly overturn them. However there was an "investment craze" (which lasted as much as the process of privatization of public companies lasted, not a concidence from my point of view)

Andres