-
[QUOTE=Papa Benito]My answer would be to reverse all the policies that defy the laws of econmics. Then, support the export sector, allow freer trade, prosecute and persecute the mafia, restore the order of law, clean up the judiciary, support contractural law, improve the banking sector, create a Fannie Mae, encourage capital investment, stop the populist rhetoric (your mills) which discourages all foreign investment, reduce the growth rate of the money supply, pay-off the hold outs from the repudiation, improve tax collection, clean-up the police force, stop the control of prices, improve the infrastructure utilizing the unemployed, improve relations with the IMF, reduce Socialism, listen to knowledgeble men like Hunt99, and Moore, mas, mas, mas![/QUOTE]I wonder how you would fight mafias, clean the police and "restore" any order (when there wasn't any before) when the very elites support and / or encourage these issues. That's what I call wishful thinking.
If you want to change a country, you need to understand that its constitutive society has strong mechanisms and official and unofficial checking structures, that are there for a reason. For instance, populist rethoric (understanding that as saying what people want to hear) is part of the package. You cannot go against it within a democratic system, and you cannot trigger a sustainable dictatorship. Those are the rules you have to play with, not the ideal measures that you would like to take.
Anyway, guys, if you want to rant and rave, that's your call. I just try to make you see things from a different perspective so that you can stop beating the same horse and getting nowhere, but I'm afraid that I'm losing my time trying to explain something to people obsessed with Socialist fanthoms.
Andres
-
Andres-
I think the irony of most of the Monger-Economist arguments on this board is that they argue that essentially Argentina should be more like the USA in terms of politics, economics and business practices. What I think they are missing is that if Argentina operated exactly like the USA, they would not want to come here. You cannot have the cheap steak, the cheap pussy, and cheap living when a country has an efficient, low-corruption, socioeconomic and political system. Think about it.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler
-
[QUOTE=Dirk Diggler]What I think they are missing is that if Argentina operated exactly like the USA, they would not want to come here. You cannot have the cheap steak, the cheap pussy, and cheap living when a country has an efficient, low-corruption, socioeconomic and political system. [/QUOTE]The "smart money" is acutely aware of this Dirk, exploiting the situation and r.e.a.p.ing the rewards.:D
Figuring out Argentina's issues is sort of like figuring out women - it is a journey that has no end. The fundamental problems are static and quite easy to diagnose, but their recurring manifestations never cease to amaze.
-
[QUOTE=Dirk Diggler]Andres-
I think the irony of most of the Monger-Economist arguments on this board is that they argue that essentially Argentina should be more like the USA in terms of politics, economics and business practices. What I think they are missing is that if Argentina operated exactly like the USA, they would not want to come here. You cannot have the cheap steak, the cheap pussy, and cheap living when a country has an efficient, low-corruption, socioeconomic and political system. Think about it.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler[/QUOTE]Dirk,
Absolutely. You cannot have ALL the advantages of a Third World country if it becomes a developed one.
What I point out is that, as Moore mentions in his last post, people here is trying to FIGURE IT OUT how Argentina works. Using the US as the "universal reference standard" doesn't help to do so. If the fundamentals were so clear, a politician such as Menem would have solved it with a handful of rules, but the fact is that these rules aren't suitable or applicable. The issue is more complex than it looks like.
For instance, I agree with Moore, Hunt and others that corruption isn't the best ingredient for a business to thrive. However, some countries such as Italy were able to grow despite of a highly corrupted system (that political structure called lotisazzione between 1950 and 1990) In fact, lotisazzione was necessary to encourage old money (Fiat, for instance) to invest in some areas without worrying about competition from others. After all, the Italian financial system differs significantly from the American one, so if you as the government want to encourage investments, you have to deal with the system in place.
Andres
-
Andres,
Argentina did not get out of the "pit left by the peso peg" without the IMF, but against the IMF - by defaulting on her international debts. In fact, Argentina declared bankruptcy. As far as I know, an unprecedented act of a country.
While this is seen as a heroic act by many Argentineans (in fact, all I know) it is seen quite differently by Argentina's creditors, public as well as private. Anybody who invested money in Argentinean tresury bonds is certainly not amused.
The main impact this may have is towards the credibility of countries in general. Up to now, any country's government bonds in hard currency - Dollars, Euros, Swiss Francs, Sterling etc - where considered trustworthy, the perception was that nation states could not go bankrupt. This has changed, and may result in far bigger difficulties for some countries to get credit on the finacial markets. Which, btw. Is not necessarily bad.
Please don't consider this as "ranting and reving". I am not looking at the world from an U.S. Point of view, but from an European. Personally, I am torn between appreciating and condemning Kirchner's policy, tending a bit more to the latter. Declaring bankruptcy, in the usual sense within a working legal system, may rid you of your debts, but also puts you under strict rules. Argentina, so it seems, wants the best of 2 worlds.
Just my 2 centavos.
El Alemán
-
[QUOTE=Andres]What I point out is that, as Moore mentions in his last post, people here is trying to FIGURE IT OUT how Argentina works. Using the US as the "universal reference standard" doesn't help to do so. However, some countries such as Italy were able to grow despite of a highly corrupted system [/QUOTE]Thats a good point which I was going to bring up Andres. I do not use the US as a "universal reference standard", especially for a country like Argentina which I believe is more oriented toward a more socialistic system that is more common in W Europe. But how a country like Italy, apparently having many similar issues as Argentina (corruption, Latins, instability, etc) is able to maintain a relatively expensive social system yet still be a 1st-world G7 country is something I don't fully understand. Why can't Argentina do the same?
-
[QUOTE=Moore]Thats a good point which I was going to bring up Andres. I do not use the US as a "universal reference standard", especially for a country like Argentina which I believe is more oriented toward a more socialistic system that is more common in W Europe. But how a country like Italy, apparently having many similar issues as Argentina (corruption, Latins, instability, etc) is able to maintain a relatively expensive social system yet still be a 1st-world G7 country is something I don't fully understand. Why can't Argentina do the same?[/QUOTE]Perhaps because Italian politicians only steal with one hand, but not both?
Perhaps because Italian politicians only steal for themselves, instead of inviting their wives, brothers, sisters, in-laws, and cousins to join them in looting the treasury, robbing the taxpayers, shaking down the businessmen, and requiring government workers to kick back portions of their salaries (oops, I mean make "contributions" to the union)?
Perhaps because Italian politicians occasionally go to jail for corruption?
Perhaps because Italian politicians understand that when they take a bribe it doesn't mean they're entitled to seize the bribegiver's entire business?
Some of our other posters could offer a few more examples.
-
[QUOTE=El Aleman]Andres,
Argentina did not get out of the "pit left by the peso peg" without the IMF, but against the IMF - by defaulting on her international debts. [/QUOTE]As far as I know, Argentina never stopped paying loans to international institutions (IMF, World Bank, IDB) Just the private debt was defaulted.
Andres
-
[QUOTE=Moore]Thats a good point which I was going to bring up Andres. I do not use the US as a "universal reference standard", especially for a country like Argentina which I believe is more oriented toward a more socialistic system that is more common in W Europe. But how a country like Italy, apparently having many similar issues as Argentina (corruption, Latins, instability, etc) is able to maintain a relatively expensive social system yet still be a 1st-world G7 country is something I don't fully understand. Why can't Argentina do the same?[/QUOTE]Seamless access to the European markets is an important issue. High quality of manufactured goods (among them, textiles) is another to mention.
Andres
-
[QUOTE=Dirk Diggler]Andres-
I think the irony of most of the Monger-Economist arguments on this board is that they argue that essentially Argentina should be more like the USA in terms of politics, economics and business practices. What I think they are missing is that if Argentina operated exactly like the USA, they would not want to come here. You cannot have the cheap steak, the cheap pussy, and cheap living when a country has an efficient, low-corruption, socioeconomic and political system. Think about it.[/QUOTE]Huh? So efficiency and low-corruption result in higher prices? Isn't this essentially the opposite of the many arguments for privatizing supposedly inefficient goverment services to improve efficiency and lower prices. Of course those arguments are a load of crap, privatization almost always leads to boosts in prices. I think there needs some reevaluating of perspectives here. I don't think it is useful to attempt to compare the 'quantity' of corruption in Argentina to the US. It is more instructive to look at the substance of corruption, in Argentina corruption seems to be ingrained at a micro level, a way of doing business (ie always count your change) whereas in the US I think small actors are likely to be mostly legit, playing by the rules. However, in the US the government and Fortune 500 companies have corrupt practices that are on such a scale so as to dwarf a so-called 3rd world country. Think Enron, Halliburton, Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc. Or think about the worlds largest economy which is DEPENDENT on military spending. Or the Saviings and Loan bailout, or the raiding of the social security 'trust fund', too many examples to cite, but the raiding is generally done at a system level where the individual does not see the direct impact, certainly the ultra-rich do not directly see the direct impact. As some wise dude said something like: the US has socialized costs and debts but privatized benefits.
Jj
-
Jj,
Please can you list a few examples of a state-run enterprise providing a cheaper, more efficient product than a private enterprise.
I don't fully agree with your theory that corruption is more problematic at a micro level in Argentina and vice-versa in USA. Corruption seems rampant at all levels here from the street cop to the president of the country. Outright plunder probably is a better term than corruption. One major difference is that criminals are often prosecuted in USA. Measures and new regs are often put in place after a major problem to prevent recurrence. A US commoner who has grown up in an ethical environment is a lot less likely to be a criminal upon attaining a powerful corporate/political position than someone who was raised in a very corrupt environment.
If corruption/ethics are very bad at all levels then I don't think any system - socialist or more market oriented - works for the general population, save a dictatorship to some extent. Lots of dictators in Latin history. And when the basic system is broke, local goods will be cheap for people with hard currency regardless of the politics currently being preached.
-
Hah! Give an example of the opposite, that is: a government service which has been privatized and as a result became cheaper and more efficient.
The Postal System is an excellent example, private enterprise only attempts to compete in niches, because the PO is incredibly cheap and efficient. In fact, it is quite arguable that without government buildout we would not have ubiquity that we enjoy of communications systems in the US, direct public works projects built the Postal System as well as the roads to carry the mail. Furthermore government regs aided buildout with Telephone (although it was in fact a private monopoly for the most part during buildout, but a regulated one) Information services such as libraries have historically been public enterprises, whenever an information resource is privatized, it becomes more expensive. When communities or countries privatize or sell off their utilities, the prices generally go up as well and problems often arise with quality (water) or reliability (energy) Market fundamentalism is a nieve viewpoint of course because there is no such thing as a free market, there are businesses which compete in an unevenly subsidized field (military contractors, energy sector) or compete in an unevenly regulated field (communications) etc ad nosium, but there is no such thing as a free market. There is a myth that cold war russia was unable to keep up technologically, when in fact they were outpacing us in the 1950s (think sputnik) During the cold war (before russian went bankrupt attempting to keep up with the arms race) there was a lot of comparison going on between the soviet model of innovation and the US model, and industry in the US argued for federal subsidy because they could not produce products as cheaply as a centrally managed industry seen in the USSR.
I guess I broadened the discussion there, but I would argue for a healthy mix of public works (more than the US now has, unless you perceive military spending as a public works project! And a market economy which includes well regulated sectors and other where optimal, unregulated sectors.
A tangential point, with all the advocacy ive seen on this board for market liberalization (through the imf) it has widely been pointed out that the IMFs policies have been disastrous for any developing country which has fallen victum to them.
Has anyone seen the film (about argentina) The Take? By Naomi Klein and another whose name I forget. Its about the economic collapse.
Jj.
[QUOTE=Moore]Jj,
Please can you list a few examples of a state-run enterprise providing a cheaper, more efficient product than a private enterprise.
I don't fully agree with your theory that corruption is more problematic at a micro level in Argentina and vice-versa in USA. Corruption seems rampant at all levels here from the street cop to the president of the country. Outright plunder probably is a better term than corruption. One major difference is that criminals are often prosecuted in USA. Measures and new regs are often put in place after a major problem to prevent recurrence. A US commoner who has grown up in an ethical environment is a lot less likely to be a criminal upon attaining a powerful corporate / political position than someone who was raised in a very corrupt environment.
If corruption / ethics are very bad at all levels then I don't think any system - socialist or more market oriented - works for the general population, save a dictatorship to some extent. Lots of dictators in Latin history. And when the basic system is broke, local goods will be cheap for people with hard currency regardless of the politics currently being preached.[/QUOTE]
-
Goblin,
Please rewrite that.
-
[QUOTE=Moore]Goblin,
Please rewrite that.[/QUOTE]WTF? Are you suggesting that somebody might have access to more than one handle? That could never happen on this board!
-
[QUOTE=Moore]Goblin,
Please rewrite that.[/QUOTE]Mira, don't be lazy, if you are going to try and make such connections, at least take the time to do your research and read folks posts rather than stabbing in the dark.
For example, below is a quote from Goblin, and if you read both our posts on this board, you would reasonably conclude we offer quite different viewpoints. Or perhaps, I am creating alter egos for myself in order to manipulate you for some as yet unrevealed, but certainly diabolical purpose! HaHaHahahahahahahaha! Or maybe you are really the guy that thought you were being followed at the boliche?
Well, I won't wait for that well thought out response RE the argentine vs the US economy, thats not why we're here anyway!
Jj.
Goblin wrote:
I am beginning to believe that a relationship with an American warhog is even more impossible.
Really every woman in North America has developed herself into a different cultural reality by virtue of the varying ideologies that have been woven in our fragmented society. To be truthful I feel even more foreign in the company of our woman.