Printable View
[QUOTE=Sidney]''The duties will stand''! ''Extra revenues to the destitute''! --------Sid,''Yeah right, who are they trying to shit''?[/QUOTE]Some of this shit is nothing more than "you're making money and we want it, so we will tax your profits and steal them."
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kYtHBL-1e4&feature=user[/url]
Interesting.
Exon
[QUOTE=Tessan]It depends what you mean by record high sales. I remember hearing about the SUV sales, when I was watching the news in BA, but no one gave a number. CFK mentioned it in her speech I think. 1 more then the last high is a record. It really depends who's is buying the SUVs' and why. 4 wheel drive helps on dirt roads or off road. If it's large producers who make up less then 15% of farmers, it makes sense. It still means the smaller producers are getting harmed.
The best policy is to let people make money, to encourage more production, which will over the long run, increase gov revenues. Don't know what level of tax that is, but at 35% their where no protests.[/QUOTE]Small producers are somewhat right on their claims (after all, CFK didn't honored her promise of creating the undersecretariat of familly agriculture nor did she call for a long-term policy before the protests) However, I doubt that guys like Buzzi or De Angeli are really struggling for survival. They didn't react that way during the 90s, despite the unfavorable economic scenario back then (lots of seizures)
Some analysts argue that many small producers are getting harmed because of the oligopolistic nature of the commercial chain, from which they receive just a few pennies for every dollar, but such situation is far from despair.
I agree that the government should let people make money, but it also has to enforce tax and employment laws.
Andres
[QUOTE=Andres] However, I doubt that guys like Buzzi or De Angeli are really struggling for survival. They didn't react that way during the 90s, despite the unfavorable economic scenario back then (lots of seizures)
Some analysts argue that many small producers are getting harmed because of the oligopolistic nature of the commercial chain, from which they receive just a few pennies for every dollar, but such situation is far from despair.
I agree that the government should let people make money, but it also has to enforce tax and employment laws.
Andres[/QUOTE]The retensions are not taxation. If they were they would be illegal and against the law. What they are is a very good attempt to suck the life blood from the Kirchner's 'class' enemies. And make no mistake, it is a class war. What the Kirchner's and the rest of their breed fail to grasp is that the only really productive sector in Argentina is the agricultural sector. I'd hazard a guess that it produces upwards of 60% of the export income. The other 40% is not really all that profitable as it is with Mercosur partners and the money is really off-set against imports such as cars, car parts and the like. And not really taxed. My guess is that with this current dispute combined with the drought, the coming season will see a lot of farmers being very wary on what they do. Production was down 20% this past year due to the drought. The Kirchners jacked up the retensions to ensue their net receipts were the same as the previous year. They really are venal bastards. I guess production will be way down and those that can afford to, won't do any planting.
And Andres, even if farmers are successful and not poverty stricken, they still have the same rights of protest as those that are not so well off.
Argento
[QUOTE=Argento]The retensions are not taxation. If they were they would be illegal and against the law. What they are is a very good attempt to suck the life blood from the Kirchner's 'class' enemies.[/QUOTE]Look, life is far from simple and linear. Retentions wouldn't exist if the AFIP had the iron-fist arm of the IRS. Are retentions questionable on constitutional terms? Probably. But what other tools have the government to raise money when evasion remains as a pervasive rural corporate behavior?
[QUOTE=Argento] And make no mistake, it is a class war.[/QUOTE]Provided that different social sectors dispute wealth distribution, yes, it is a "war", but far from a class war. Hopefully, not bloody.
[QUOTE=Argento] What the Kirchner's and the rest of their breed fail to grasp is that the only really productive sector in Argentina is the agricultural sector. [/QUOTE]That's not true. The agricultural sector only makes up of 6% of the GDP, and less than 40% of exports. History proves that countries that want to become moderately independent and "serious" don't base their economy on exporting primary sector goods.
[QUOTE=Argento] I'd hazard a guess that it produces upwards of 60% of the export income.[/QUOTE]Instead of hazarding, why not getting actual figures? Crop exports don't add up to ARS 30B.
[QUOTE=Argento] My guess is that with this current dispute combined with the drought, the coming season will see a lot of farmers being very wary on what they do. Production was down 20% this past year due to the drought. The Kirchners jacked up the retensions to ensue their net receipts were the same as the previous year. They really are venal bastards. I guess production will be way down and those that can afford to, won't do any planting.[/QUOTE]Business is business. If farmers can make money planting, they will despite high retentions. There are dozens of books describing how difficult is to do business in China as a westerner (bribes, corruption, regulations, communist bureaucracy, etc) and foreign investors continue to jump in that train. If there are profits to get, they will.
[QUOTE=Argento] And Andres, even if farmers are successful and not poverty stricken, they still have the same rights of protest as those that are not so well off. [/QUOTE]Protesting and forcing a stringent lockout are not the same thing, specially if the latter provokes a shortage of first-need goods.
Andres
[QUOTE=Andres]That's not true. The agricultural sector only makes up of 6% of the GDP, and less than 40% of exports. History proves that countries that want to become moderately independent and "serious" don't base their economy on exporting primary sector goods.
Andres[/QUOTE]In 2007, agricultural output accounted for 10% of GDP, and nearly one third of all exports. Soy and vegetable oils are major export commodities at 32% of exports. Wheat, maize, oats, sorghum, and sunflower seeds totalled 7%. Cattle is also a major industry. Beef, milk, leather products, and cheese were 6% of total exports. Sheep and wool industries are important in Patagonia, pigs and caprines elsewhere.
[url]http://www.indec.gov.ar/[/url]
[QUOTE=Tessan]In 2007, agricultural output accounted for 10% of GDP, and nearly one third of all exports. Soy and vegetable oils are major export commodities at 32% of exports. Wheat, maize, oats, sorghum, and sunflower seeds totalled 7%. Cattle is also a major industry. Beef, milk, leather products, and cheese were 6% of total exports. Sheep and wool industries are important in Patagonia, pigs and caprines elsewhere.
[url]http://www.indec.gov.ar/[/url][/QUOTE]I believed everything you wrote until you cited something at '. Gov. Ar'.:-)
[QUOTE=Sidney]Total inflation for the first 5 months of 2008 was 4%! Yeah right again! Interestingly, the INDEC staff wants a 35% raise! Could it be?--Lie about inflation and extort a huge raise![/QUOTE]I am not defending their number, my only point was that Andres number where off, even by Argentines gov numbers.
Services sector around 55% to the Argentina's GDP. Most of the service sector does not become hard currencies, since it mostly argentines paying peso for services. Some services are probably exported which would bring in foreign currency. Having trouble finding a hard number, read somewhere that about 7% of the 55% are exported, that would be about 3.85% of GDP.
The industrial sector contributes nearly 35% of GDP. Not sure what % is exported. Getting very different numbers, from different places.
If you look at the foreign currency coming into Argentina, anywhere between 35-40% is because of the Agricultural sector. Might even be higher, since most of the numbers are a few years old, and Ag price have gone way up.
Without foreign currency, Argentina would be in crisis. The peso has held up well during the farm strike, because the central bank was holding 50 billion dollars in foreign reserves, probably down to 47 billion now.
If the Farm sector goes down, the country will go down with them. By saying it only 6% or 10% of GDP, can mislead people to think it not that important.
[url]http://www.fita.org/countries/argentina.html[/url]
Except for the portion of the service sector that involves renting pussy to extranjeros, which does bring in hard currency.
[QUOTE=Tessan]I am not defending their number, my only point was that Andres number where off, even by Argentines gov numbers.[/QUOTE]My numbers were not exact, but fairly close. "Less than 40%" and 33% look very alike. 10% and 6% maybe not, but in any case far from being the powerhouse this sector pretends to be.
Andres
[QUOTE=Tessan]If the Farm sector goes down, the country will go down with them. By saying it only 6% or 10% of GDP, can mislead people to think it not that important.
[url]http://www.fita.org/countries/argentina.html[/url][/QUOTE]The farm sector doesn't go down. The fact that they complain doesn't mean that they don't currently thrive. Again, it's important to discriminate among different players inside of what is called "Farmers".
I agree that it is an important sector, but automotive and metalmechanic too, and they don't block roads for 90 days,
Andres
[QUOTE=Andres]The farm sector doesn't go down. The fact that they complain doesn't mean that they don't currently thrive. Again, it's important to discriminate among different players inside of what is called "Farmers".
I agree that it is an important sector, but automotive and metalmechanic too, and they don't block roads for 90 days,
Andres[/QUOTE]The farm sector is really the only part of the economy that earns rather than churns money. And taxation that is not equitable across the full spectrum of business has never worked long term in any country where it has been attempted.
I get a strong hint of 'ugly capitalist syndrome' in your posts. My question is; where does the crony capitalism, very apparent in Argentina again, (and supported by the Kirchner administration) fit into your argument? And why shouldn't the farmers thrive? Remember that their return on capital is on average, long-term, 3%. Here it would be negative over the past 10 years. Prices on productive farm land is only now back to the prices of more than 10 years ago.
Argento