Argentine Economy

[QUOTE=Balle13]Yes, even Merkel. She's had Sidney's 11 inch cock.[/QUOTE]If Merkel has had Sidney's 11 inch or 30 cm cock she had to pay a lot for it. Afterall, she is not the norm for Sidney. Sidney specializes in under 20 year old knock dead gorgeous promotoros or models.

I know girls who command at least $400 dollars an hour (they are 19 year old models) These same 19 year old playmates pay Sidney $500 pesos (that is a lot of money for them) to allow Sidney to drill them with his 30 cm pija (after they have sucked Sidney dry and swallowed)

And more than one 19 year old drop dead gorgeous modelo is paying Sidney for the honor of suckng Sidney dry, swallowing and then being nailed to the floor with Sidney's 30cm harpon.

What a life it would be if you had Sidneys 30 cm, 12 cm in diameter love pole

Artisttyp,

I see your post now.

The question about the restaurants is easy. Yes, it is easy to find restaurantes where the entire meal including wine costs $30 pesos or less. To get up to $60 pesos you would probably have to order a $30 or $40 peso bottle of wine.

The usual price for the menu ejecutivo at lunch is $25-30 pesos. This usually includes bebida (house wine, cafe, gaseosos, aqua) plato principal and desert.

The question about the privados is also easy. There are a ton of privados with prices less than $100 pesos an hour, or $60 pesos a half hour. The streets are literally strewn with little leaflets that are being passed out advertising these privados.

The girls you see in the interent site are occasionally $100 pesos an hour but more commonly $150 or $200 pesos an hour, less for half an hour. Once the girls start putting their pictures on the internet they have made an investment and need to cover that expense by charging $100 to $200 pesos an hour.

There are probably a lot more privados charging $100 pesos or less an hour than there are charging more than $100 pesos. Probably because not many Argies can afford $200 pesos an houron a regular basis.

The quality of the girls at the $100 peso or less privados varies. Sometimes they are surprising good and sometimes surprisingly bad.

Paraguay (Asuncion) is a different story. The normal price is $20 US dollars for an hour and the girls are younger and in Paraguay they have figured out that an hour has 60 minutes in it. They don't short time you on your hour.

In Paraguay the girls in the privados are just as hot as the privado girls in Buenos Aires. The only difference is that there are far fewer ugly girls working in Paraguay. They must have a law against ugly girls working in privados in Paraguay.

All in all, you get a bigger bang for your buck in Paraguay.

Hope this helps

El Alamo,

Excellent. Thank you so much for taking the time to respond. I look forward to contributing my share when I get there.

Artisttyp

[QUOTE=Sidney]A financial expert discusses AR. Tune in on your computer[/QUOTE]Did you see the report today about the (10) most troubled economies in the world?

Argentina comes in at number (5) on the list of countries in Deep Trouble!

I think it's under Yahoo Finance.

Anyway, I'll let someone like Big Sid discuss this if he feels like it.

More bad news I'm sure!

TL

[QUOTE=Sidney]I can't find the article.[/QUOTE]Try this one.

TL

[url]http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2009/04/17/10-countries-in-deep-trouble.html?PageNr=1[/url]

I think Tejano Libre is quoting this article:

[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-Countries-in-Deep-usnews-14971805.html?.&.pf=real-estate[/url]

What can I tell you guys. Living in México and enduring this crisis is not a simple thing. I am a veteran of the 1982, 1995 and 2002 recessions in this country and honestly things don't look very good for this year and at least the next. Industrial Production is falling 14% , commerce is very slow, etc.

About crime and violence, I think it is a serious issue, but not out of control, there are a good deal of states living a stable and relatively safe situation. Endemic violence is concentrated in just a few states.

Reading Forbes I saw an article by Gary Schilling where he says that if things don't fix in the states by the end of this year or the first quarter of 2010 then the US (and a good deal of countries) will be in a Depression.

What do you guys think about that possibility?

TL good article BTW. Cheers!

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=ahe3ee_eHap8&refer=latin_america[/url]

[url]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/778193e4-44d8-11de-82d6-00144feabdc0.html[/url]

Excellent article. I've always thought the basic hindrance to Argentina's success has been the existence of a feudal state in one form or another. It's as if the Spanish conquered differently than the English / Western European countries conquered. In most of South America a certain twisted form of feudalism exists today, without the "noblesse oblige" that at least was supposed to go with feudal authority in the days of kings and royalty.

I really liked the parallels that it draws between the two countries and where the decisions at certain times lead to the chasm between. The US could indeed slide into the same sort of trap - the people tired of trying to make sense of the world and letting the government step in to restablish a more feudal relationship between government and the people.

Every year we citizens of the US give up more and more power to the government and bleat like sheep.

I think it goes like this:

BAH BAH O'REILLY.

BTW, was this the title of a WHO song?

Jackpot

Almost, it was Baba O'Riley.

And thanks to El Queso for the article.

The report Damman gives the link to makes a very common asumption on what was the agricultural base for Argentina in the 19th and 20th centuries. It was not cattle then and it is not cattle now. In the 19th century it was wool and the province of Buenos Aires was full of sheep. Toward the end of the 19th century and right through to the present, cereals and now soya beans are the mainstay. Cattle were important but were at the most, one third of rural production. Source: Rock, David "Argentina 1516-1987" UCal 1987. (With actual official figures). Herding of sheep multiplied the numbers of rural labour 100 fold. And incidently, Rock suggests that political popularism is the primary cause of Argentina's trevails. Such a simple answer.

Argento

[QUOTE=Argento]In the 19th century it was wool and the province of Buenos Aires was full of sheep.[/QUOTE]Amazingly wool is still what we seek in Argentina

[QUOTE=Argento]Rock suggests that political popularism is the primary cause of Argentina's trevails.

Argento[/QUOTE]I assume you mean "populism?" If not, what is popularism?

I would submit that populism is, and will continue to be, the United States' biggest political problem for years and years to come. Democrats have built a party on pandering to the masses with giveaways and soak the rich arguments. To stick with the agricultural theme, those chickens will come home to roost.

Great article on some of the history of the two countries, even if some of the underpinnings are subject to challenge. Still, I agree with the point made earlier by El Queso -- the way the two countries colonized seems to have made all the difference in the world. I don't imagine there are many Isabel Allende fans here, but some of her earlier books (e. G. House of the Spirits) are great for their depiction of this sort of colonization, at least as it was in Chile.

Thanks for the link to the article.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]I assume you mean "populism?" If not, what is popularism?

I would submit that populism is, and will continue to be, the United States' biggest political problem for years and years to come. Democrats have built a party on pandering to the masses with giveaways and soak the rich arguments. To stick with the agricultural theme, those chickens will come home to roost.

Great article on some of the history of the two countries, even if some of the underpinnings are subject to challenge. Still, I agree with the point made earlier by El Queso -- the way the two countries colonized seems to have made all the difference in the world. I don't imagine there are many Isabel Allende fans here, but some of her earlier books (e. G. House of the Spirits) are great for their depiction of this sort of colonization, at least as it was in Chile.

Thanks for the link to the article.[/QUOTE]Point taken on 'popularism'.

However you miss the point Rock makes and I obviously failed to make it as well. It is really the 20th century populism that has caused the differences in economic outcomes. Not the system of colonizing. Really up to 1900 there was great parity in economic terms between the USA, Canada, Argentina and Australia. Blaming Spain 200 years later for the near failed state is a big ask of me. Only 30 years ago Spain was the political and economic dunce in the EU. They have pulled themselves out of that mindset and what troubles they now have are unrelated to the historic past. Given that they managed to shake off the Franco heritage, the civil war that preceded him and 500 years of Bourbon Catholic indoctrination, not to mention constant attack by Basque seperatists, surely change is possible here. In my opinion the main answer to Argentina's trevails lies elsewhere.

Argento

[QUOTE=Argento]Point taken on 'popularism'.

However you miss the point Rock makes and I obviously failed to make it as well. It is really the 20th century populism that has caused the differences in economic outcomes. Not the system of colonizing. Really up to 1900 there was great parity in economic terms between the USA, Canada, Argentina and Australia.

Argento[/QUOTE]Well Argento, I think we must think about what people want to hear from their politicos in every country, specially in Latin America, where a lot of people want to hear sweet lies and not facing the harsh truth.

If a politician is convincent and tells them you can work less, get paid more, have better social security just elect me, damn me, they will. Voters are driven by feelings and sentiments not their head. To make a comparison its like us mongers, lots of times we think with the little head not the large one.

It would be better for our latin countries if we thought that if we live in a country where government gives you all, then be careful because government can take EVERYTHING away from you.

I'm not blaming Spain completely, or maybe not even in large part, for the attitude, I just pointed out that the methods of Spanish colonization compared to the methods of English colonization were different. Spanish conquistadors vs English settlers. Not that the English settlers didn't do quite a bit to conquer the land. However, the large part of the northern colonies started off as religious escapees. A very different start. Something that even today makes the United States one of the worst sex prisons in the world, even :)

The biggest point I was trying to make is that for whatever reason, the latin countries seem to continue to suffer under a degenerated form of feudalism. It still exists today between the rich and poor - it is very obvious.

The original colonization of South America took place under the Hapsburgs. The Hapsburgs wreaked havoc in Europe for quite some time, and their Spanish Conquistadors touched South America in their own way. When the Bourbons took over, the empire was in decline and the colonies were not tied as tightly. Admittedly, the Bourbons managed a comeback, but Spanish catholic cultures are different from English/protestant cultures even so.

Whether the "cash cow" was cattle or sheep, the article pointed out how the power of the country was basically settled in the rich landowners instead of more evenly distributed amongst the people. They didn't trust the people, didn't see the fallacy in their wanting to keep the power amongst themselves to ensure it was safe.

They considered themselves lords of the land. Descendants of actual royalty from Spain itself, some of them. The way they saw the world due to the way their history taught them leaned more towards putting their trust in a ruling class.

Oh yeah, and someone I think mistakenly attributed the posting of the article to me. That was Damman who originally posted it, I just commentd on it.

Also, Argento - I think the article, correctly, points out that the reason Argentina was on a parity with the other rising countries of the world around 1900 was due to the more agrarian nature of all three countries at the time.. The manufacturing base in Argentina didn't manage to keep up with the other nations as they mechanized and reduced their agrarian natures. To me it points out the sort of problems that landholder management brought to the table in the feudal days and held up advancement - fear, greed, contentment (for the rulers), non-competition, etc. When it became more important to be industrial and technical and not agrarian, Argentina falls behind.

I completely agree with the theory that the root difference between S and N America was the land tenure system, (small plots, homesteading vs. Large tracts granted)

However, I find I am arguing with myself as to the reality of what is happening now. In N. America, there has been a big trend for some time now to buy out smaller land holders and have large conglomerates run the agrian business for very economic reasons.

By contrast in Latin America, taking Venezuela under Chavez as an example, if you cannot prove continuous title to your land for some crazy period of time like 150+ years, these old family held tracts are being taken over in droves with people who have little idea how to farm. There are probably variations on the same theme happening in places like Bolivia, but I am not sure.

Perhaps the original root cause of what we now see as the successful nations vs. The poorer ones is so long ago in terms of change it has no bearing in the current world.

[QUOTE=Whiskas]Voters are driven by feelings and sentiments not their head.[/QUOTE]Make that "[I][u]Liberal[/u][/i] voters are driven by feelings and sentiments not their head."

Conservative voters are driven by logic, not emotion, which among other things results in their realization that there's no such thing as a "free lunch".

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=El Queso]The biggest point I was trying to make is that for whatever reason, the latin countries seem to continue to suffer under a degenerated form of feudalism.[/QUOTE]This is the point with which I was agreeing. And, I certainly wouldn't blame this on Spain. Feudalism existed all over Europe. It certainly didn't originate in Spain. So, regardless of who actually colonized (or started to colonize) South America, I don't think Spain can be held entirely to account for the feudal system.

This definitely was a very different system than that which was used to settle the colonies and later the Western American territory. It would explain a lot. The feudal system served its purpose when kings needed powerful landowners to back them up, but the American system (40 acres to the first person who can stake out a claim) works far better in a democracy and definitely is conducive to a more equal distribution of opportunity.

Also, I didn't misconstrue the point about populism. I just meant to say that the U. S. Is suffering from its own affliction with populism and politicians who promise anything to get elected. I think folks were more skeptical in the past. Now, they seem to believe that there is a free lunch, or at least that someone else should be made to pay for it.

At any rate, it's a pretty good discussion for a monger board -- or a really bad and distracting discussion, depending on your perspective.

[QUOTE=MiddleAgeGuy]I completely agree with the theory that the root difference between S and N America was the land tenure system, (small plots, homesteading vs. Large tracts granted)

However, I find I am arguing with myself as to the reality of what is happening now. In N. America, there has been a big trend for some time now to buy out smaller land holders and have large conglomerates run the agrian business for very economic reasons.[/QUOTE]I have a little experience here regarding agriculture. I am someone who kept his family farm and cash rents the land to a larger, more efficient farmer who can produce per bushel at a lower overall cost than I could because he was a better farmer than the current owner (Me) He is a comitted, educated farmer and it is better for me to let him farm because I could not do it from out of state and I didn't go to school and complete my degrees to return to farming. (Mistake)

For purposes of the argument about the differences between North and South America it is simple: "It's ROIC (Return on Invested Capital) and the freedom to pursue it with limited interference and support of market development that gives the US economy an advantage over most. I said most, not all. So please refrain from trying to tell me about the economy in North Uzbekistan.

This concept of maximizing return applies to agriculture, manufacturing, the service economy and anywhere that a more efficient organization can maximize their return. It is also what drives teh Dow, Nasdaq and S & P. Remember those, the things that everyone looks at to feel better?

In the US it got out of whack with the banking and financial services sectors and we are paying the price. Some will want to jump on one party or the other about unregulated markets and that is bullshit. The fact is there was underenforcement and misapplication of EXISTING regulations and both parties suck for letting the foxes run the hen house.

I have spent a lot of time in Cordoba and it is an agrarian paradise. But if you are a farmer in Argentina, why invest Capital and produce at the highest rate possible with the constant threat of CFK taking the benefits derived from your extra effort for distribution to those less inclined to make the sacrifice you did, just so they can be "a little more equal". Kind of like the term "Economic Justice" being thrown around in the US.

My beloved USA used to be a place that encouraged success and innovation and where achievement was envied and respected. Now I am somewhat skeptical about that fact.

The same example of CFK and the farmers in AR is stated policy right now in America. Laugh at Joe the Plumber all you want, but what was said to him during the election is not disputable. The fact that Bush, Cheney and Rove are "evil" men will not fly soon and frankly is getting a little old. I don't see a lot of supporters for them here.

But every thing works out and the economy will come back. It needs to, my Chica habit is draining me.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Maybe the the most important factor![/QUOTE]Regarding the Judeo-Christian work ethic, we are in danger of diluting that as well.

[QUOTE=MiddleAgeGuy]I completely agree with the theory that the root difference between S and N America was the land tenure system, (small plots, homesteading vs. Large tracts granted)

However, I find I am arguing with myself as to the reality of what is happening now. In N. America, there has been a big trend for some time now to buy out smaller land holders and have large conglomerates run the agrian business for very economic reasons.

By contrast in Latin America, taking Venezuela under Chavez as an example, if you cannot prove continuous title to your land for some crazy period of time like 150+ years, these old family held tracts are being taken over in droves with people who have little idea how to farm. There are probably variations on the same theme happening in places like Bolivia, but I am not sure.

Perhaps the original root cause of what we now see as the successful nations vs. The poorer ones is so long ago in terms of change it has no bearing in the current world.[/QUOTE]Just for the record. Australia was totally settled by large land grants and from 1870 and really up untill the 1950's, there was a policy of breaking up large holdings and encouraging small settlers. Failed in the long term and most have been consolidated. Australia is amongst the more successful economies in the world. It is considered to be in the best position of all economies to weather the current economic storms. So original land grant settlement would not appear to be the root cause of South America's disfunction. Convenient as the idea might be.

Argento

[QUOTE=QuakHunter] someone who kept his family farm and cash rents the land to a larger, more efficient farmer who can produce per bushel at a lower overall cost than I could because he was a better farmer than the current owner (Me)[/QUOTE]Since you own a farm, would it be correct to assume you receive "Agriculture Subsidies" ($$$) from the Federal Government to help support prices?

[QUOTE=Damman]Since you own a farm, would it be correct to assume you receive "Agriculture Subsidies" ($$$) from the Federal Government to help support prices?[/QUOTE]Your assumption is partially correct. I have about 70 acres that I keep set aside for CRP, which is nice because I love the taste of Pheasants. But as far as any subsidy to "support" prices; no.

The farmer who produces obviously gets subsidies, I don't. But in reality we all get subsidies. Every time the farmer or you and I buy a combine, tractor or truck, we get a deduction for that investment.

But, that is also what keeps the implement dealers, the truck dealer and the ag chem co-op in business so they can employ people who take their payroll and buy houses, TVs and cars. Then those people pay their money to people who go buy groceries at market prices. Then those people who sell the groceries take their money and buy iPods, Nintendos and motorcycles.

And all these people pay taxes so the government can subsidize things. Things like ACORN and Planned Parenthood, among other non-value added programs.

It's the circle of life Simba.

[QUOTE=Argento]Just for the record. Australia was totally settled by large land grants and from 1870 and really up untill the 1950's, there was a policy of breaking up large holdings and encouraging small settlers. Failed in the long term and most have been consolidated. Australia is amongst the more successful economies in the world. It is considered to be in the best position of all economies to weather the current economic storms. So original land grant settlement would not appear to be the root cause of South America's disfunction. Convenient as the idea might be.

Argento[/QUOTE]Argento: With all due respect, I think you're proving our point.

If Australia had a policy of breaking up large holdings and encouraging small settlers, then it would be similar to the U. S. way back when the West was won. Ultimately, those small settlements in the US were consolidated, as well. Today, the corporate megalith farm is quite common, just as you say it is in Australia today. Still, the point remains that at one point it was broken up into smaller chunks.

You can say that the small farm system "failed" in Australia, just as you could say it "failed" in the United States, at least from the perspective that we no longer have a predominance of small farms. Personally, I wouldn't call this failure as much as I would say that it simply didn't perpetuate itself forever. Regardless, you then say that Australia today is a strong economy. Say what you want about the U. S. but it is still the economic superpower of the world today.

Far from disproving the points made earlier, it sounds to me like the Australia example underscores those points. I don't personally know much about how Australia was colonized, or how its government dealt with expansion. But, if it was as you say in the paragraph above, I don't think you're refuting the point about feudalism by pointing to Australia.

Economic slowdown hammering Argentina.

Construction drops 3% in April.

Construction fell three percent in April year-on-year, accumulating 2.7 percent decline since the start of the year, the INDEC statistics' bureau reported.

Nevertheless, construction activity grew 3.6 percent from the previous month, according to the agency, which was partly explained by seasonal effects. The decline of construction, which is often used as an index to estimate evolution of the economy in the mid-term, has become noticeable as the country is hammered by the deceleration of the national economy.

Private reports forecast the Argentine GDP might not grow at all in 2009.

According to the INDEC; construction permits in the 42 most representative districts in the country increased 22.7 percent compared to the period of the previous year.

BA Herald.

Not to bad so far!

[url]http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200905221417dowjonesdjonline000676&title=argentina-president-links-new-taxes-to-payment-of-boden-2012[/url]

Does anybody know that Argentina soon does not produce enough meat to cover there own needs?

And what does this do to the fighting of poverty?

[QUOTE=Joe Hernandez]Does anybody know that Argentina soon does not produce enough meat to cover there own needs?

And what does this do to the fighting of poverty?[/QUOTE]The people in Argentina are the number (1) consumers of beef per capita in the entire world.

About 68 kilos per person per year!

That's a shitload of beef per day. Red meat!

I can't see the corelation between fighting poverty and eating cows but maybe you can explain your thoughts to us.

I'm about to cook (3) kilos of stew meat to make some Texas Chili.

Yesterday I made the BEST burgers in BA and Saturday night I ate an entire Lomo ala Crema Champignon!

So yes, for the past (4) days it has been pure beef baby! Although Saturday night's meal would be considered underaged beef!

I guess it was ¨VEAL ¨?

Argentina is not the number (1) producer of beef in the world, actually it is number (3) behind Brazil and Australia, but it is the number (1) consumer!

I have read that 10% of the country's total production is exported.

Fuck the rest of the people in the world!

Let them eat cake!

The damned Argies export the best quality and leave the shit that falls on the floor to us!

TL

[QUOTE=TejanoLibre]The people in Argentina are the number (1) consumers of beef per capita in the entire world.

About 68 kilos per person per year!

That's a shitload of beef per day. Red meat!

I can't see the corelation between fighting poverty and eating cows but maybe you can explain your thoughts to us.

I'm about to cook (3) kilos of stew meat to make some Texas Chili.

Yesterday I made the BEST burgers in BA and Saturday night I ate an entire Lomo ala Crema Champignon!

So yes, for the past (4) days it has been pure beef baby! Although Saturday night's meal would be considered underaged beef!

I guess it was ¨VEAL ¨?

Argentina is not the number (1) producer of beef in the world, actually it is number (3) behind Brazil and Australia, but it is the number (1) consumer!

I have read that 10% of the country's total production is exported.

Fuck the rest of the people in the world!

Let them eat cake!

The damned Argies export the best quality and leave the shit that falls on the floor to us!

TL[/QUOTE]Argentinian people eat meat.

Argentinian meat becomes more expensive due to the lack of supply and more expensive import of meat.

Basic foodbasket for poor people (actually all people) become more expensive.

Hunger and poverty will increase.

This is pretty basic because it's a bit more complicated then that but once the supply is decreasing and the demand does not change this will lead to higher prices and with higher prices the poor suffer more.

Argentina offcourse can export the high quality meat and use that money to subsidize the asado of the poor but this can't be maintained with falling demand.

A similar thing is happening with the supply of the fuel and natural gas

[QUOTE=TejanoLibre]The people in Argentina are the number (1) consumers of beef per capita in the entire world.

About 68 kilos per person per year!

Argentina is not the number (1) producer of beef in the world, actually it is number (3) behind Brazil and Australia, but it is the number (1) consumer.

The damned Argies export the best quality and leave the shit that falls on the floor to us!

TL[/QUOTE]The EU, USA, Brazil, Argentina and Australia are the largest producers of beef and in that order. Largest exporter by volume is Brazil followed by Australia and then the USA. By dollar value, Australia is the largest exporter followed by Brazil and then the USA. Mad cow has restricted USA exports to Japan and South Korea, the two best markets for premium beef. Brazil produces a breed not suited to the premium Asian markets. Australia has picked up the markets lost by the USA. Argentina is restricted to exporting boned-out beef due to foot and mouth disease and due to export taxes, poor production methods, export restrictions and unreliable supply, are no longer competitive.

Argento

[QUOTE=Joe Hernandez]Argentina of course[/QUOTE]You should have just stopped there and 98% of the folks on this board would have agreed with you.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Can you elaborate on that statement?

Thanks[/QUOTE]Very simply, there is an inherent disincentive for work as a result of the giveaway / bailout programs and the redistribution of hard earned gains to others. Why work when you can get it for free or if the guy next to you is getting the same while doing less? Check out the mortgage rescue plan for a start. And don't read it on the web, talk to someone with a job making his payments and getting behind.

This is only one example.

Sid, since I was supporting your point did I interpret the intent of your comment?

There is no recession yet in Australia, pretty impressive if you ask me :)

Does anybody know when the figures for foreign arrivals in Ezeiza for the month of April are published by INDEC?

My politics and economic beliefs are all screwed up. Plus, QuakHunter's definition of "Judeo-Christian work ethic" is really throwing me for a loop. Can you two suggest a good re-education camp for me? I got my stimulus money, ($250.00) so cost is not a problem.

Thanks

[QUOTE=Damman]My politics and economic beliefs are all screwed up. Plus, QuakHunter's definition of "Judeo-Christian work ethic" is really throwing me for a loop. Can you two suggest a good re-education camp for me? I got my stimulus money, ($250.00) so cost is not a problem.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]The fact that you would actually admit you took $250.00 in stimulus money demonstrates the point that the "Judeo Christian Work Ethic" is declining.

The fact that you are willing to invest it in education means you still have hope.

When you start asking for more because the government cheese is running low is when you are a liberal.

Please send your $250.00 to Quakhunter Online University.