Printable View
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]At the turn of the 19th century Argentina had the highest per capita income in the entire world, it was THE developed country. [/QUOTE]Having a high per-capita income doesn't means that the country is developed. Current cases of several Persian Gulf monarchies prove that.
If Argentina has been such a heaven before 1945 as conservatives like to repeat, why did such a social process as Peronismo appear in scene?
Andres
[QUOTE=Dickhead]
Carrefour Story #1: Sign says, "15% off on X, Y, and Z if you use any debit card. " X happens to be "bebidas" so I buy a bunch of booze, go to the check out counter, hand over my VISA debit card, and get no discount. "Why? " I ask. "This is not a debit card. " "It says 'debit' right on it, right here (pointing) " "Well, our system says it's a credit card. " "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? " "Five. " "No, four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. " [/QUOTE]I have a bank account in the US and I have a Visa debit card from this bank. The big problem (and Visa should see to this) is here it appears on the system as a credit card even offering payment in installments. So this is a problem you are always going to get when using a debit card from a US bank. The cashier couldn't give a shit about what the card has printed on it. The system is telling her that it's a credit card and that is what it's going to say when she closes her till when her shift is over.
And as you very correctly say calling a tail a leg is not going to make it into a five legged dog and in this case you calling your card debit isn't going to make it a debit card if Visa insist on telling the cashier it's a credit card especially if the 15% discount she "wrongly" gave you is going to come from her pocket.
[QUOTE=Andres]To start with, Argentina didn't have "a start" as early as you mentioned. The definite national "organization" started at 1853, not when the Spaniards arrived.
As strange as it may sound, the fact that "making a living" in Argentina wasn't as hard as in Northeastern US or Australia partially explains the choices made by elites and the social structure and organization, with their implicit and explicit rules. Said differently, Argentina isn't the way it is DESPITE the natural resources at hand but BECAUSE OF the natural resources at hand.
It's long and complex to explain, and I'm afraid that you wouldn't be open enough to deserve my time and effort.
Andres[/QUOTE]Due to the abundance of natural resources they had no need to develop industrially because life wasn't hard enough to require a change. They had plenty of food, plenty of wine, lots of immigrants to do the nasty work and I'm sure even then tons of good pussy. Am I tracking you?
As far as why Peronism was able to rise and flourish I think because until then everybody ignored the peasants. Then he started giving them stuff, free stuff, until then their really wasn't a middle class. Then Eva founded the free University and education was more readily available to poor people, middle class started to developed because poor people started getting skill sets and had something the market would pay for. Unfortunately the nepotisim, corruption, and something for nothing programs came before the education. And really isn't that the basis for all corruption, wanting to make a living without working?
I'm probably wrong, but that's my impression.
Andres I am always open to listening to what you have to say. You're a voice of experience and reason here. We have never met but I know your CV from people who's opinions I trust.
If you don't feel like enlightening the entire forum drop me a pm and I'll give you my email. I'll read any lecture regarding Argentine history from 1900-the present that you would care to prepare. I've read some but most of the English stuff is from a Norte perspective and my Castellano isn't good enough to clearly understand the books I can buy down there.
Not all members of this forum have knee jerk reactions to the differences in Argentine business practices and political misfeasance from those of the USA or Western Europe. Many of us love many aspects of argentine life and culture and would appreciate your efforts to help us understand this wonderful, but imperfect place we chose to live or frequently visit.
Jackson, Julio is talking about a different type of moral corruption: imperialism
and colonialization of developing nations. There is a fascinating book out: The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. A former investment banker describes how multinationals suck the economic blood out of third world nations, often with the help of a corrupt local elite. Of course in many nations that corrupt local elite are just lined-up with their hands out.
Andres, please take the time to share your insights. Your postings are one of my favorite part of this forum. Thanks Jackson!
[QUOTE=Andres]To start with, Argentina didn't have "a start" as early as you mentioned. The definite national "organization" started at 1853, not when the Spaniards arrived.
It's long and complex to explain, and I'm afraid that you wouldn't be open enough to deserve my time and effort.
Andres[/QUOTE]Well that's sort of pooped on the Argentine position of their claim to soveignty over the Falklands island. Very difficult to lay such a claim if you are not yet started as a nation.
Argento
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Jackson, Julio is talking about a different type of moral corruption: imperialism.
And colonialization of developing nations. There is a fascinating book out: The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. A former investment banker describes how multinationals suck the economic blood out of third world nations, often with the help of a corrupt local elite. Of course in many nations that corrupt local elite are just lined-up with their hands out. [/QUOTE]Ha! I don't know Argentina very well, but I know the price of cement and phone service in Mexico is close to the highest in the world and the oil industry there is in dismal shape, because the multinationals have been kept out. I could give you other examples from other developing nations. This plays right into the hands of the local elite. They can keep their prices high when they don't have any competition. And it's the consumers and the poor that suffer. It plays into the hands of the Mexican politicians too. They can preserve the oil wealth for the pueblo and keep the evil multinationals out of the cement industry. But this means the poor have to pay out the gazoo to build a house and the country doesn't get nearly the benefits it should out of its natural resources.
Julio claims capitalism is the problem in Argentina -- it's not. The problem is some kind of perverted socialism, where people think they're owed a free lunch. If they don't get their way, they hit the streets, banging their pots and pans, put up roadblocks, etc. And their politicians appear, on the surface at least, to cater to them. They put in price controls, that will bankrupt companies and cause the infrastructure to go to crap. Everybody gets a raise. The government prints more money. Is this really helping the poor? I don't think so. I don't know the Argentine system so well, but you'd think the politicians put on a show of being populists, while they're actually making the corrupt local elite wealthier at the expense of the poor. How else do you explain big gap between rich and poor, a lot bigger than the US? I don't know how this works -- how the politicians in Argentina look like they're the peoples champion while the rich get richer, but suspect it's something like what I described above, about Mexico. Or maybe it's inflation -- I've read that the rich have ways of managing their money to grow it faster than prices while the poor end up getting stuck with worthless pesos or reais
Cemex controls or has a great influence on the market prices in Mexico. Cemex has been buying local cement companies for years. Rinker, in southeast Florida, is owned by Cemex.
Economic hit men may come from many places. Julio thinks only the USA has caused harm to Argentina. Wait to see the surprises that will be coming from China. China is buying land, glaziers, mineral rights. Some of the governors are lined-up with their hands stuck out.
Andres, I try to understand why Chile and Brazil are moving towards a more of "modern"economy[eeuu / western european type model] and Argentinia is floating somewhere off to the side. What is the historical or cultural basis for this?
It seems as if Argentina is caught in some sort of economic quick sand. I truly do not understand.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Due to the abundance of natural resources they had no need to develop industrially because life wasn't hard enough to require a change. They had plenty of food, plenty of wine, lots of immigrants to do the nasty work and I'm sure even then tons of good pussy. Am I tracking you?[/QUOTE]No. What I mean is that, due to the social structure and the privileged place inside the British economic empire (Argentina provided raw materials and the Brits provided manufactured goods) it wasn't convenient to elites to develop industrially. There were never plenty of food for peasants and blue collars.
I like to say that Argentina is the US version where the Confederation won the Civil War. And if you analyze times of both civil wars, it's not a coincidence at all.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]As far as why Peronism was able to rise and flourish I think because until then everybody ignored the peasants. Then he started giving them stuff, free stuff, until then their really wasn't a middle class. Then Eva founded the free University and education was more readily available to poor people, middle class started to developed because poor people started getting skill sets and had something the market would pay for. Unfortunately the nepotisim, corruption, and something for nothing programs came before the education. And really isn't that the basis for all corruption, wanting to make a living without working?
I'm probably wrong, but that's my impression. [/QUOTE]The political involvement of peasants is somewhat correct. However, public university was always free. During the first 2 Perón terms, there hardly were students from poor families at the UBA, which was a bunker of antiperonist movements. Higher education for people from humble origins were available at what was called Universidad Obrera, today UTN, so Perón didn't granted practical access to university to low-class people.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Andres I am always open to listening to what you have to say. You're a voice of experience and reason here. We have never met but I know your CV from people who's opinions I trust.
If you don't feel like enlightening the entire forum drop me a pm and I'll give you my email. I'll read any lecture regarding Argentine history from 1900-the present that you would care to prepare. I've read some but most of the English stuff is from a Norte perspective and my Castellano isn't good enough to clearly understand the books I can buy down there.[/QUOTE]Thanks for your compliments.
Robert Potash's books are a good start.
Andres
[QUOTE=Argento]Well that's sort of pooped on the Argentine position of their claim to soveignty over the Falklands island. Very difficult to lay such a claim if you are not yet started as a nation.
Argento[/QUOTE]Not quite. The British Empire granted recognition of the Argentine independence on 1816, which included the islands held by then by Argentina. The British invasion of Malvinas took place on 1833. In fact, the Argentine government often bring descents from pre-1833 settlers to the UN Decolonization Committee to support its claim.
In any case, declaring independence doesn't automatically means that the country is properly organized in terms of laws and institutions.
Andres
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Not all members of this forum have knee jerk reactions to the differences in Argentine business practices and political misfeasance from those of the USA or Western Europe. Many of us love many aspects of argentine life and culture and would appreciate your efforts to help us understand this wonderful, but imperfect place we chose to live or frequently visit.
Jackson, Julio is talking about a different type of moral corruption: imperialism.
And colonialization of developing nations. There is a fascinating book out: The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. A former investment banker describes how multinationals suck the economic blood out of third world nations, often with the help of a corrupt local elite. Of course in many nations that corrupt local elite are just lined-up with their hands out.
Andres, please take the time to share your insights. Your postings are one of my favorite part of this forum. Thanks Jackson![/QUOTE]Thanks for your words.
The best way to understand why things happen the way they do is to read a lot. Many scholars contributed by shedding some light over many different aspects of Argentine history, social structure and composition, social mechanisms, international events and processes, ideologies, geography, etc. Hard to summarize them in 10, 20 or even 50 lines.
Andres
[QUOTE=Andres]Not quite. The British Empire granted recognition of the Argentine independence on 1816, which included the islands held by then by Argentina. The British invasion of Malvinas took place on 1833. In fact, the Argentine government often bring descents from pre-1833 settlers to the UN Decolonization Committee to support its claim.
In any case, declaring independence doesn't automatically means that the country is properly organized in terms of laws and institutions.
Andres[/QUOTE]For the record, just in case you think I am not aware of Argentine history, 1816 was the year Congress declared independence of the United Provinces of the River Plate. It did not include Patagonia and certainly not the Falklands. And no mention of Argentina. Either you were in existence prior to 1833 or else after. It seems to me that when it suits you have a long history and when it doesn't suit, you have a short history. Either way, an explicit example of the perverse attitude of Argentines when it comes to discussing facts. I don't care either way you jump. As long as your arse hole points to the ground and I am sure a good deal longer, the Falklands will not be Argentinian. And the longer your nation perseveres with its unwarranted claims, the longer it will take to grow up. So give us an explicit date when Euopeans settled in parts of what is now Argentina. Most record say 1516 by Cabot with others defining it as 1530. I'll take your date so in future we will have one agreed statement of fact.
Argento
[QUOTE=Argento]For the record, just in case you think I am not aware of Argentine history, 1816 was the year Congress declared independence of the United Provinces of the River Plate. It did not include Patagonia and certainly not the Falklands.[/QUOTE]The Malvinas were occupied by an Argentine garrison by then. Captain Vernet was its last commander there.
[QUOTE=Argento] And no mention of Argentina. Either you were in existence prior to 1833 or else after. It seems to me that when it suits you have a long history and when it doesn't suit, you have a short history.[/QUOTE]My point is that there is no sense to compare countries as an accumulation of GDP versus accumulation of years of history, as if the effect of different colonizers, independence patriots, leaders, etc, were all the same in different circumstances and geographies.
Argentina declared independence in 1816 and established its definite constitution by 1953. The US didn't have such a 37 year gap, since internal US conflicts appeared and / or were managed differently or at different points in time.
Andres
[QUOTE=Andres]The Malvinas were occupied by an Argentine garrison by then. Captain Vernet was its last commander there.[/QUOTE]Andres, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if Argentina has a legitimate claim to the Falklands / Malvinas, wouldn't it also make sense for Paraguay to make a claim for territory taken by military force between 1864-1870?
Bolivia might as well make a claim for their coast and Mexico might as well make a claim for Aztlan (aka Califorrnia). You see where I am going with this, I guess ....
[QUOTE=Schmoj]Andres, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if Argentina has a legitimate claim to the Falklands / Malvinas, wouldn't it also make sense for Paraguay to make a claim for territory taken by military force between 1864-1870?
Bolivia might as well make a claim for their coast and Mexico might as well make a claim for Aztlan (aka Califorrnia) You see where I am going with this, I guess.[/QUOTE]Sure, everybody can claim anything, but the fact is that Argentina IS claiming and that the UN Decolonization Committee took the case and considered it. Also, the UN submits to vote the Malvinas case every year, and every year Argentina's position is supported by 160-180 states and a few against (the Commonwealth ones, mainly) so a big part of the "diplomatic" fight was already won.
Will the island come back to national control? Maybe, maybe not. Time will say.
Andres
[QUOTE=Andres]Will the island come back to national control? Maybe, maybe not. Time will say.
Andres[/QUOTE]NOT IN THE NEXT 1000 YEARS!
[QUOTE=Andres]Sure, everybody can claim anything, but the fact is that Argentina IS claiming and that the UN Decolonization Committee took the case and considered it. Also, the UN submits to vote the Malvinas case every year, and every year Argentina's position is supported by 160-180 states and a few against (the Commonwealth ones, mainly) so a big part of the "diplomatic" fight was already won.
Will the island come back to national control? Maybe, maybe not. Time will say.
Andres[/QUOTE]The islands have never been under national control so how can they come back? But the English settled it before people from the River Plate. Shouldn't they have precedence. And think of those that live there now. What attractions do you think they would find being part of Argentina?
At they moment they have next to the highest per capita income in the world, political freedom, a great education system, a concerted and a set of possible goals for the future, (and I hate to tell you, it doesn't include Argentina) no corruption and almost no crime. Versus what?
Since you are the Mary Poppins of the good in Argentina, perhaps you could tell us what the Argentines offer the Falkland Islanders. I guess apart from a currish attitude to flights between Argentina and the Islands, no flights allowed and no trade either. Absolutely zilch. Great way to build confidence between neighbours, especially when you are Argentina and are trying to get into the Falkland Island's knickers again. You have already raped them once, so my guess is you need to kiss and cuddle if you want even a slight chance. But please answer my question above.
Argento
I can't believe you guys are pissing and moaning about these islands. After visiting them, it's hard to believe that anybody considers them a "prize" to be won. The only reason the residents enjoy the things that Argento lists is because the UK and EU government pump huge amounts of money into the islands. If Argentina gained control, that would stop, the fishery license fees that are the largest part of the government income would get redirected to the mainland, employment would disappear, and the place would turn into an economic disaster area.
The best thing for the islanders is to remain a disputed territory between Argentina and the UK. If there was no dispute, the UK would not feel a pressing need to keep sending money to the islands so Argentina is doing a great service to the islanders to keep making noises without any real change.
Of course, the rational thing would be to abandon the islands as economic sinkholes and move everybody (except the 20% of the workforce that comes from Chile) to an island that's part of the motherland (I hear Scotland has some with equally horrible weather and economic opportunity) Argentina could then claim the islands and, instead of settling them, declare them nature sanctuaries and open them only to scientific research. Of course, the islanders wouldn't go for it because they have a sweet deal going now.
[QUOTE=Easy Go]I can't believe you guys are pissing and moaning about these islands. After visiting them, it's hard to believe that anybody considers them a "prize" to be won. The only reason the residents enjoy the things that Argento lists is because the UK and EU government pump huge amounts of money into the islands. If Argentina gained control, that would stop, the fishery license fees that are the largest part of the government income would get redirected to the mainland, employment would disappear, and the place would turn into an economic disaster area.
The best thing for the islanders is to remain a disputed territory between Argentina and the UK. If there was no dispute, the UK would not feel a pressing need to keep sending money to the islands so Argentina is doing a great service to the islanders to keep making noises without any real change.
Of course, the rational thing would be to abandon the islands as economic sinkholes and move everybody (except the 20% of the workforce that comes from Chile) to an island that's part of the motherland (I hear Scotland has some with equally horrible weather and economic opportunity) Argentina could then claim the islands and, instead of settling them, declare them nature sanctuaries and open them only to scientific research. Of course, the islanders wouldn't go for it because they have a sweet deal going now.[/QUOTE][url]http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,334165,00.html[/url]
Maybe they have WMDs as well.
I figured someone would bring up oil. Note the date. As far as I can tell, the only activity is talk. Given the aggressiveness of oil companies and the zillions of dollars that can be made from a huge new discovery, what's that tell you about the reality? Just another red herring designed to make the islands look like they are worth the money they are costing the British taxpayer.
[QUOTE=Easy Go]I can't believe you guys are pissing and moaning about these islands. After visiting them, it's hard to believe that anybody considers them a "prize" to be won. The only reason the residents enjoy the things that Argento lists is because the UK and EU government pump huge amounts of money into the islands. If Argentina gained control, that would stop, the fishery license fees that are the largest part of the government income would get redirected to the mainland, employment would disappear, and the place would turn into an economic disaster area.
The best thing for the islanders is to remain a disputed territory between Argentina and the UK. If there was no dispute, the UK would not feel a pressing need to keep sending money to the islands so Argentina is doing a great service to the islanders to keep making noises without any real change.
Of course, the rational thing would be to abandon the islands as economic sinkholes and move everybody (except the 20% of the workforce that comes from Chile) to an island that's part of the motherland (I hear Scotland has some with equally horrible weather and economic opportunity) Argentina could then claim the islands and, instead of settling them, declare them nature sanctuaries and open them only to scientific research. Of course, the islanders wouldn't go for it because they have a sweet deal going now.[/QUOTE]The islands are more of a national pride issue than anything else. Just transportation by itself would be very expensive, not to mention the premium claimed by the unavoidably complex supply chain.
Anyone having visited Tierra del Fuego can say that many vegetables and other goods brought from the continent cost much more than in Buenos Aires.
Oil looks promising, but the UK would find it difficult to convince investors given that is a conflictive zone.
Andres
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Andres, I try to understand why Chile and Brazil are moving towards a more of "modern"economy[eeuu / western european type model] and Argentinia is floating somewhere off to the side. What is the historical or cultural basis for this?[/QUOTE]I don't see many great differences among these 3 countries. To a higher or lesser degree, all these economies are mainly private-sector based with a few strategic companies on the public sector, with a GDP midway to those of the poor African nations and those of Western European countries.
Andres
[QUOTE=Andres]I don't see many great differences among these 3 countries. To a higher or lesser degree, all these economies are mainly private-sector based with a few strategic companies on the public sector, with a GDP midway to those of the poor African nations and those of Western European countries.
Andres[/QUOTE]Oooooooooooh! I know that's not right. Poor African nations have a GDP per capita of U$500 -U$1000 pa. The Latin American countries have about U$7000. Western Europeans about U$45000. Midway is therefore about U$22000 and Argentina is a longway from the midway point.
But please answer my questions relating to the Falklands / Malvinas.
Argento
A matter of national pride? Asserting sovereignty over some desolate islands in the middle of nowhere with negative economic value that have only brought pain and suffering to the people of Argentina? That's really messed up.
According to 2007 CIA Factbook:
[url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html[/url]
GDP pp in US dollars.
Qatar - 80,900 (#1)
USA - 45,800
Netherlands 38,500
UK 35,300 (#28 so a bit short of "the next to the highest per capital income in the world)
Falkland Islands 25,000 (#49 but 2002 numbers)
Chile 13,900
Argentina 13,300
Brazil 9,700
Angola 5,600
Congo 3,700
Zimbabwe 200
Of course, as been pointed out GDP per capita doesn't mean much when income is heavily skewed in places like Africa and South America. Also, these numbers are estimates.
As a surrogate for the economic life of the majority of people, I'm not sure it tells us much other than there are a lot of poor people in the world and that GDP differences between Chile, Argentina, and Brazil are not a fruitful area of discussion.
Primarily in the ease of doing business, dumb regulation, the banking systems and ease of moving capital in and out.
I have a little story. One of my business adventures in Argentina involved becoming a North American distibutor for a popular Argenitne food product.
My partner with 30 years in the food business, takes samples to a number of supermarket groups with the intention of the Argentine line becoming a house brand. Every place loved the product and found the price aceptable, but did not want to do business with Argentina. Two groups actually asked me if we could truck the product to Chile and put a lable "from Chile" on the jars. When the Argentine producer would not work through Chile, two supermarkets would only take the products on consignment. This made it impossible to factor the debts and the Argentines could not borrow against the consigned good and eventually killed any chance of being in major supermarket groups.
Even little Uruguay exports more beef than Argentina.
Brazil changed their banking laws to ease mortgage forclosures ie you don't pay and you are thrown out of the house within six months. There are now mortgages avaiable in Brazil. The Argentine banking system is very, very difficult combined with peronists protections of squatters on land equals almost no mortages in Argentina[there are payment plans from developers and limited government programs]
Who learned the best way to throw people from an airplane who weren't on a flight from Atlanta on Delta but who learned from the "flight" school of the Americas. Fala?
[QUOTE=Easy Go]According to 2007 CIA Factbook:
[url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html[/url]
GDP pp in US dollars.
Qatar - 80,900 (#1)
USA - 45,800
Netherlands 38,500
UK 35,300 (#28 so a bit short of "the next to the highest per capital income in the world)
Falkland Islands 25,000 (#49 but 2002 numbers)
Chile 13,900
Argentina 13,300
Brazil 9,700
Angola 5,600
Congo 3,700
Zimbabwe 200
Of course, as been pointed out GDP per capita doesn't mean much when income is heavily skewed in places like Africa and South America. Also, these numbers are estimates.
As a surrogate for the economic life of the majority of people, I'm not sure it tells us much other than there are a lot of poor people in the world and that GDP differences between Chile, Argentina, and Brazil are not a fruitful area of discussion.[/QUOTE]My figures are from "The Economist" World figures bookle.
Argento
[QUOTE=HairBalderman]Who learned the best way to throw people from an airplane who weren't on a flight from Atlanta on Delta but who learned from the "flight" school of the Americas. Fala?[/QUOTE]HairBalderman,
Can you eloborate on your statement, because I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to convey.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Brazil changed their banking laws to ease mortgage forclosures ie you don't pay and you are thrown out of the house within six months. There are now mortgages avaiable in Brazil. The Argentine banking system is very, very difficult combined with peronists protections of squatters on land equals almost no mortages in Argentina [there are payment plans from developers and limited government programs][/QUOTE]And as a direct result of the new forclosure laws, Brazil is now experiencing a building boom fueled by middle and lower class first-time buyers lining up to buy new homes with freely available mortages.
Go figure.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson]
[I]"Assuming that corruption is as rampant in the USA as it is in Argentina, then what is the reason, given essentially the same natural resources and the same immigrant population over essentially the same period of time, did the USA build the world's strongest economy while Argentine lurches from one economic collapse to another?"[/i]
Jackson[/QUOTE]Let me provide my theory about this fascinating issue:
We are stand in 2008.
USA it's one of the powerful countries in the world, while Argentina it's just surviving. In terms that affect people, however, quality of life, it's not that good either for low-middle class in Argentina nor for lower middle class in the USA. That's just a comment.
But, how, if both countries were discovered at the same time, one developed a lot, and others (Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, etc) are poor countries?
I would say that USA development comes after WW I, and skyrocketed after WW II. Before those wars, immigrants from Europe, immigrated to Argentina and the USA with the same hope. Buenos Aires and NYC had a similar development before 1914, you can see that in the architecture.
Before that, Spaniards only wanted to get rich and get back to Europe with gold and stuff, while the east coast in the US was Colonized seriously. There is the first difference, in the US were more skilled people, while in the rest of the Americas, only thieves and warriors, ignorant people.
The more skilled people, the more possibilities to create added value. The more added value, the best possibilities to generate a strong economy. The more strong economy, the more stability for new investments. Invertors don't want to lose their efforts. The USA had resources as for entering to the WW II while Argentina was too far away, the phisical proximity to Europe made possible the USA participation in the WW II, and the distance made possible it's population to get apart of the war. While European countries took several years to get recovered, the USA had already a strong economy. Capitals moved to the USA instead of Europe or south America, skilled people, labour and a big added value, that makes a stronger economy. While countries like chile takes the copper from the soil and export to the USA, the USA buy that copper and export refrigerators, cars, electronics, helicopters, etc.
We are now in 2008, and if I wanted to start a highly added value company (let's say a highly tecnology helicoper manufacturing factory) and if I have 2 options: USA or Argentina:
In the USA I will find thousands of experienced engineers, Americans, and immigrants, and probably even Argentine engineers, and they will cost more money per hour, perhaps three times more than in Argentina, but those guys will work overtime if required, and they must go home after work and start back the next day.
In Argentina, my engineers will not have a clue, since their last job was as a taxi driver, they will chat each other about girls the whole day and they will end the day celebrating at hook they finally got a job as engineers, the very next day they will be so happy about last night they brains will be memorizing that blow job from Catalina at hook.
In the US I would hire an assistant too, she is so fat and stressed and the arrasement laws are so respected that no one will ever thing about dating the assistant.
In Argentina, the girl is so hot that I will have to dedicate half of the working day to keep the engineers away from her and spend 3 hours at the bulo fucking the assistant.
When importing the helicopter engine I'll have to bribe the customs, otherwise the taxes are so high that only in taxes I'll have to spend more money than the whole helicopter cost.
I'll need providers for the bombs, the electronic controls, assembly software, and the good ones are definetly not in Argentina, but in Italy, Germany, Japan, and I'll have to import those items with a high cost.
I can only paint the helicopter in Argentina (good news, eh! But the painter will charge me more than in the US since he only paints cars, and he will say: what a great job! This is the opportunity of my life! I will charge this bastard as much as I want and finance my vacation to Mar del Plata this year.
For sure the helicopter will be painted after his return from Mar del Plata vacation. Impossible from December to March.
Probably in march, government says: the area where your factory is, it's now only residencial, you have 90 days to move the factory away.
That if the government does not declares a financial crisis, and Argentina does not wins the soccer world coup, that could delay my project for another 90 days.
If I need financing for my project, banks will only finance (in Argentina) a 10% , if I need a high speed internet connection, I'll be paying more than in the US for a reliable one, and as the factory it's located outside of the capital federal, I'll have like 80% running connection, plus, villeros steal the cables, the power and light cables, if I want to move heavy equippment there are just 2 companies, and they only work 3 days per week Monday, Thursday and saturdays, ok, next Monday, no way, it's hollyday the dead of San Martin, The Flag day, the faggots parade, etc.
Eventually, once the project is finished, I will have to pay retenciones for exporting, and when I show my clients the helicopter with an "industria argentina" tag, they will say: what the hell, an argentine helicopter! We will see that next year.
I don't agree with MCSE over a lot of issues, but I think he is pretty spot on here. Andres don't you agree? It really illustrates the layers of corruption you would have to work through in order to start any kind of serious manufacturing company and why that is nearly impossible.
Argento,
Which number did you take from the Economist, raw GDP per capita or the one that is normalized for "purchasing power parity"? I checked Britain and the ppp number matches the CIA number. The same holds true for Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. If you want to read about ppp, here's a reference.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity[/url]
It's just a normalization designed to reflect differences in the cost of living is between countries. Ppp vs raw doesn't make much difference for the purpose of this discussion. Chile and Argentina are similar, Brazil trails, and all three fall somewhere between Africa and Europe.
[QUOTE=Easy Go]A matter of national pride? Asserting sovereignty over some desolate islands in the middle of nowhere with negative economic value that have only brought pain and suffering to the people of Argentina? That's really messed up.[/QUOTE]It's not. In fact, both arguments apply to UK (to a much lesser degree) and Argentina. Otherwise, what great advantage get the Brits by supporting the islands?
You have to read about the Beagle channel conflict between Chile and Argentina in 1978, which got very, very close to war. You will find that such a mess was triggered by the soverignty claims over 3 "rocks" (Picton, Nueva and Lennox islands) Under that light, the Malvinas as a national pride issue fits.
Andres
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Primarily in the ease of doing business, dumb regulation, the banking systems and ease of moving capital in and out. [/QUOTE]I'm not very sure about it. Chile, even under Pinochet, put restrictions to the withdrawal of foreign investments in order to avoid financial speculation. Brazil, recently, banned export of rice to control the domestic rice price.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]I have a little story. One of my business adventures in Argentina involved becoming a North American distibutor for a popular Argenitne food product.
My partner with 30 years in the food business, takes samples to a number of supermarket groups with the intention of the Argentine line becoming a house brand. Every place loved the product and found the price aceptable, but did not want to do business with Argentina. Two groups actually asked me if we could truck the product to Chile and put a lable "from Chile" on the jars. When the Argentine producer would not work through Chile, two supermarkets would only take the products on consignment. This made it impossible to factor the debts and the Argentines could not borrow against the consigned good and eventually killed any chance of being in major supermarket groups.
Even little Uruguay exports more beef than Argentina.
Brazil changed their banking laws to ease mortgage forclosures ie you don't pay and you are thrown out of the house within six months. There are now mortgages avaiable in Brazil. The Argentine banking system is very, very difficult combined with peronists protections of squatters on land equals almost no mortages in Argentina[there are payment plans from developers and limited government programs][/QUOTE]It's easier to import food from Chile, among other things because it has a FTA with the US. However, it can't be possible that Argentina beats export figures year after year ans still a majority not willing to buy Argentine products.
Banking is a lame sector in Argentina, I agree, but unfortunately people fear both private and public banking, the former because of its insolvency proven on Dec. 2001 and the latter because of Govt abuse if the system ever becomes nationalized and monopolistic.
Andres
[QUOTE=Andres]It's not. In fact, both arguments apply to UK (to a much lesser degree) and Argentina. Otherwise, what great advantage get the Brits by supporting the islands?
You have to read about the Beagle channel conflict between Chile and Argentina in 1978, which got very, very close to war. You will find that such a mess was triggered by the soverignty claims over 3 "rocks" (Picton, Nueva and Lennox islands) Under that light, the Malvinas as a national pride issue fits.
Andres[/QUOTE]The Brits support the islands because the people living on it are their countrymen. If there had been no islanders, I doubt there would have been a war. Although the actions of other countries are notoriously hard to predict (just ask Georgia)
I'm not denying that it's a national pride issue. I'm arguing that Argentina needs to learn to take actions based on national interest rather than national pride so that actions benefit rather than hurt the country.
They are just like mongers in that they are letting the little head rather than the big head do the thinking.
[QUOTE=Easy Go]The Brits support the islands because the people living on it are their countrymen. If there had been no islanders, I doubt there would have been a war. Although the actions of other countries are notoriously hard to predict (just ask Georgia)[/QUOTE]The support for the islanders is just an excuse. It would be cheaper for the UK to move islanders elsewhere (they don't make it even a small town anywhere else) than to keep such an infrastructure for only a couple thousand people, and specially considering all the negotiations going through before 1982.
[QUOTE=Easy Go] I'm not denying that it's a national pride issue. I'm arguing that Argentina needs to learn to take actions based on national interest rather than national pride so that actions benefit rather than hurt the country.
They are just like mongers in that they are letting the little head rather than the big head do the thinking.[/QUOTE]That argument applies to both sides.
Andres
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]I don't agree with MCSE over a lot of issues, but I think he is pretty spot on here. Andres don't you agree? [/QUOTE]I'm always right DR, the thing is you don't always realize. (just kidding)
Perhaps the forced resettlement of a few thousand people is a political possibility in Argentina but I don't think it is in the UK. It might have been barely possible before the war but the lives lost in the war it would make it impossible now. Maybe in 50 years.
The UK has the wealth to indulge in hobbies that Argentina cannot afford.
If I remember correctly there is an agreement that only countries in the southern hemisphere are allowed to have a base in Antarctica. That could also be a reason for the Brits to keep control of the Malvinas.
I have talked to people who have been involved in the British side of the conflict (the guy who actually pushed the button which fired the torpedo which sank the Belgrano) and with people close to the military government here in Argentina. If you listen to both you hear more or less the same story. It was a "prearranged" war to crank up political support on both sides. But.... Nobody expected that the loss of lives would be as high as it got in the end.
But in view of this thread, was the Malvinas war also a case of corruption on Argentina?
Both Mrts. Tatcher and Galtieri fell down after the war.
Anyway reading through most of this post, saved two guys, no locals I see that worry much about what mongers here can say about corruption in Argentina.
Seems like they are mocking you all instead.
We duchts don't care a shit about it.
Just as long as we can fuck the beautiful local women, its O. K. For we.