Printable View
[QUOTE=Andres]Blocking roads is not legal.[/QUOTE]However if you are a picketer such as D'Elia or an anti-papalera in Gualeguaychu, then closing off roads is OK. Interesting that those particular parties broadly support the Kirchner politics. So it's OK if you support the Kirchners, but a hanging offence if you don't.
Argento
[QUOTE=Tessan]I do not expect them to do it out of the "goodness of their hearts". They do it because it make them more money. If they are allowed to make money, they want to make more, so they expand.[/QUOTE]They don't need more money. After reading Argentine history from different sources, you will find a handful of reasons that explain such behavior.
[QUOTE=Tessan]It is not that they do not like the rules, they do not produce, like some small child. It is, I am making a small profit, so no incentive for the farmers to spend money on irrigation, which cost allot, if you have to pipe in water, or spend allot of extra money on fertilizer. Or to bring on marginal land, since the cost are higher. Therefore it does not grow.[/QUOTE]Reality proves that agricultural production and conditioning of land to plant soy have boomed on the las years. How does this reality fit with your argument above?
[QUOTE=Tessan]Since the cattle men cannot make money, they are moving to soy, since it was the only real money maker.[/QUOTE]It was the MOST money maker, not the "only" one. Otherwise, most of the milk and cattle industry would be broken, which is not the case.
[QUOTE=Tessan]In Brazil they produce 20-30% more soy then Argentina so why are the also producing 350-400% more cattle then Argentina? Why don't they just produce soy?
The reason is the cattle producers in Brazil can make money. Many Gauchos prefer to raise cattle as long as they can make good money, even if it is less then soy. It is a different way of life. My understanding is many argentine ranchers are in Brazil raising cattle, since they cannot make much money in Argentina. [/QUOTE]Another reason may be that Brazil has 4 to 5 times the population of Argentina (which the country has also to feed) and 2 to 3 times its area. Also, I still have to see that a Brazilian cattle producer makes more money because, for what it is related to soy, Brazilians don't pay retenciones but their revenues from soy exports are even lower than their Argentine counterparts.
[QUOTE=Tessan]The subsidy is necessary, since if prices of meat where to go up to international prices, the people would revolt. [/QUOTE]Exactly. That's one of the reasons. You see that happening in Senegal and Haiti.
[QUOTE=Tessan]Again Brazil produces more soy 20%-30% , and 350%-400% More cattle. Something is wrong with your logic. Why don't they just produce soy?[/QUOTE]How many million tons of meat does export Brazil, and how many does export Argentina? Without those numbers, we cannot seriously find an answer to your question.
Andres
[QUOTE=Dickhead]47,000 is not 700% greater than 6,400. It is only 634.375% greater.[/QUOTE]Pedant!
Argento
[QUOTE=Andres]That's an interesting point, thanks for sharing.
In fact, I see much more trouble on the artificial oil price than on the retenciones for food. Sooner or later the country will need to fully import oil at international prices, and then the society will need to choose on either raise prices to improve prospection or to significantly reduce consumption (Argentines are paying less than half of what I pay per liter) And without oil, the economy cannot run.
Andres[/QUOTE]There is no incentive for anyone to spend big money exploring for oil in Argentina because of the government policies.
[QUOTE=Argento][QUOTE=Dickhead]47,000 is not 700% greater than 6,400. It is only 634.375% greater.[/QUOTE]Pedant!
Argento[/QUOTE]Also I am finding much higher per capita income / GDP figures than you are quoting, including $13,300 (for 2007) on the CIA's website. It could be a case of different sources using different definitions. Here is a link to my source:
[url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html[/url]
Another source, whose quality I cannot vouch for:
[url]http://siakhenn.tripod.com/capita.html[/url]
gives $13,000 and labels this per capita income, whereas the CIA site labels it per capita GDP.
[QUOTE=Argento]Andres,
This week's edition of 'The Economist' has an article on p.48 entitled "HOCUS POCUS Argentina's way with sums" with a sub heading,'The real-world consequences of producing unreal inflation numbers'. The article ought to be required reading for all forum members who have posted on this thread following along the general philosophies of Andres. They do not put any credibility to the national statistics or to the Peronist policies of the Kirchners. And for a general comparison, in something I read yesterday, probably Bloomberg, the per capita income of Argentina is U$6400 and in the USA, U$47,000. Even the mathmatically challenged Andres can work out that the USA system, (ie Europe, North America, Japan, Australia etc) delivers to their citizens a 700% greater per capita income and that is certainly reflected in their living standards.
The article specifically links the Kirchner's policies to stagnant wages and the increase in poverty and income inequality, all the direct opposite of what those policies purport to want to achieve.
So Andres, invest ARG$10, and see beyond your hip-pocket horizon.
Argento[/QUOTE]"mathematically challenged Andres"? Wow, that's what I call a classy way of stating disagreement.
I engage in respectful discussions only, regardless of my dislike to the other's participant point of view. I will grant you another opportunity to keep this conversation under at least the minimum acceptable standards of respect. Next insult, you get into my ignore list and it's the end of that.
I don't understand what the per-capita income issue has to do with all this discussion of retenciones. Argentina's one is lower than US and most Western Europe countries ones but higher than those of other Latin American nations that currently apply policies aligned to "international investors" (Colombia and Peru, for instance) Therefore, we cannot get much from it, specially when agricultural subsidies in Europe and the US are famous for distorting market rules (it was mentioned several times during the last Food Crisis Summit in Rome)
By the way, what does The Economist say about those EU subsidies?
Andres
[QUOTE=Tessan]There is no incentive for anyone to spend big money exploring for oil in Argentina because of the government policies.[/QUOTE]That's true, there isn't.
If we take the recent history as a clue, even if lifting such taxation rules, it's not clearly obvious that prospection would take place without subsidies and / or additional incentives. As far as I know, when YPF was privatized in 1992, the main oil fields remaining then (Puesto Hernandez, for instance) are the same top ones today.
Andres
[QUOTE=Argento]However if you are a picketer such as D'Elia or an anti-papalera in Gualeguaychu, then closing off roads is OK. Interesting that those particular parties broadly support the Kirchner politics. So it's OK if you support the Kirchners, but a hanging offence if you don't.
Argento[/QUOTE]Your point is valid because blocking roads is not correct. However, I distinguish pretty clearly the HARM provoked by losing 2 hours stuck in a "piquete" and that provoked by blocking any kind of commercial good for months. By any means, the latter one is more serious, especially if protesters have WAY many more means to voice up their disagreement (access to media, to opposition leaders, voluntarily holding of sales, etc)
Andres
[QUOTE=Andres]That's true, there isn't.
If we take the recent history as a clue, even if lifting such taxation rules, it's not clearly obvious that prospection would take place without subsidies and / or additional incentives. As far as I know, when YPF was privatized in 1992, the main oil fields remaining then (Puesto Hernandez, for instance) are the same top ones today.
Andres[/QUOTE]The fact that the government keeps changing the rules, is what keeping investment away from oil exploration in Argentina.
This is from the US government report.
[snip]
In late 2006, Economic Ministry Resolution 776 abolished export tax exemption enjoyed by oil companies operating in Tierra del Fuego Province.
[snip]
Other regulatory changes in 2002 added to creditor insecurity. The GoA announced in May 2002 that an emergency decree passed in late 2001 had voided the presidential decree that authorized oil and gas companies to keep 70 percent of their foreign exchange revenues offshore. This decree formed the financial basis for most foreign investment in the Argentine oil sector. The GoA's discovery that the decree had been voided inadvertently months before came at a time when the government of Argentina was worried about its access to foreign exchange and the devaluation of the peso. When the peso began to appreciate, the government of Argentina issued a new decree that gave the industry the same right to withhold 70 percent of revenues starting January 1, 2003, but the industry remains liable for failing to repatriate 100 percent of its revenues during the 13-month period from December 2001 and December 2002. The Central Bank opened proceedings against some oil and gas producers in 2004 for alleged criminal breach of the exchange regime.
The GoA issued a decree de-pesifying foreign currency-denominated contracts of foreign firms doing business in Argentina in 2003, but then withdrew the decree and said it was a mistake. In the energy sector, the GoA took measures to avoid energy shortages that arose from the increase in demand for natural gas and electricity in 2004, including ordering reductions in natural gas exports to Chile and electricity exports to Uruguay.
[snip]
There is concern that the above mentioned GoA actions in the energy sector, coupled with the GOA's efforts to control retail prices of fuels, have created disincentives for companies to invest in energy exploration and infrastructure. Inadequate investment in those areas could, in turn, result in energy supplies not keeping pace with demand generated by Argentina's rapid economic growth.
[url]http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/ifd/2008/101776.htm[/url]
I love Argentina but I would not invest jack shit. Ni siquiera un centavito. That goes for all sectors. Todo trucho.
[QUOTE=Andres]They don't need more money. After reading Argentine history from different sources, you will find a handful of reasons that explain such behavior.[/QUOTE]I will agree to disagree with you on this. I believe if they can make allot more money, they will.
[QUOTE=Andres]Reality proves that agricultural production and conditioning of land to plant soy have boomed on the las years. How does this reality fit with your argument above?[/QUOTE]Since prices are high that last few years, they should be investing to increase production to make more money. Soy production was growing about 10% a year.
[QUOTE=Andres]It was the MOST money maker, not the "only" one. Otherwise, most of the milk and cattle industry would be broken, which is not the case.[/QUOTE]They are not broke, but they are not expanding. They may even be getting smaller. When I was in Argentina a month ago, I saw on TV dairy farmers taking dairy cows to slaughter, in protest. They said they could not make money, with the government set milk price.
[QUOTE=Andres]Another reason may be that Brazil has 4 to 5 times the population of Argentina (which the country has also to feed) and 2 to 3 times its area. Also, I still have to see that a Brazilian cattle producer makes more money because, for what it is related to soy, Brazilians don't pay retenciones but their revenues from soy exports are even lower than their Argentine counterparts.[/QUOTE]Retenciones are the reason for the strike.
[QUOTE=Andres]Exactly. That's one of the reasons. You see that happening in Senegal and Haiti.[/QUOTE]I agree, the government cannot let beef prices go to international prices. So if they want production to increase, they will have to subsidize the local meat price. If they subsidized the meat price, tax income from the exports, over time will grow and will cover the subsidy, and make the government money.
[QUOTE=Andres]How many million tons of meat does export Brazil, and how many does export Argentina? Without those numbers, we cannot seriously find an answer to your question.
Andres[/QUOTE]Brazil is the world's biggest beef exporter, sending abroad almost 2.3 million tones per year, a third of total exports around the globe. Last year it earned 4.5 billion dollars from the trade.
[url]http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1202945521.32/[/url]
Projected Argentine beef exports for 2008 remain unchanged at 535,000 tons, a similar volume to last year. The Argentine government (GOA) continues to monitor and control beef exports closely. In order to keep domestic inflation under control, the GOA keeps a well-supplied domestic market by limiting exports whenever needed.
[url]http://www.cattlenetwork.com/International_Content.asp?contentid=203822[/url]
So Brazil exports about 429.06% more beef then Argentina, when they let them export.
[QUOTE=Dickhead]Also I am finding much higher per capita income / GDP figures than you are quoting, including $13,300 (for 2007) on the CIA's website. It could be a case of different sources using different definitions. Here is a link to my source:
[url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html[/url]
Another source, whose quality I cannot vouch for:
[url]http://siakhenn.tripod.com/capita.html[/url]
Gives $13,000 and labels this per capita income, whereas the CIA site labels it per capita GDP.[/QUOTE]My figures are from Bloomberg's Country profile sheet. Much the same numbers are in 'THE ECONOMIST' pocket book of figures for last year.
Argento
[QUOTE=Andres]Your point is valid because blocking roads is not correct. However, I distinguish pretty clearly the HARM provoked by losing 2 hours stuck in a "piquete" and that provoked by blocking any kind of commercial good for months. By any means, the latter one is more serious, especially if protesters have WAY many more means to voice up their disagreement (access to media, to opposition leaders, voluntarily holding of sales, etc)
Andres[/QUOTE]Ah! Only a little bit pregnant!
Argento
[QUOTE=Andres]"mathematically challenged Andres"? Wow, that's what I call a classy way of stating disagreement.
I engage in respectful discussions only, regardless of my dislike to the other's participant point of view. I will grant you another opportunity to keep this conversation under at least the minimum acceptable standards of respect. Next insult, you get into my ignore list and it's the end of that.
I don't understand what the per-capita income issue has to do with all this discussion of retenciones. Argentina's one is lower than US and most Western Europe countries ones but higher than those of other Latin American nations that currently apply policies aligned to "international investors" (Colombia and Peru, for instance) Therefore, we cannot get much from it, specially when agricultural subsidies in Europe and the US are famous for distorting market rules (it was mentioned several times during the last Food Crisis Summit in Rome)
By the way, what does The Economist say about those EU subsidies?
Andres[/ QUOTE]Against the subsidies.
The most successful economy in South America, on a per capita basis is Chile. Open to investment, export oriented and a population that is increasingly educated and a currency that is remarkable in its stability. So why not use that as your example. And to further the point. 18 years ago, Chile was none of these and had a per capita base below Argentina. Now it has an appreciating currency (against the U$) education rated highest in South America and a per capita income much greater than Argentina. And surprise, surprise; little corruption, minimum crime and a law abiding citizenship.
Argento
[QUOTE=Andres]If you really have lived for 30 years in Argentina, then you know that all policies from 1978 up to now are clearly not the same. Maybe you don't like them, but it's not serious to tag them with the same name.
Ironic enough that you trash on the Argentine socio-economic system and business climate, but you continue living there since a very, very long and still being a businessman.
Andres[/QUOTE]Clarification. Haven't lived here for 30 years. Have lived here for 1 year 19 years ago and also for the past 3 years. But I have been continuously involved here for 20 years. And haven't seen any improvements in the lives of the people and certainly a great drop off in education standards, massive increase in crime and a deplorable decline in business ethics, which were awful to start with.
I guess I am here because I can extract a profit here, I guess much the same reason that you work off-shore, it suits you financially, even though in your heart of hearts, Argentina is the greatest place in the world to live, make money and have a safe, contented life. The envy of the rest of the world.
Argento