Corruption in Argentina

[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]