Argentine Economy

[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]