[blue]Thread Starter.[/blue]
Printable View
[blue]Thread Starter.[/blue]
Economy on the mend?
Final del juego.
Published by The SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, August 11, 2005
[url]http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/12355837.htm[/url]
RECOVERY FROM '01 COLLAPSE, BUT NOT PROSPERITY.
By Jack Chang.
Knight Ridder.
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - According to economists, Argentina finally recovered this year from the economic collapse of 2001 that sent the currency plunging and pitched the country into social turmoil.
Unemployment rates have dropped to precollapse levels, shoppers have returned to glitzy Calle Florida in Buenos Aires' city center, and the nation is running big budget surpluses.
So, given all the good news, why does 55-year-old slaughterhouse worker Rodolfo Gómez still earn less than a subsistence-level income, about $300 a month?
A member of a cooperative that took over the slaughterhouse after its owners went bankrupt in 2001, Gómez takes pride in what he and his 500 fellow workers have accomplished.
They took a business that failed in the thick of the economic turmoil and restored it to relative economic health, he said, a feat aided by the growth of the overall economy.
Yet they haven't restored it to prosperity.
"At least people have work instead of sitting in their houses,'' Gómez said, as cow carcasses on hooks passed by. 'And at least my wages have risen, although it's not much.''
It isn't just workers casting doubts on the recovery.
So are foreign investors whose views of Argentina are colored by the country's default on government debt in 2001 -- still the biggest by any nation.
"I tell my clients this is a high-risk investment,'' said Maria Velez de Berliner, president of Alexandria, Va.-based Latin Trade Solutions. 'I will not be surprised if a collapse happens again.''
On paper, the big-picture numbers show an impressive comeback after a traumatic economic blow that impoverished millions within weeks.
Memories of the turmoil still haunt the country: the default; the unpegging of the Argentine peso to the U. S. Dollar, which reduced the peso to a quarter of its former value; and the bloody riots that consumed the country.
After free-falling by some 20 percent during the crisis, Argentina's gross domestic product has climbed back to virtually the same peak it hit in 1998, growing by nearly 9 percent in 2003 and 2004, according to an International Monetary Fund review of the country released last month.
The country's unemployment rate dropped to an estimated 12 percent this year after hitting a 2003 high of 20.8 percent, the report said. The poverty rate similarly fell from a 2002 high of 58 percent to about 35 percent last year.
Much of the economic growth can be traced to China's growing consumption of Argentine agricultural exports such as wheat and soy, which best weathered the crisis, Velez said.
The big economic question now confronting Argentina is where the country goes after two years of stellar growth.
Several Argentine economists predicted total GDP growth would stabilize at about 3 to 4 percent for the next few years.
'When you came from the bottom, you're going to have a great return,'' Velez said. 'Whether you can keep growth at 6, 7, 8 percent, that's highly questionable.''
Although the macroeconomics look good, new jobs aren't paying nearly the same real wages as precollapse positions and the recovery isn't helping enough pocketbooks, said Buenos Aires economist Juan Luis Bour.
For example, per capita GDP has risen but much more slowly than the total GDP. It reached $4,100 in 2004 after falling 65 percent from $7,900 in 2000 to $2,800 in 2002, IMF figures show.
The continued weakness of the Argentine peso, which still hovers at about a third of its precollapse value, also has suppressed buying power, Bour said.
'From the point of view of the people, they don't feel like they have the same money they had seven or eight years ago because they have lower incomes,'' he said. 'There is still a lot of uncertainty.''
Nonetheless, Bour said he believes that the country has emerged from the turmoil. The trick now, he said, is to make the argument to the rest of the world.
'The total GDP has recovered,'' he said. 'The government is now trying to convince everybody that the 2001 crisis is completely over, and it needs to do that through sound fiscal policy.''
That means doing in part what the government has done -- running large trade and budget surpluses and keeping inflation in check.
The administration of President Nestor Kirchner and Finance Minister Roberto Lavagna has also tried to maintain a cheap peso to spur exports.
Ironically, many of those policies come straight from the IMF cookbook despite what's been a largely antagonistic relationship between the country and the fund.
In its review of the country, the IMF board of directors wrote in June, 'Prudent macroeconomic policies in 2003-04 have provided an anchor for the recovery of confidence.'' Directors 'commended the authorities for their steadfast implementation of fiscal policy.''
I read in the Clarin economy section a history of the Argentine economy. I already knew about some of it, but not in such detail. Between 1970 and 1992 (the beginning of the US$ convertibility era, which was apparantly the only relatively stable fiscal era in recent history) there were about 5 currency changes and 13 zeros were lopped of the national currency - about 3 zeros every 5 years or so. Thats about 300% average inflation per year. It was about 5000% in 1989, I believe Alfonsin's last year. That 5000% number (along with the largest sovereign debt default in world history) is in the record books - I think only interwar Germany may have had a higher rate until Hitler took charge. Have the fundamentals here changed - I think not. My forecast for August 15, 2010: 1 dollar = 200,000.00 pesos. 1/2 hour sexo convencional at Santa Fe 1707 - 8,000,000.00 pesos (30% cheaper) That is if the currency is still called "pesos".
Why is still cheap in Argentina and in Brazil 2 to 1 these days? How come Brazil can not be as cheap as Argentina these days?
[QUOTE=Papa Benito]I would describe the recovery as ''a dead cat bounce''! It is not likely to be sustainable. The current inflation (much higher than reported) wage cost inflation, and price controls make a sustained recovery less likely. This is in addition to Kirchner's incredibly stupid economic policies, an undervaled peso, protectionist policies, anti-investment policies, no credit available, contracts are suspect, crooked courts, mafia, bureaucracy, difficulties to return capital to AR, high export taxes, anti-agrarian policies, coveting socialist countries and not capitalist countries, etc. Have I left out anything? Although the fall election seem like a sure thing for Kirchner, it all could fall apart with a rapid rise in inflation. Or rapid inflation after the election. Then what? Kirchner will become a ''lame duck''. And political and economic chaos could ensue.[/QUOTE]Papa Benito:
All gurues from the City have been predicting the same aftermath scenario as yours since 2002. I'm still waiting for that to happen.
Of course, eventually, the current econmic policies will become outdated and a new crisis will emerge. But that happened to EVERY economic policies applied to Argentina, including those that involved "an overvalued peso, free-trade policies, low export taxes, pro-agrarian policies", etc.
Andres
[QUOTE=Papa Benito]Of course I should have included the debt repudiation, the minority hold-outs, other huge debt, the dwindling surplus, sour relations with the IMF, and continuous new public works projects to ''buy'' votes. Plus a real rate of unemployment of 15 per cent, 14 million poor people, and 47 per cent of the labor force working in illegal conditions (Buenos Aires Herald)[/QUOTE]Interesting point: If Argentina cancels all its commitments to the IMF, it is deemed "sour relations". If it repudiated the debt to the IMF, it would be called an "irresponsible country".
What is the correct policy then, from your perspective?
Andres
[QUOTE=Andres]What is the correct policy then? [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Andres]Of course, eventually, the current econmic policies will become outdated and a new crisis will emerge. But that happened to EVERY economic policies applied to Argentina, including those that involved "an overvalued peso, free-trade policies, low export taxes, pro-agrarian policies", etc.[/QUOTE]So, is there any correct policy since nothing ever works?
[QUOTE=Papa Benito]I would describe the recovery as ''a dead cat bounce''! It is not likely to be sustainable. The current inflation (much higher than reported) wage cost inflation, and price controls make a sustained recovery less likely. This is in addition to Kirchner's incredibly stupid economic policies, an undervaled peso, protectionist policies, anti-investment policies, no credit available, contracts are suspect, crooked courts, mafia, bureaucracy, difficulties to return capital to AR, high export taxes, anti-agrarian policies, coveting socialist countries and not capitalist countries, etc. Have I left out anything? Although the fall election seem like a sure thing for Kirchner, it all could fall apart with a rapid rise in inflation. Or rapid inflation after the election. Then what? Kirchner will become a ''lame duck''. And political and economic chaos could ensue.[/QUOTE]Excellent post.
Here's more: [url]http://www.mises.org/story/1472[/url]
Anybody get any good pussy lately? I'm in sex prison. That's the dead zone that stretches across the globe from Pakistan to Morroco and then jumps over and includes the entire fucking United States.
[QUOTE=Moore]So, is there any correct policy since nothing ever works?[/QUOTE]It depends on what do you mean by "works".
To me, policies work when they fit a desirable agenda (or "political program" or "project of society") FDR's New Deal worked for a given scenario at a given time, but it wasn't sustainable forever. We cannot say though that FDR policies never worked.
IMO, the advantage of Kirchner's agenda it's that it restored the economy to a more "real" base, rather than the artificially-inflated, financially-based economy of the 90s. Whether it will remain sustainable or not is another issue.
A fact is that there's growth somewhat independently from the financial markets. That "independency" (sustained by a dependency to a high soy value) is what pisses off many people in this board, since that clearly means that such sector hasn't the influence that it used to have. Otherwise, I cannot understand why people complain about cancelling the debt to the IMF.
Andres
[QUOTE=Andres]IMO, the advantage of Kirchner's agenda it's that it restored the economy to a more "real" base, rather than the artificially-inflated, financially-based economy of the 90s. Whether it will remain sustainable or not is another issue.[/QUOTE]It's not sustainable when you fail to reduce the public sector's 60%+ claim on the economy and inflate the currency by printing ever greater amounts of pesos and artifically restrict price fluctuations (export restrictions, price controls, etc).
[quote=Andres]A fact is that there's growth somewhat independently from the financial markets. That "independency" (sustained by a dependency to a high soy value) is what pisses off many people in this board, since that clearly means that such sector hasn't the influence that it used to have. Otherwise, I cannot understand why people complain about cancelling the debt to the IMF.[/QUOTE]The IMF was looked to by the markets as a source of stability and a restraining influence on Argentine policy makers. There is now free rein for Mr. Kirchner to do what he wants, for good or ill. I'm guessing ill. But then I am a student of history, not a wishful thinker.
Papa Benito and Hunt99, are spot on the issues and show remarkable understanding of macroeconomic issues. I fully agree with them both, but lets not forget that the whole growth story in Argentina is sustained by strong international fundamentals. In that context, the party could go on for longer than expected and macro indicators are very positive (other than inflation, which is the result of excess money, too much agregate demad, and why not relative price adjustements) The main problem is that the microfoundations of this recovery are poor and deteriorating. This eventually will come to hunt the country as international conditions worsen. In particular, a fall in commodity prices and higher international K markets risk aversion could be very damaging to the country.
[QUOTE=Hunt99]It's not sustainable when you fail to reduce the public sector's 60%+ claim on the economy and inflate the currency by printing ever greater amounts of pesos and artifically restrict price fluctuations (export restrictions, price controls, etc)
The IMF was looked to by the markets as a source of stability and a restraining influence on Argentine policy makers. There is now free rein for Mr. Kirchner to do what he wants, for good or ill. I'm guessing ill. But then I am a student of history, not a wishful thinker.[/QUOTE]As far as I know, the public sector was always oversized and poorly managed, which provided easy-to-get contracts to many lobbies. There's no interest to the elites to reform that, since an efficient public sector goes against many of their interests.
By the way, I cannot get the rational of inflating the currency by PRINTING. Usually, that's the opposite (the more you print, the less your currency is worth)
If I were to choose, I would prefere a less controlled price scheme and a more stringent taxation system. The problem is that many sectors are against of building the latter, and free prices along with no social protection measures would bring Argentina to the levels of violence seen in Mexico, Colombia or Brazil. 2002-2003 were so nasty in terms of crime that Argentinos prefer to control it by implementing "progressive" policies.
The IMF is clearly one of the most important lobbies for the "markets"', and very far from its intended role, to the point that its recommendations and policies are now VERY far away from the Bretton Woods agreements. What the financial markets regret is that the IMF isn't listened as much as before.
Argentina could get out of the pit left by the peso peg without the IMF and against their recommendations. No wonder why many people lost confidence in such institution.
Andres
[QUOTE=Papa Benito]My answer would be to reverse all the policies that defy the laws of econmics. Then, support the export sector, allow freer trade, prosecute and persecute the mafia, restore the order of law, clean up the judiciary, support contractural law, improve the banking sector, create a Fannie Mae, encourage capital investment, stop the populist rhetoric (your mills) which discourages all foreign investment, reduce the growth rate of the money supply, pay-off the hold outs from the repudiation, improve tax collection, clean-up the police force, stop the control of prices, improve the infrastructure utilizing the unemployed, improve relations with the IMF, reduce Socialism, listen to knowledgeble men like Hunt99, and Moore, mas, mas, mas![/QUOTE]I wonder how you would fight mafias, clean the police and "restore" any order (when there wasn't any before) when the very elites support and / or encourage these issues. That's what I call wishful thinking.
If you want to change a country, you need to understand that its constitutive society has strong mechanisms and official and unofficial checking structures, that are there for a reason. For instance, populist rethoric (understanding that as saying what people want to hear) is part of the package. You cannot go against it within a democratic system, and you cannot trigger a sustainable dictatorship. Those are the rules you have to play with, not the ideal measures that you would like to take.
Anyway, guys, if you want to rant and rave, that's your call. I just try to make you see things from a different perspective so that you can stop beating the same horse and getting nowhere, but I'm afraid that I'm losing my time trying to explain something to people obsessed with Socialist fanthoms.
Andres
Andres-
I think the irony of most of the Monger-Economist arguments on this board is that they argue that essentially Argentina should be more like the USA in terms of politics, economics and business practices. What I think they are missing is that if Argentina operated exactly like the USA, they would not want to come here. You cannot have the cheap steak, the cheap pussy, and cheap living when a country has an efficient, low-corruption, socioeconomic and political system. Think about it.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler
[QUOTE=Dirk Diggler]What I think they are missing is that if Argentina operated exactly like the USA, they would not want to come here. You cannot have the cheap steak, the cheap pussy, and cheap living when a country has an efficient, low-corruption, socioeconomic and political system. [/QUOTE]The "smart money" is acutely aware of this Dirk, exploiting the situation and r.e.a.p.ing the rewards.:D
Figuring out Argentina's issues is sort of like figuring out women - it is a journey that has no end. The fundamental problems are static and quite easy to diagnose, but their recurring manifestations never cease to amaze.
[QUOTE=Dirk Diggler]Andres-
I think the irony of most of the Monger-Economist arguments on this board is that they argue that essentially Argentina should be more like the USA in terms of politics, economics and business practices. What I think they are missing is that if Argentina operated exactly like the USA, they would not want to come here. You cannot have the cheap steak, the cheap pussy, and cheap living when a country has an efficient, low-corruption, socioeconomic and political system. Think about it.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler[/QUOTE]Dirk,
Absolutely. You cannot have ALL the advantages of a Third World country if it becomes a developed one.
What I point out is that, as Moore mentions in his last post, people here is trying to FIGURE IT OUT how Argentina works. Using the US as the "universal reference standard" doesn't help to do so. If the fundamentals were so clear, a politician such as Menem would have solved it with a handful of rules, but the fact is that these rules aren't suitable or applicable. The issue is more complex than it looks like.
For instance, I agree with Moore, Hunt and others that corruption isn't the best ingredient for a business to thrive. However, some countries such as Italy were able to grow despite of a highly corrupted system (that political structure called lotisazzione between 1950 and 1990) In fact, lotisazzione was necessary to encourage old money (Fiat, for instance) to invest in some areas without worrying about competition from others. After all, the Italian financial system differs significantly from the American one, so if you as the government want to encourage investments, you have to deal with the system in place.
Andres
Andres,
Argentina did not get out of the "pit left by the peso peg" without the IMF, but against the IMF - by defaulting on her international debts. In fact, Argentina declared bankruptcy. As far as I know, an unprecedented act of a country.
While this is seen as a heroic act by many Argentineans (in fact, all I know) it is seen quite differently by Argentina's creditors, public as well as private. Anybody who invested money in Argentinean tresury bonds is certainly not amused.
The main impact this may have is towards the credibility of countries in general. Up to now, any country's government bonds in hard currency - Dollars, Euros, Swiss Francs, Sterling etc - where considered trustworthy, the perception was that nation states could not go bankrupt. This has changed, and may result in far bigger difficulties for some countries to get credit on the finacial markets. Which, btw. Is not necessarily bad.
Please don't consider this as "ranting and reving". I am not looking at the world from an U.S. Point of view, but from an European. Personally, I am torn between appreciating and condemning Kirchner's policy, tending a bit more to the latter. Declaring bankruptcy, in the usual sense within a working legal system, may rid you of your debts, but also puts you under strict rules. Argentina, so it seems, wants the best of 2 worlds.
Just my 2 centavos.
El Alemán
[QUOTE=Andres]What I point out is that, as Moore mentions in his last post, people here is trying to FIGURE IT OUT how Argentina works. Using the US as the "universal reference standard" doesn't help to do so. However, some countries such as Italy were able to grow despite of a highly corrupted system [/QUOTE]Thats a good point which I was going to bring up Andres. I do not use the US as a "universal reference standard", especially for a country like Argentina which I believe is more oriented toward a more socialistic system that is more common in W Europe. But how a country like Italy, apparently having many similar issues as Argentina (corruption, Latins, instability, etc) is able to maintain a relatively expensive social system yet still be a 1st-world G7 country is something I don't fully understand. Why can't Argentina do the same?
[QUOTE=Moore]Thats a good point which I was going to bring up Andres. I do not use the US as a "universal reference standard", especially for a country like Argentina which I believe is more oriented toward a more socialistic system that is more common in W Europe. But how a country like Italy, apparently having many similar issues as Argentina (corruption, Latins, instability, etc) is able to maintain a relatively expensive social system yet still be a 1st-world G7 country is something I don't fully understand. Why can't Argentina do the same?[/QUOTE]Perhaps because Italian politicians only steal with one hand, but not both?
Perhaps because Italian politicians only steal for themselves, instead of inviting their wives, brothers, sisters, in-laws, and cousins to join them in looting the treasury, robbing the taxpayers, shaking down the businessmen, and requiring government workers to kick back portions of their salaries (oops, I mean make "contributions" to the union)?
Perhaps because Italian politicians occasionally go to jail for corruption?
Perhaps because Italian politicians understand that when they take a bribe it doesn't mean they're entitled to seize the bribegiver's entire business?
Some of our other posters could offer a few more examples.
[QUOTE=El Aleman]Andres,
Argentina did not get out of the "pit left by the peso peg" without the IMF, but against the IMF - by defaulting on her international debts. [/QUOTE]As far as I know, Argentina never stopped paying loans to international institutions (IMF, World Bank, IDB) Just the private debt was defaulted.
Andres
[QUOTE=Moore]Thats a good point which I was going to bring up Andres. I do not use the US as a "universal reference standard", especially for a country like Argentina which I believe is more oriented toward a more socialistic system that is more common in W Europe. But how a country like Italy, apparently having many similar issues as Argentina (corruption, Latins, instability, etc) is able to maintain a relatively expensive social system yet still be a 1st-world G7 country is something I don't fully understand. Why can't Argentina do the same?[/QUOTE]Seamless access to the European markets is an important issue. High quality of manufactured goods (among them, textiles) is another to mention.
Andres
[QUOTE=Dirk Diggler]Andres-
I think the irony of most of the Monger-Economist arguments on this board is that they argue that essentially Argentina should be more like the USA in terms of politics, economics and business practices. What I think they are missing is that if Argentina operated exactly like the USA, they would not want to come here. You cannot have the cheap steak, the cheap pussy, and cheap living when a country has an efficient, low-corruption, socioeconomic and political system. Think about it.[/QUOTE]Huh? So efficiency and low-corruption result in higher prices? Isn't this essentially the opposite of the many arguments for privatizing supposedly inefficient goverment services to improve efficiency and lower prices. Of course those arguments are a load of crap, privatization almost always leads to boosts in prices. I think there needs some reevaluating of perspectives here. I don't think it is useful to attempt to compare the 'quantity' of corruption in Argentina to the US. It is more instructive to look at the substance of corruption, in Argentina corruption seems to be ingrained at a micro level, a way of doing business (ie always count your change) whereas in the US I think small actors are likely to be mostly legit, playing by the rules. However, in the US the government and Fortune 500 companies have corrupt practices that are on such a scale so as to dwarf a so-called 3rd world country. Think Enron, Halliburton, Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc. Or think about the worlds largest economy which is DEPENDENT on military spending. Or the Saviings and Loan bailout, or the raiding of the social security 'trust fund', too many examples to cite, but the raiding is generally done at a system level where the individual does not see the direct impact, certainly the ultra-rich do not directly see the direct impact. As some wise dude said something like: the US has socialized costs and debts but privatized benefits.
Jj
Jj,
Please can you list a few examples of a state-run enterprise providing a cheaper, more efficient product than a private enterprise.
I don't fully agree with your theory that corruption is more problematic at a micro level in Argentina and vice-versa in USA. Corruption seems rampant at all levels here from the street cop to the president of the country. Outright plunder probably is a better term than corruption. One major difference is that criminals are often prosecuted in USA. Measures and new regs are often put in place after a major problem to prevent recurrence. A US commoner who has grown up in an ethical environment is a lot less likely to be a criminal upon attaining a powerful corporate/political position than someone who was raised in a very corrupt environment.
If corruption/ethics are very bad at all levels then I don't think any system - socialist or more market oriented - works for the general population, save a dictatorship to some extent. Lots of dictators in Latin history. And when the basic system is broke, local goods will be cheap for people with hard currency regardless of the politics currently being preached.
Hah! Give an example of the opposite, that is: a government service which has been privatized and as a result became cheaper and more efficient.
The Postal System is an excellent example, private enterprise only attempts to compete in niches, because the PO is incredibly cheap and efficient. In fact, it is quite arguable that without government buildout we would not have ubiquity that we enjoy of communications systems in the US, direct public works projects built the Postal System as well as the roads to carry the mail. Furthermore government regs aided buildout with Telephone (although it was in fact a private monopoly for the most part during buildout, but a regulated one) Information services such as libraries have historically been public enterprises, whenever an information resource is privatized, it becomes more expensive. When communities or countries privatize or sell off their utilities, the prices generally go up as well and problems often arise with quality (water) or reliability (energy) Market fundamentalism is a nieve viewpoint of course because there is no such thing as a free market, there are businesses which compete in an unevenly subsidized field (military contractors, energy sector) or compete in an unevenly regulated field (communications) etc ad nosium, but there is no such thing as a free market. There is a myth that cold war russia was unable to keep up technologically, when in fact they were outpacing us in the 1950s (think sputnik) During the cold war (before russian went bankrupt attempting to keep up with the arms race) there was a lot of comparison going on between the soviet model of innovation and the US model, and industry in the US argued for federal subsidy because they could not produce products as cheaply as a centrally managed industry seen in the USSR.
I guess I broadened the discussion there, but I would argue for a healthy mix of public works (more than the US now has, unless you perceive military spending as a public works project! And a market economy which includes well regulated sectors and other where optimal, unregulated sectors.
A tangential point, with all the advocacy ive seen on this board for market liberalization (through the imf) it has widely been pointed out that the IMFs policies have been disastrous for any developing country which has fallen victum to them.
Has anyone seen the film (about argentina) The Take? By Naomi Klein and another whose name I forget. Its about the economic collapse.
Jj.
[QUOTE=Moore]Jj,
Please can you list a few examples of a state-run enterprise providing a cheaper, more efficient product than a private enterprise.
I don't fully agree with your theory that corruption is more problematic at a micro level in Argentina and vice-versa in USA. Corruption seems rampant at all levels here from the street cop to the president of the country. Outright plunder probably is a better term than corruption. One major difference is that criminals are often prosecuted in USA. Measures and new regs are often put in place after a major problem to prevent recurrence. A US commoner who has grown up in an ethical environment is a lot less likely to be a criminal upon attaining a powerful corporate / political position than someone who was raised in a very corrupt environment.
If corruption / ethics are very bad at all levels then I don't think any system - socialist or more market oriented - works for the general population, save a dictatorship to some extent. Lots of dictators in Latin history. And when the basic system is broke, local goods will be cheap for people with hard currency regardless of the politics currently being preached.[/QUOTE]
Goblin,
Please rewrite that.
[QUOTE=Moore]Goblin,
Please rewrite that.[/QUOTE]WTF? Are you suggesting that somebody might have access to more than one handle? That could never happen on this board!
[QUOTE=Moore]Goblin,
Please rewrite that.[/QUOTE]Mira, don't be lazy, if you are going to try and make such connections, at least take the time to do your research and read folks posts rather than stabbing in the dark.
For example, below is a quote from Goblin, and if you read both our posts on this board, you would reasonably conclude we offer quite different viewpoints. Or perhaps, I am creating alter egos for myself in order to manipulate you for some as yet unrevealed, but certainly diabolical purpose! HaHaHahahahahahahaha! Or maybe you are really the guy that thought you were being followed at the boliche?
Well, I won't wait for that well thought out response RE the argentine vs the US economy, thats not why we're here anyway!
Jj.
Goblin wrote:
I am beginning to believe that a relationship with an American warhog is even more impossible.
Really every woman in North America has developed herself into a different cultural reality by virtue of the varying ideologies that have been woven in our fragmented society. To be truthful I feel even more foreign in the company of our woman.
I'm not sure what your point is Jj.
One day you post about the horribly corrupt "macro" level practices of the US govt but now you write that the govt is actually responsible for successes of the country such as developing the postal / road network.
You complain about the high US military spending but then praise the USSR. Comparing the USA to USSR (any decade) is somewhat like comparing the USA to Cambodia, albeit a Cambodia with a space program and nuclear submarines. There's an example of a niche market (USSR military) that you claim is the only market served by private enterprise - it was the only market being served by their centrally managed system.
I still suspect you could be Goblin, based more upon your bizarre nature than your "viewpoints". Maybe we'll have a thread called "Jjgoinslow's Opinions" shortly.
Hmmm. I unfortunately tend to forget how scarce a resource is critical thinking. US history is not monolithic. The existence of corruption does not preclude current or historical public works projects (even within such projects, the postal system and road buildout for example was the site of mucho political patronage as is I imagine the rebuilding of New Orleans today) History as with reality is under no obligation to present itself to you in an orderly fashion, it is instead quite messy. Obviously the USSR is quite a bit different than Cambodia, OF COURSE one can compare nations, some people spend their entire lives studying and writing about the historical parallels and discontinuities between the US and the USSR. I can see that having further historical or political discussion with you would be a real waste, so ill try to keep to the chica-related threads!
Jj
Each of the handles "Goblin" and "jjgoinslow" contain material obviously written by two (or more) different persons. One is using American English and the other is not. It's extremely clear that two or more people are sharing each of these handles. In fact, the posts under the handle "Goblin" have stated both that Goblin is American and that he, she, or it is not.
That leads to one or both of the following questions:
1) Why?
2) Who cares?
Neither one of these two handles has contributed anything of any value to the forum.
Hmmm. I unfortunately tend to forget how scarce a resource is critical thinking. US history is not monolithic. The existence of corruption does not preclude current or historical public works projects (even within such projects, the postal system and road buildout for example was the site of mucho political patronage as is I imagine the rebuilding of New Orleans today) History as with reality is under no obligation to present itself to you in an orderly fashion, it is instead quite messy. Obviously the USSR is quite a bit different than Cambodia, OF COURSE one can compare nations, some people spend their entire lives studying and writing about the historical parallels and discontinuities between the US and the USSR. I can see that having further historical or political discussion with you would be a real waste, so ill try to keep to the chica-related threads!
Jj
[QUOTE=Dickhead]Each of the handles "Goblin" and "jjgoinslow" contain material obviously written by two (or more) different persons. One is using American English and the other is not. It's extremely clear that two or more people are sharing each of these handles. In fact, the posts under the handle "Goblin" have stated both that Goblin is American and that he, she, or it is not.
.[/QUOTE]I would like to know exactly what makes you think that I am not American? Have you seen my passport or are you as usual jumping to the wrong conclusions?
Goblin
I think the Gov't is already subsidizing them so much they want a piece of ownership. Union wants them in too.