Argentine Economy

[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.

[El Queso]

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.

[Whiskas]

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

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.

[Argento]

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.

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

[Stan Da Man]

Rock suggests that political popularism is the primary cause of Argentina's trevails.

Argento

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.

[QuakHunter]

In the 19th century it was wool and the province of Buenos Aires was full of sheep.

Amazingly wool is still what we seek in Argentina

[Argento]

The report Damman gives the link to makes a very common asumption on what was the agricultural base for Argentina in the 19th and 20th centuries. It was not cattle then and it is not cattle now. In the 19th century it was wool and the province of Buenos Aires was full of sheep. Toward the end of the 19th century and right through to the present, cereals and now soya beans are the mainstay. Cattle were important but were at the most, one third of rural production. Source: Rock, David "Argentina 1516-1987" UCal 1987. (With actual official figures). Herding of sheep multiplied the numbers of rural labour 100 fold. And incidently, Rock suggests that political popularism is the primary cause of Argentina's trevails. Such a simple answer.

Argento

[SteveC]

Almost, it was Baba O'Riley.

And thanks to El Queso for the article.

[Jackpot]

I think it goes like this:

BAH BAH O'REILLY.

BTW, was this the title of a WHO song?

Jackpot

[El Queso]

Excellent article. I've always thought the basic hindrance to Argentina's success has been the existence of a feudal state in one form or another. It's as if the Spanish conquered differently than the English / Western European countries conquered. In most of South America a certain twisted form of feudalism exists today, without the "noblesse oblige" that at least was supposed to go with feudal authority in the days of kings and royalty.

I really liked the parallels that it draws between the two countries and where the decisions at certain times lead to the chasm between. The US could indeed slide into the same sort of trap - the people tired of trying to make sense of the world and letting the government step in to restablish a more feudal relationship between government and the people.

Every year we citizens of the US give up more and more power to the government and bleat like sheep.

[Damman]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/778193e4-4...44feabdc0.html

[Donkey Punch]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=latin_america

[Whiskas]

I think Tejano Libre is quoting this article:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-Cou...pf=real-estate

What can I tell you guys. Living in México and enduring this crisis is not a simple thing. I am a veteran of the 1982, 1995 and 2002 recessions in this country and honestly things don't look very good for this year and at least the next. Industrial Production is falling 14% , commerce is very slow, etc.

About crime and violence, I think it is a serious issue, but not out of control, there are a good deal of states living a stable and relatively safe situation. Endemic violence is concentrated in just a few states.

Reading Forbes I saw an article by Gary Schilling where he says that if things don't fix in the states by the end of this year or the first quarter of 2010 then the US (and a good deal of countries) will be in a Depression.

What do you guys think about that possibility?

TL good article BTW. Cheers!

[TejanoLibre]

I can't find the article.

Try this one.

TL

http://www.usnews.com/articles/busin....html?PageNr=1

[TejanoLibre]

A financial expert discusses AR. Tune in on your computer

Did you see the report today about the (10) most troubled economies in the world?

Argentina comes in at number (5) on the list of countries in Deep Trouble!

I think it's under Yahoo Finance.

Anyway, I'll let someone like Big Sid discuss this if he feels like it.

More bad news I'm sure!

TL