Thought this made interesting reading....

http://www.economist.com/world/ameri...ry_id=15580245

Not even the president has faith in the Peso. No wonder everyone takes their paychecks to the casa de cambios on payday.

__________________
Katrina Alexander
Licensed Massage Therapist
RelaxBsAs@gmail.com

“But it is getting harder. Thanks to the world recession, rising inflation and a series of political errors, her approval rating in opinion polls has fallen to 20%.”

This is the KEY.
It is NEVER political “errors” – it’s a course. Just not everything in their political agenda was announced clearly or in-time. All of these “Croatian and Swiss” descent are doing so.

I would not lose my temper over an article from The Economist. It is not exactly a good source for relatively objective info. This for example is opinion: "The government also gets involved in private business dealings that should be beyond its remit". And this: "The second example of government interference involves the Clarín Group, Argentina’s most powerful media business" as we know, is more than justified. So, The Economist covers itself to criticism, to give another blow in the following sentence: "There is a case for regulating media ownership in Argentina, and Clarín’s market dominance would be considered unacceptable in some countries. But the main effect of the new law is to weaken the president’s chief critic in the media". And this?: "politics and business are so closely linked in Argentina because the country lacks the institutions that ought to separate them". Yes, not like in the US (laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh).

You know that The Economist is BRITISH, don't you?

You can tell from the subheading:

"While some private businesses in Argentina have faced harassment or even nationalisation, others have flourished thanks to political contacts"


The USA way to spell that word is "nationalization".

Just an FYI.

Just an FYI.

Now, now, Napoleon, shame on you for raining on marksoc's US-bashing parade...!

While I agree the article is indeed biased - it still poses some valid criticisms. The money transferred abroad (how is it possible no one even knows how much it was, let alone where it is?), the fact that their personal wealth has increased at a level that is "unexplainable" according to the impartial investigation, the issues with the pension funds and the central bank, the laughable INDEC figures put out by the government - the list goes on and on.

There is a reason her approval rating is 20%.

I love how no one from Argentina can ever argue a point about their own country without justifying whatever it is by comparing it to the US.

And Napoleon, it doesn't matter what you point out to someone here about the difference between British and American. One, they won't believe there's a smidgeon of separation between the two countries (which I think is funny) and two, I think they might even have more problems with the Brits than the Yanks, given the Falklands.

Marksoc, the point about the government should not be involved in things business-related is referring to a free market vs socialism or even fascism. If your government decides that the government should make all calls on business matters, that's fine (for them), but it doesn't negate economic theory - whether it be Kenseyan or Austrian, both of which at least function better than socialism or fascism. The Economist is saying that the controls the Kirchners are putting on prices and businesses are obviously hurting things economically and the Economist is right in that regard.

As far as the news outlets go - that's a problem around the world, not just here. But much of the rest of the world doesn't deal with that problem the way the Kirchners would, by threatening them and trying to censor things because they don't like what they hear. I guarantee you that if the Clarin, et al, were saying nice things about the Kirchners, the Kirchners would not be threatening them, but would rather be heaping gifts on them - "unfair market advantage" or not.

Also, nowadays the internet is helping to overcome a lot of the media ownership issues. That's just another excuse the Kirchners use to show how "unfairly embattled" they are.

Instead of quickly turning around and saying "well gee, no one can say anything about us because look at the US," try coming up with valid arguments as to why YOUR country's policies work. If you want to criticise the US policies, start another thread and let's discuss it there. It's not like there's not enough of those threads already!

You are using a typical propagandist argument to refute what the Economist is saying. Words like "as we know, is more than justified." I think when arguing a point, you need to actually spell out why it is that you "know" why, in that particular case, the Clarin group owning a lot of media outlets negates everything they say about the Kirchners.

And of course, as I've mentioned, that of comparing the US institutions to Argentine as if that somehow makes whatever happens in Argentina ok. Very proppagandist to turn around and shift the discussion with no validity.

Of course, I don't believe you really know much about the institutions in the US. While not perfect, and getting worse everyday, they are much more open than here. For now.

People who continue to support the current government here really amaze me. But it takes all kinds...