¿periodismo Para Todos Vs Fútbol Para Todos?

[trennod]

Matias, free markets have never been properly implemented here. They have been implemented under Dictatorships and heavily corrupt governments.

They can work in Latin America, Chile is a global success story. Its easy to ignore because it doesnt fit the argument but there it is, sitting across the Andes.

The reason that mining results in what you have said is due to poor regulation, lack of controls etc etc. This is how it works here (and plenty of other places):
Mining company X comes in, wants to do something. Politician X says I will only approve if you put $XX millions in my and my socios pocket. Approvals get whipped through, company X does whatever the hell they like and leaves the place in a dump. Everyone is happy except the environment and the people.
The problem is not the Company, its the Politician/Government/Laws/regulations etc etc.

The 90s were a joke Matias and it was not text book free markets, it was the government selling national companies at bargain basement prices so Menem and his cronies could fill their pockets. And there was still big government. You cant count that as a try and fail.

Big government usually doesnt work and there is no way it will work here with the present culture, why? Because politicians and a few empresarios / their cronies are corrupt as hell and steal everything. There are rules for them and rules for the rest.

The key to making free(er) markets (hell free or restricted) is to build confidence in the economy & the country. No country has ever developed with hyperinflation.

 

[jorge_]

.

 

[Matiasba]

I agree on some things you say, but free market policies just cant work here.
We have a very corrupted "clase empresaria" plus a very corrupted "clase politica", so if the ones that should lead this kind of policies are very corrupted, theres nop chance it would work out.
But they re corrupt now because they had 10 years to do whatever they wanted. They demostrated corrupted. The neoliberlismo with Menem allowed lot of bussiness, they could do what they wanted, the locals empresarios, sold everything they had, they produced a totally new phenomena called "extranjerizacion del capital" which means banks, productive companies, etc were sold to (mostly) american companies. So the problem we still have today is that the most powerful actors of argentine econmy are americans.

The Menem government made everything to make bussiness happen, so they have total liberty to invest, to take the money away, to do whatever they wanted. And so it happened. Who lost? empleados publicos, pensionists, people who used to work in privatizadas, people who worked in this local industry, etc.... 25% of unemployment. Structural poverty. Insecurity. Huge social segregation, opposed to the tradition of social integration this country had. Also was the time when the big narcos came here and made this poor young guys got into drugs.
The common citizen was the one who lost with menemismo. The private sector, the enterprizes, they all won, they got their "flexibilizacion laboral" their stability with 1 peso = 1 dollar, without inflation, with a reduced state, or at least the states margin of manouvre, they made EVERYTHING to this clase empresaria, everything.
so it did was a free market policy model. It was, and not by chance ended like that.

The difference with Chile is that they dont have corruption as we have it here, + they do have some kind of nationalism and invest in their country, they do believe in public institutions, carabineros are well respected there, and everyone who works for the state, they pay taxes, basically they believe in their country, which is much smaller than Argentina (an important variable).
This said, Chile isnt that far from Argentina. They dont have a productive economy. Argentina produces like a million cars per year, mostly exported to Brazil, while Chile doesnt have an automobile industry, they import almost everything, they have strong dependency of copper, they have too structural poverty and a HUGE inequality (way higher than Argentinas). They have education privatized, a law from Pinochet dictatorship, that makes A LOT of chileans come and study here...
So while they have the conditions to develop a stronger economy, they still dont take off. They have the cultural conditions to make free policies work, and it does. But that doesnt differ of what we have here (maybe a better service sector)..

As I said before the people who are responsible of making these policies work are mafias, the people that in the past put dictatorsships to become richer, people that have no problem in kill and torture people, of couped a democratically elected president (as it happen all over the continent). So if you give them the power to make a better nation, with their believes, with their policies, with their wishes, doing whatever they want, they produce dictatorships or a lovely 2001.

 

[trennod]

Middle class in Chile is booming, know heaps of Argentinos that have moved there. The only reason Chilenos move here is, like you say to take advantage of the free education.

Your right about the corruption. This country will never advance without tackling it as a culture. The problem is, this government is as bad as they come and only feed it. Look at all of them.

Menem was a corrupt free market. It wouldnt work in any country, let alone here. Its NOT a good example of a free market model, why do you keep using it as an example?

There is plenty of unemployment here, you just dont see it as much in Capital & plus the figures are fudged. My girlfriend is from Tucuman there and its terrible. No one can get a job their in their chosen field. There is no opportunity, unless your family has a business, good luck getting a decent job. The villas have gone absolutely crazy, and its not just with immigrants. Crime is terrible. The government turn a blind eye, as always.

Things arent good here, they are sliding and its not turning around soon. This is not success, its clear failure and its time for a change.

 

[Matiasba]

I think that the measures the government have been taking in the last two years are cleary temporarily, and clearly a signal that they are doing wrong. For example price controlling or laundry money. We are in the limit, we have now 10 years so it is the crisis time. Outflow capitals, disinvest, recession.


But I dont agree that free market policy is the solution.
Examples of corrupted free market policies you have it around the globe, not only here, remember thet privatizations, for instance, was what the IMF recommended to every country, so you had privatizations all over the world, and with a lot of corruption as well.
You have the example of Russia in the 90s, where they tried free market policies but didnt work, you have the crisis of Mexico, in 1995, the crisis of southeast asia, in 1997, the crisis of Spain or USA with the hypotheques bubble, etc, you have crisis everywhere free market policies went. Of course, stronger nations like Germany or France survived, but thats because they have a power relationship with the peripheria, in europe, or africa, or even latin america.

 

[cbonanni]

AFA has just announced they will not move the starting times back . Seems they stood up to the k's.

 

[trennod]

"The Model" is in full swing, there is no turning back unless there is a change in government. What evidence suggests to you it is temporary?:
- Currency controls: have only tightened. Text book policy from Venezuela and how long have they been in place there? About 10 years.
- Nationalisations: Aerolineas, YPF. Pension funds. These arent temporary.
- Other miscellanous cash grabs: Blanqueo of funds. Second one since 2009.
- Fudging figures: not changing
- Grab at freedoms: Judiciary, Media etc, in full swing.
- Inflation: The one constant in the Argentine economy. 25%-30% and climbing? How is that even possible!
- Devaluation: not happening

The IMF did not recommend privatisations such that you sell your government entreprises for spare change and that spare change goes straight in to the pocket of the politicians. They did not recommend overinflated public spending, that you couldnt afford. They did push for the 1:1, and I will give you that. They acknowledged that was a mistake. But the IMF are not perfect. Many that follow their advice have success.

I have studied privatisations of much of the Australian public sector through the 80s and 90s, in combination with deregulation of the banking sector. It was a success. It was not corrupted, it did not have periphery relationships with Africa, Latin America etc.

I respect your views Matias and I am happy to have the discussion. I know we want the best for Argentina, but we are clearly never going to agree on how to get there

 

[Yogur griego]

Of course, stronger nations like Germany or France survived, but thats because they have a power relationship with the peripheria, in europe, or africa, or even latin america.

You're once again repeating your typically Argentine point of view: that a lack of success at home always needs to be mostly attributed to external circumstances. This same old story is always about failure and bad policu being caused by the abuse and evil interventions by others. I guess you might wanna read a little less Eduardo Galeano and do more factual research on why some countries have more competitive and reliable political systems than others.

 

[oksanache]

¨"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]My limited intelligence" were the only sincere and truthful words in Matiasba's ranting. Is this guy paid? I know lots and lots of those...[/background]

 

[Matiasba]

You're once again repeating your typically Argentine point of view: that a lack of success at home always needs to be mostly attributed to external circumstances. This same old story is always about failure and bad policu being caused by the abuse and evil interventions by others. I guess you might wanna read a little less Eduardo Galeano and do more factual research on why some countries have more competitive and reliable political systems than others.

what would have been of england in the victorian era if they wouldn have sacked america in the two centuries before?or even in the XXth century, with India. Or France, with Argelia and a good part of Africa? do you know what Belgium took of the Congo? well, today there re other ways of colonization, today you have the corporations, today you have multinationals. If you check out youll see that most of these multinationals, that some has more power than some nations, that some make nations to declare bankruptcy, that some especulates of the falling of national states, or make them take debt, these corporations, are in 80% from 3 or 4 nations. France, Germany, the UK, the US, some of the netherlands perhaps, and the new ones from China.

do you think the dont negotiate with corrputed goverments? do you think they do behave properly, that they dont avoid taxes, that they respect the natural enviroment or doesnt use slave force? do you think they are not represented by their national states?