Another CFK Corralito

[fifs2]

How you can compare Bush with CFK it makes no sense at all.[/quote]


Ahhhh, Lucas please dont be so literal. I compared voting percentages (which yhou presented) as a valid way of judging a president's worth AND democracy -...unlike many members I enjoy having native Argentineans on this site for an alternative viewpoint and I DO try to learn and not be as close minded as I was when I arrive. Honestly a little self-doubt over CFK would be healthy (even if you express it in private).

 

[elclandestino]

Is actually the government´s fault they are poor...they funny part is that, despite being poor, and in many cases, very poor, they still vote for this same govnt in exchange of welfare money (they rather get small money for free than having a decent life through hard work).....That´s what´s totally wrong !!! it makes no sense !!

Milosevic lost all wars, made Serbia being bombed by the NATO and destroyed both Serbia and Yugoslavia. Yet, he was voted elections after elections by lumpen proletariat patriots whom he gave a bit of welfare

So, what happens with Cristina and her voters seems obvious to me

 

[Lucas]

Milosevic lost all wars, made Serbia being bombed by the NATO and destroyed both Serbia and Yugoslavia. Yet, he was voted elections after elections by lumpen proletariat patriots whom he gave a bit of welfare

So, what happens with Cristina and her voters seems obvious to me

This country wasn't at war with itself, nor a civil war, nor a religious ethnic war as was in former Yugoslavia under Tito's fist, of course Tito die and everything went to hell.

Not a good comparison at all, so you don't know why people voted for Cristina and probably you never will do.

 

[katzp339]

Hey all,

It's great to see that my Salon article made its way into this conversation, and I have to say, I'm impressed--given the tone of so many of the discussions on this forum, I was expecting a much more virulently negative response.

I know the article is hardly the central topic of this thread, but I did just want to respond to two criticisms, one of which I think is unfair and the other of which just requires a bit of clarification. I'll start with the clarification:

I respectfully thank you for the read, however most of their stats are comparing today to 2003 when the crisis had just ended, so of course numbers will be skewed. And even then I still don't agree with the article because it's just downright wrong. Salon.com is also a liberal tabloid and are about as unbiased as Sean Hannity.

I actually had quite a few more statistics but my editor cut them out. I'd encourage you to head over to the World Bank's online database (no INDEC here!) and compare nearly any economic indicator from around 1990 through 2009. The results are striking: Unemployment is much lower now than in the mid-90s, at the height of the country's so-called "miracle." So is income inequality, which has returned to its pre-90s level. When it comes to the middle and working classes, things aren't just much better than they were during or right after the crisis, they're actually much better than they were throughout the 90s (which, despite the fawning international press coverage, were themselves a time of crisis for the less well-to-do in this country).

Now the criticism that I'd like to rebut:

The Salon article is interesting but not written by someone with an understanding of economics.

It's hard to ignore that the K's did a lot to help the poor and bring the prosperity to a middle class that is apparent to the eye here in BA--full restaurants, lots of folks with credit cards, a booming Starbucks generation. But the issue is that what they did to bring this about is not sustainable.

Thus the desperate moves just days after the election. Can a middle class grow here without foreign investment? Can a real estate market based on pesos not fall? Can AR not seriously devalue the peso when Brazil is seriously devaluing the Real? Can the government keep on spending the way they have been with zero access to international debt markets?

It all was never sustainable. Kind of like Obama's stabs at stimulus. Eventually reality must be dealt with.

I'll admit that I'm not an economist. But I studied history and am currently pursuing a masters in social sciences here in BA, I've taken quite a few classes in economic history and international political economy, and I read a lot and attend as many academic events as I can here. The issue is not that I don't "understand" what orthodox economics suggests ought to happen in Argentina--it's that I don't agree with it. (And also that Salon.com has a low tolerance for econ wonkery.) In fact, I think critics who harp on the "sustainability" of Argentina's growth are begging the question; they're almost always measuring "sustainability" according to metrics obviously biased toward orthodox thinking (like foreign investment, which the US press loves to equate with stability, when in fact the development literature suggests that it's value-neutral, at best), so a heterodox approach is by the very terms of the premise guaranteed to fail the test. (I'm not the only one who believes this; check out these posts from Paul Krugman--whatever your opinion of him, I'm pretty sure he understands the economics well enough: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/dont-cry-for-argentina/, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/unacceptable-success/)

It's true--as I've heard many times from Argentine economists--that the Kirchners have by no means single- (or double- ) handedly fixed the long-standing structural problems in Argentina's economy. But what are the biggest ones I usually hear cited? A skewed, inefficient, and needlessly regressive tax structure. An over-reliance on commodity exports. A weak domestic manufacturing base. Whatever you think about the Kirchners, it's impossible to seriously study Argentine history and not come to the conclusion that the knee-jerk neoliberalism that dominated the country from 1976 through 2003 (and was celebrated throughout by the West) has made all three of these problems vastly worse.

Argentine growth will surely slow next year. And the peso will need to be devalued. But if slowing growth and challenges responding to a strong dollar are the standard for failure, then Brazil and Chile (and China, and basically anyone else still growing strongly right now) are heading for it too.

I don't love the Kirchners by any stretch. They've done quite a lot of things that deserve to be criticized. But by any reasonable standard they've also achieved remarkable successes, one of which includes restoring a middle class decimated not just by the crisis but by the neoliberal 90s as well. The refusal of so much of the U.S. press (and so many people on this forum) to acknowledge this leads me to believe that the very way in which our papers cover the news doesn't leave much room for those who challenge the status quo.

If you'd like to push me on these points individually, but fairly, feel free to do it on my blog, comoelpulpo.wordpress.com. (As those crazy enough to have read this far have probably figured out, I love this stuff.)

-Paul

 

[jb5]

I think critics who harp on the "sustainability" of Argentina's growth are begging the question; they're almost always measuring "sustainability" according to metrics obviously biased toward orthodox thinking (like foreign investment, which the US press loves to equate with stability

While growth will slow this year, what's truly unsustainable is not growth, it's this government's spending. Desperate measures will follow when you have runaway spending and no access to debt markets.

But if slowing growth and challenges responding to a strong dollar are the standard for failure, then Brazil and Chile (and China, and basically anyone else still growing strongly right now) are heading for it too.

Here's the thing: Brazil and Chile acknowledge the slowdown and are working to devalue their currencies. That's just one of the reason's their governments are seen as stable and responsible.

But by any reasonable standard they've also achieved remarkable successes, one of which includes restoring a middle class decimated not just by the crisis but by the neoliberal 90s as well. The refusal of so much of the U.S. press (and so many people on this forum) to acknowledge this leads me to believe that the very ways in which our papers cover the news doesn't leave much room for those who challenge the status quo.

I agree the K's did much to improve the lot of many. This is true by objective measures. But they kill their credibility by lying about inflation, fining economists who publish true numbers, not sharing data with the IMF, changing rules as they go and so much more. If their success was sustainable and it wasn't a house of cards, they'd have no reason to hide the facts and would welcome transparency.

 

[evitaduarte]

I don't love the Kirchners by any stretch. They've done quite a lot of things that deserve to be criticized. But by any reasonable standard they've also achieved remarkable successes, one of which includes restoring a middle class decimated not just by the crisis but by the neoliberal 90s as well.
-Paul

Let's not forget that part of any success the Ks had in restoring the AR economy was because they didnt have to repay a lot of the country's foreign debt. Ar was able to avoid repayment of much of its debt by virtue of the artificially low, INDEC based interest rates on the substitute 2001/2002 peso denominated bonds, That gave the Ks a cushion on which to rebuild the economy. Now that cushion has been exhausted, spending is exceeding revenue, and there is no realistic access to borrowing in the international market, so continued growth and prosperity will be much harder to sustain. This will be especially difficult for pensioners who rely on the government for retirement funds -a fund which has been usurped by the fed govt likely being used to pay current operating expenses. In a few years those peso based pensions, which have not kept pace with inflation, will not support even the minimal normal existence they do now.

 

[jazrgz]

I actually had quite a few more statistics but my editor cut them out. I'd encourage you to head over to the World Bank's online database (no INDEC here!) and compare nearly any economic indicator from around 1990 through 2009. The results are striking: Unemployment is much lower now than in the mid-90s, at the height of the country's so-called "miracle." So is income inequality, which has returned to its pre-90s level. When it comes to the middle and working classes, things aren't just much better than they were during or right after the crisis, they're actually much better than they were throughout the 90s (which, despite the fawning international press coverage, were themselves a time of crisis for the less well-to-do in this country).

Just one question....Where do you think the WB gets these info from ?? ...That´s right, from the local official agency of statistics....The notion of everything being so much better are just because they are seeing official numbers on these items.....basically, they are basing their conclusions on pure lies ! hence...the conclusions are wrong... Nonetheless, no one says in the 90´s everything was great....just keep in mind that for example, the amount of villa miseria and also the population of these villas is extremaly higher than back in the 90´s...now, unless these ppl are considered middle class something doesnt add up...

 

[snowboarder]

I enjoyed katzp339's article and he makes many valid points. Just like many others do here (well with the exception of Lucas that shows no sense of self-critique or acceptance of any criticism ).

That said I must second jazrgz on the number and size of villas, I flew over Rosario recently and was amazed at how a few villas had turned into a huge beltway from river to river of misery. Maybe the growth of the economy has attracted rural dwellers to the large cities? Whatever the reason it sure does not look like the government is doing it's job in providing affordable housing and basic services to a very large percent of the urban poor.

 

[JWB]

Let's not forget that part of any success the Ks had in restoring the AR economy was because they didnt have to repay a lot of the country's foreign debt. Ar was able to avoid repayment of much of its debt by virtue of the artificially low, INDEC based interest rates on the substitute 2001/2002 peso denominated bonds, That gave the Ks a cushion on which to rebuild the economy. Now that cushion has been exhausted, spending is exceeding revenue, and there is no realistic access to borrowing in the international market, so continued growth and prosperity will be much harder to sustain. This will be especially difficult for pensioners who rely on the government for retirement funds -a fund which has been usurped by the fed govt likely being used to pay current operating expenses. In a few years those peso based pensions, which have not kept pace with inflation, will not support even the minimal normal existence they do now.

I think the more correct statement is they defaulted and REFUSED to pay their debt. Obama actually mentioned that to CFK in their oh so touted meeting. (He told her Argentina should repay the debt).

Of course, Obama has zero room to tell anyone to pay their debts.

 

[elclandestino]

@Lucas A way loosers and popoulists operate is the same. I can just agree with comments above

You guys don't produce anything, don't have any foreign investments yet you spend like bandits. Not sustainable