Another crisis 1999-2002

[notebook.fix]

She is the President, you like it or not.

She had an overwhelming victory while Clarin tried to make people believe she was going to loose. Her rating will be score in next election, meanwhile, that is bla.

Someone complain that she gives orders and her orders are followed, that s the idea.

Some complain about corruption, well, this is argentina, all the pokiticians are corrupt, so what?

Every ten years here is a crisis. Now we don t have it but a peso overvaluated is a bad indicator. However, she is ruling to avoid a crisis, if you don t like the anti crisis rules, well, nobody like them.

But i understand that many complain because she is not applying merkel s "anti crisis" solutions. It already happend on dezember 2001 ahd you know how did it finished. It is happening in greece and spain and it is predictable how is it going to finished.

But the desicions she made until now worked out. Why should it change?

Ok. But why do we have to have a crisis after all the 'great years' under the Ks? Didn't Cristina say that her government was doing a great job of managing the country before the elections? ...I find this confusing don't you?

She gives orders to shut up the people who disagree with her...if she is so good at her job, why is it that we can't talk about the bad things that are happening in this country now?

 

[ElQueso]

Someone complain that she gives orders and her orders are followed, that s the idea.

I thought Argentina was a democracy, not ruled by a queen. Or a dictator.

Argentina has a similar system in theory to the US. Three branches of government, a bi-cameral legislature, a supposedly independent judicial branch and an executive limited, in theory by the other branches. In reality it's quite a bit different.

Do the ends justify the means in a democracy, or under a queen/dictator?

 

[nicoenarg]

Bajo_cero2 at best you have what's called a pseudo-democracy in Argentina. What that means is that you have a form of government that has the appearance of a decmocracy but it actually is another form of government. I haven't studied this matter in detail but it seems like an extension of classic Peronism (going back all the way to Mussolini's fascism).

Secondly, just because majority of the people do something doesn't mean its awesome for the country as a whole. Many a times what majority of the people enforce on the country is also called Ochlocracy or mob rule driven by almost barbaric emotions (i.e. without logic and/or law). I don't know if you can tell by its name but its just not a good thing. When that happens, the result of that eventually is that the majority ends up suffering.

We are seeing examples of ochlocracy in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Just because Cristina and her cronies claim she won by 54% of the votes does not make it heavenly truth. And just because she won by 54% of the votes doesn't mean she can never do anything wrong.

You say her actions are "anti crisis", however, to anyone who knows even a little bit about the actions she is taking, it seems like she is welcoming crisis. My assumption all along had been that she was just stupid, but now it seems like she is doing this on purpose.

And no, just because you oppose CFK's actions doesn't mean you want Merkel (this is classic Peron, where you're either for Peron or you're a traitor). It just means you think CFK is not god incarnate and that she's, in very plain and simple terms, f**king this country and its economy up even further.

Argentines think they got rid of dictatorship in 1983...I am not so sure about that anymore.

 

[El chabon]

I thought Argentina was a democracy, not ruled by a queen. Or a dictator.

Argentina has a similar system in theory to the US. Three branches of government, a bi-cameral legislature, a supposedly independent judicial branch and an executive limited, in theory by the other branches. In reality it's quite a bit different.

Do the ends justify the means in a democracy, or under a queen/dictator?

I never studied but did a US president ever get voted in with less then 50% of the vote?

I find it impressive(for every country) with a presidential system there won't be a run-off if the candidate got less then 50% of the vote.

The system of 40% only leads to more populism and needy citizen which votes can easily be bought

 

[solerboy]

I never studied but did a US president ever get voted in with less then 50% of the vote?

I think you will find George W Bush won the election with less votes than Al Gore in 2000.

 

[El chabon]

I think you will find George W Bush won the election with less votes than Al Gore in 2000.

Due to the complicated system in the US.

But it just doesn't feel right to have a presidential system without getting a mayority. You give so much power to one person then

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Bajo_cero2 at best you have what's called a pseudo-democracy in Argentina. What that means is that you have a form of government that has the appearance of a democracy but it actually is another form of government. I haven't studied this matter in detail but it seems like an extension of classic Peronism (going back all the way to Mussolini's fascism).

I agree with you here.
Fascism is a way of government and also an economy model. The bad side of fascism is the lack of civil rights. Argentina is a country with fascist institutions, with a fascist economy plan (look that they are always looking for an agreement between the owners of the factories and the workers/unions instead of leaving this to the free marker) where you have civil rights.
Peron made a fascist revolution that still remains.

However, the Latin American National Constitutions give the President more Power that the bill of rights in the US. It doesn´t mean here isn´t democracy, it might only mean that this is not the democracy you are culturally used to.

Is free market better?, or the neo-liberal doctrine? who cares? because people doesn´t want it here, don´t you see that if 54% voted her is because of that?

Secondly, just because majority of the people do something doesn't mean its awesome for the country as a whole. Many a times what majority of the people enforce on the country is also called Ochlocracy or mob rule driven by almost barbaric emotions (i.e. without logic and/or law). I don't know if you can tell by its name but its just not a good thing. When that happens, the result of that eventually is that the majority ends up suffering.

Well, this is precisely the argument that military used for overthrown democracies, so, it is a little political improper, don´t you think so?

Just because Cristina and her cronies claim she won by 54% of the votes does not make it heavenly truth. And just because she won by 54% of the votes doesn't mean she can never do anything wrong.

It only means that she is the undoubted Leader of this country.

You say her actions are "anti crisis", however, to anyone who knows even a little bit about the actions she is taking, it seems like she is welcoming crisis. My assumption all along had been that she was just stupid, but now it seems like she is doing this on purpose.

Well, the main problem, I think, is that economy is like a modern religion where people repeat dogmas like they used to repeat "Dios salve a Maria, llena eres de gracia" and so on.

You might disagree with her decision, but she is taking decisions from a different economy and political frame than you.

If you believe that she or her economist doesn´t know about Adam Smith or the neo-liberal dogma, then the stupid, with all my respect, it is you. They decided for another point of view, they aren´t Mc Donald´s clerks who should repeat like parrots some neo-liberal dogmas.

And no, just because you oppose CFK's actions doesn't mean you want Merkel (this is classic Peron, where you're either for Peron or you're a traitor). It just means you think CFK is not god incarnate and that she's, in very plain and simple terms, f**king this country and its economy up even further.

Well, this is debatable.

But before to debate it, it is wise to know some about the history if this country of the last 40 years and only then you might understand why does she takes some decisions that for you are stupid and for me are wise.

If you are more specific and polite, it is an interesting debate. If you want to read some books, I can recommend you some.

Argentines think they got rid of dictatorship in 1983...I am not so sure about that anymore.

Well, the main problem in this country was the lack of leadership since Peron was overthrown.

Until 1973 the Peronism was under proscription. So, the governments fell because of civilian disobedience.

The 70´s were even worst because there were terrorist groups (right and left) challenging the power of the State so, not even Peron was able to rule then.

During the dictadura, Argentina become a medieval country where there were kingdoms were the generals were like landlords and the President was like the King John of England. The Dictator had no real power at all because he need the consensus of his subordinates and of the other two forces (Navy, Army, Air force). In fact, Galtieri (the dictator/President) was notified of the invasion to Malvinas decided by the Navy.

So, the dictadura essentially meant that people whom nobody voted decided the economy plan of the country based of free market that was a disaster.

It also meant that there were no civil rights and there were death penalty without a trial for between 7 up to 30 thousands people. They abolished the civil rights and the rule of law. There were no law, just a vulgar display of power.

Nowadays, the K plan was chosen 3 times by the votes. Last time was by 54% of the votes.

So, she has power and she rules. There is nothing wrong about that, in fact, in this country is great because nobody wants another Isabel Martinez de Peron or De la Rua.

In fact, Peron used to say, and I agree, that the economy problems and crisis in this country are because of political reason. I believe that the main issue is that some groups think they can overthrown the President every time she rules something that they don´t like.

I give you an example, when the conflict with farmers happens, one of their leaders said that the Lomo was going to cost 80 pesos when it was 17. It happens, they made it happens. So, I believe that the dollar corralito looks for controlling the irrational rise of prices and speculation because we are in a similar situation than before the Rodrigazo with an important difference, a main difference, 54% of people vote her while nobody liked Rodrigo.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigazo

So, the big crisis where under Isabel Peron, the dictadura, Alfonsin (who was voted only because he was going to prosecute the military) and De la Rua. All of them were weak leaders with no popular support. So, the conditions are proper for a crisis but the crisis is not happening. That´s why I insist about the 54%, the only reason there is not a super crisis is because of her leadership.

You might disagree with her, that´s ok. Nobody is going to kidnap you, torture and disappear your corp. Because that´s what happens when you have a dictator.

When you have a President elected by 54% of the votes, what happens is that she has power enough to rule, and she does it.

Nobody is perfect, she makes mistakes, but that´s are the rules of democracy.

Regards

 

[El chabon]

Kirchner lost the elections in 2003 and Cristina didn't have a majority in 2007

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I never studied but did a US president ever get voted in with less then 50% of the vote?

I find it impressive(for every country) with a presidential system there won't be a run-off if the candidate got less then 50% of the vote.

The system of 40% only leads to more populism and needy citizen which votes can easily be bought

In fact the democracy here, with all my respect, is better in some topics.

In the US people elect some other people who are the ones who really vote.

Those who were elected are who vote for President. They might vote different of what people had in mind when they vote them.

That´s how Bush was elected the first time.

Here the President is elected by the direct vote of people.

Regards

 

[El chabon]

In fact the democracy here, with all my respect, is better in some topics.

In the US people elect some other people who are the ones who really vote.

Those who were elected are who vote for President. They might vote different of what people had in mind when they vote them.

That´s how Bush was elected the first time.

Here the President is elected by the direct vote of people.

Regards

I don't if this was your goal but it's really, really funny