Another crisis 1999-2002

[Bajo_cero2]

But would you please, please explain how halting the free market, restraining currency exchange, etc avoids a crisis?

Are you implying those measures are good for the economy in what term? short, medium, in general a god plan? Please do explain how things works on 'the other side'

well, perhaps what should be explain is why free market is good.
I believe this is a dogma´please don t reply me with more dogmas.

Free market means that you move your factory to china. You sell all the state companies and then the state has no enough resourses and has to take debts. Then you have unemployment, the country get debt and you have a crisi like the eu or the us or the 2001 here.

Now in argentina there is not free market, you can import only if you export or if you produce goods here, that s why we have full employment.

We had the merkel's austerity plan on 2001 and you know how did it finish. I don t understand how you can defend free market when the whole western worl is in crisis because of those dogmas.

The corralito to the dollar looks for avoid tax evasion and speculation: inflacion.

There is an article about an interview to the new french president at yesterday pagina12, i recommend you to read it.
Regards

 

[Matt84]

The corralito to the dollar looks for avoid tax evasion and speculation: inflacion.
Regards

which affects some individuals in drastic ways, it's someone's life. I would defend the free market from an ethical point of view, not with dogmas.

Anyway I see you regard the subject in a very macro way, but I assure you after full employment is reached and secured things get more complicated.

 

[notebook.fix]

Here's an interesting graphic of K media influence in this country...Hmmm...could the Buenos Aires Herald be part of it?
http://mediaandentertainmentobservatory.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/la-red-de-medios-k.jpg

 

[Bajo_cero2]

which affects some individuals in drastic ways, it's someone's life. I would defend the free market from an ethical point of view, not with dogmas.

Anyway I see you regard the subject in a very macro way, but I assure you after full employment is reached and secured things get more complicated.

or neo liberal austerity that affects millions in drastic way leaving them without a job in poverty.

it is interesting that you mention ethics. I read that the main reason of the us crisis was fraud.

I believe that facts talks. Mention me a free market country with full employment.

I believe that ethics is that every family have enough to eat, enough for have hope of a better living. Free market seems to create poverty for all and whealth for a few.

Regards

 

[Matt84]

that's not ethics or morality, that's the same material rules of life that applies to a plant.

i suppose the mention of the concept of freedom would be countered by another materialistic argument. Still, don't wanna fight or derail the thread, I actually asked you how those measures can facilitate this full employment you so value.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

that's not ethics or morality, that's the same material rules of life that applies to a plant.

we agreed no dogmas. If there are rules in economy, for sure are not those simple asserts about how does the market works by itself because reality shows that plants dies without irrigation.

 

[ElQueso]

I'd rather be poor in the US than poor here. And even with the problems of the economies in the "western" world, there are fewer poor, at least in most of the countries, than here.

I've been poor in the US. I've seen the poor here.

What happened in the US and other countries is not free enterprise. They made some pretty serious mistakes and millions will pay for it, but relatively. The market will recover eventually and things will expand. Under free enterprise, without minimal government intervention beyond providing a fair framework (something which has not quite been done even in the US), there is no reason not to have full employment. The US won't get there, and I don't think it will grow as fast with the constant government intervention, but it will grow again, and least in the medium term.

The US is headed the same way Argentina has been for some time. Medalling more and more in the market, less freedom, more and more government programs giving out more and more of the money from producing citizens to non-producing citizens.

Government isn't efficient and only allows for greater corruption of the money passing through the economy.

Any country that can get closer to the ideal of a free market will prosper, with fewer ups and downs.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

i suppose the mention of the concept of freedom would be countered by another materialistic argument. Still, don't wanna fight or derail the thread, I actually asked you how those measures can facilitate this full employment you so value.

i appriciate freedom. But you are missing the point. You cannot buy something when there is no offer.
Argentina has no credit. So argentina has to pay cash when there are more imports than exports or there is a huge crisis like 2001. There are no dollars to sell until the next harvest got paid.
It means that cfk is not going to take extremely expensive international credit because you want to buy dollars or consume philadelfia cheese. That s a simple rule in administration, you have to spend less than what you get.

The us have chinese credit so they can spend without limit...ups, they have a crisis because they were spending too much, they lost a lot of industries that have moved to china (like apple's iphone ) plus the war plus, plus.

So, that s how those are good political desicion: to do not spend more than the income of the country plus to fight tax evasion (dollars are used to buy real state that is the best way to wash black money) and speculation.

 

[scotttswan]

Here's an interesting graphic of K media influence in this country...Hmmm...could the Buenos Aires Herald be part of it?
http://mediaandentertainmentobservatory.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/la-red-de-medios-k.jpg

The BA Herald is quite amusing. on one hand the daily news items tend to be written in a Pro K way but the editorials are usually Anti K.

 

[HeyBA]

You can screw a lot of people and wield power with either privatization or nationalization, they're just ideological cloaks for people in power taking things of value.

But whether things are state controlled or "neo-liberal", it's private credit/money creation in either case, and that's the root of the problem.

When the state-control/socialist crowd is in charge, they enslave their people through debt to the private banks that create the money. When the "free market" crowd is in control, they auction off state resources to the highest bidder and deregulate the financial sector to give them even more power of credit creation.

If you want private central fractional reserve banking, where private banks create the money supply through credit, absolutely the only way to make it work is for the banks that originate the loans/make the money to remain the obligee on those loans, otherwise bad debts gets created. What can't happen is what happened in the US, those loans packaged in the securities and the taxpayer put on the hook for them, or what happened in Argentina/is happening in Europe, that national governments take the loans and then supranational bodies (IMF/EU) become the enforcement arm for banks to collect on bad loans they shouldn't have made in the first place, by looting public resources or the public treasury.

The financial powers that run our world could care about as much about state vs. private control of the economy, as a dealer cares about whether you're getting high because you're happy or sad.

That's even if you think the private central banking model should exist. I don't think it should. Any Zarlenga fans out there?