Caught Up in the Meaningless Protest Last Night

[Rich One]

Complaining does not mean that things are actually bad.
the farmers suffered in the 90s, now they are making TONS of money. They held everyone hostage to lower their taxes (btw, they do not pay any real land tax, it is like 30 pesos per hecter in Santa Fe, for land worth $100kUSD). As soon as the gov´t said that they would not or could not inplment their moving tax, a drought hit, and what did the famers demand? A MOVING TAX!!!!
I-eco in Clarin (the business section of a very anti-K newspaper) said that Argentina´s economy will grow in the next few months, and not enter into recession. And the whole world is in recession right now.
I found the banging on pots and pans to be insulting, as it normally represents not having food to put in said pot.
I would love for the oposition to be able to have electable canidates and a platform, it would be good for all of us, but for some reason this doesn´t seem to be able to happen.
When the upper class complains, remember that the vast majority of them have NEVER and NEVER WILL invest in production or in business, they live off of "rentas" or profits from their farms. Argentina does not have a business class, they have rich industrialists and poor industries.
If someone is called an "empresario" in the news, very rarely do they identify the business he owns or what he does, because he doesn´t, it is a polite way of saying "rich person" or "big time drug dealer/pimp/something illegal". I always joke with my husband that here "empresario" is a state of being, not actually being in business!
I have been here for ten years and seen positive changes, mainly with younger people, who don´t want to bribe or use networks, but want to get rewarded for hard work and good ideas (a lot of the Palermo Valley people and the start ups are working on creating a new business climate).
I am in contact with a lot of business owners--some support the gov´t, some don´t, some think it doesn´t go far enough--but none are freaking out over the current situation, they are busy making money.
My husband´s parents are very anti-K. But they admit that do to the very policies of this gov´t they hate, they are much better off than 7 years ago. They now have pensions they can live off of (they aren´t rich so no savings), get great medical care (free bypass surgery), and even help studying and starting a start-up solar panel business. But they curse the "bitch". . .
take the complaints with a grain of salt. Even now that people are complaining it is harder to travel overseas (I agree that the restrictions are awful). . . when I got here 10 years ago, NO ONE could afford to travel overseas.

Nobody denies that the country is better off than in 2001. People complain against insecurity, inflation, impunity and above all Arrogance...!!

 

[braytrain]

No, seriously, a lot of the people here are really stupid...
I mean, in the states they are just as stupid...

and Im talking average, and not so much intelligence as ignorance, gullibility, and overall lack of curiosity and thoroughness. As well as an obvious amount of time either watching crap on TV or just not learning correctly.

Go to northern Europe and you will see what I mean.

And dont pull the ¨youre not a real expat, you dont know argentina¨ thing on me.

 

[citygirl]

I always find it baffling when people pull out the "But we're better off than 10 years ago" card as a sign that the Kirchner's are the solution.

Seriously, 10 years ago was one of/if not the lowest point in Argentina's economic history. Of course Argentina is better off. Unless Argentina had descended into Somalia levels of anarchy (and hey you Liberterians, look how well Somalia is working out as a perfect example of libertarianism in action), there was no place for Argentina to go BUT up.

 

[nicoenarg]

I always find it baffling when people pull out the "But we're better off than 10 years ago" card as a sign that the Kirchner's are the solution.

Seriously, 10 years ago was one of/if not the lowest point in Argentina's economic history. Of course Argentina is better off. Unless Argentina had descended into Somalia levels of anarchy (and hey you Liberterians, look how well Somalia is working out as a perfect example of libertarianism in action), there was no place for Argentina to go BUT up.

Not a Libertarian myself (don't agree with a lot of what Libertarians have to say actually) but I think that statement is out of place.

If Somalia is a perfect example of Libertarianism then a cat must be a perfect example of what a Lion is supposed to be. Or an apple must be a perfect example of what an orange should taste like.

If one thinks Somalia presents one with a perfect example of why Libertarianism doesn't work (I don't actually think Libertarianism works anymore, but for different reasons) then looking at Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, etc one must conclude that democracy does not work.

Conversely, looking at Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, etc one must conclude that dictatorship is the best way of governing a populace.

If one wants to actually look at what is "wrong" with all of the countries mentioned above then one needs to look at their culture, not the specific form of government. Why is it that freedom of any kind leads to chaos in these countries? And why is it that dictatorships keep these countries in order (more or less)? Its the culture, not the "freedoms" exercised that are at fault.

And before some idiot jumps up and yells "racist". I am not talking about a race. You can be white, blue, brown, yellow, red, black...and have a specific culture where you would act one way or another in the way you were brought up.

Anyway, I know this deviates from the topic of the thread (which is what exactly?) but since we're on the subject of Somalia...

 

[citygirl]

Well.. I was thinking of places that were worse off than Argentina in 2001 and Somalia was the first spot that came to mind as worse.

And every time I think of libertarianism, I have to take a little poke. Libertarianism holds as a central tenet that there should either be no government or that it should be limited only to protection of the population from coercion and violence. And voluntarily funded.

And Somalia certainly fits the no government model. And it certainly hasn't worked out very well for the Somalis

And before the libertarians jump on me and tell me that Somalia is an example of anarchy, not true libertarianism, I will simply say give me one example of ANY country where "true libertarianism" has worked? Because AFAIK, in any place where there is not a relatively strong central state - it hasn't worked out really well for the population. (Too strong of course runs you into some opposite problems). And if you don't have a strong central gov't, other entities (often criminal) step in to provide a type of order in lieu of gov't. And that isn't exactly what I would call voluntary cooperation/voluntary funding either. So arguing a theory of how it could work - when all evidence points that it doesn't work - seems a pretty futile exercise.

Which agreed, is far off topic from the originally nonsensical topic.

 

[nicoenarg]

Well.. I was thinking of places that were worse off than Argentina in 2001 and Somalia was the first spot that came to mind as worse.

And every time I think of libertarianism, I have to take a little poke. Libertarianism holds as a central tenet that there should either be no government or that it should be limited only to protection of the population from coercion and violence. And voluntarily funded.

And Somalia certainly fits the no government model. And it certainly hasn't worked out very well for the Somalis

And before the libertarians jump on me and tell me that Somalia is an example of anarchy, not true libertarianism, I will simply say give me one example of ANY country where "true libertarianism" has worked? Because AFAIK, in any place where there is not a relatively strong central state - it hasn't worked out really well for the population. (Too strong of course runs you into some opposite problems). And if you don't have a strong central gov't, other entities (often criminal) step in to provide a type of order in lieu of gov't. And that isn't exactly what I would call voluntary cooperation/voluntary funding either. So arguing a theory of how it could work - when all evidence points that it doesn't work - seems a pretty futile exercise.

Which agreed, is far off topic from the originally nonsensical topic.

Oh no I agree with you that "true libertarianism" (whatever that means) doesn't work. And those saying that libertarianism hasn't worked because it hasn't been correctly applied are no different than those saying that communism doesn't work because it hasn't been correctly applied.

However, Somalia is not a Libertarian state. Far from it. Somalia is an example of a f**ked up culture. They would act the same way even if there was democracy (edit) with a central government. Only then it would be sanctioned by that government and would get less attention in the media.

I think Libertarianism has its own problems. One doesn't need to paint the map of Somalia and shoot an arrow at it with the flag of Libertarianism to prove what's wrong with it.

PS: I'm glad that this is off topic since the OP was written by a douche not worth addressing.