Matias, stick to the point at hand. The point was whether the article was correct or not. GG has presented pretty strong evidence it was.
So, seeing as the Clarin article seems to now basically facturally correct, it begs the question of why there was such a big difference? I guess it was going in to someones pocket, as usual.
The country recovered ok on the back of 2001, but it was coming off a low base and basically gifted a free ride by booming soy prices. Now, the bubble has burst, the growth has bottomed out and we are on the slide again. In the last couple of years, I can think of plenty of things the Kirchner government has done wrong, but when I try to think of things it has done right I cant...
So, seeing as the Clarin article seems to now basically facturally correct, it begs the question of why there was such a big difference? I guess it was going in to someones pocket, as usual.
The country recovered ok on the back of 2001, but it was coming off a low base and basically gifted a free ride by booming soy prices. Now, the bubble has burst, the growth has bottomed out and we are on the slide again. In the last couple of years, I can think of plenty of things the Kirchner government has done wrong, but when I try to think of things it has done right I cant...