Which neo-liberal economist says that Matias? Please do point out to me which "neo liberal" economist is saying that debt is good. Once again, you demonstrate that you have NO IDEA of what the term you like to throw around so much even begin to mean.
Here is a "neo-liberal" economist and this is what he has to say about debt:
So, it was an accident that in the only 2 neo liberals experiences this country had the debt grow that much. In the dictatorship, 7 years, it multiplied for 6, statizating the private debt the big enterprizes had, in dollars, and in the 90s, we implanted an economic model based in external debt growth, thats how we sustained the 1peso=1 dollar.
I know, youre going to tell me that those experiences werent in fact neoliberals, so how do you call it?
Because with the dictatorship we clearly attend to a change of paradigma, this society we had before, keynesianist, welfare state, productive, industrialist, full employment level, you name it, it just disappeared with the dictatorship. Since the oil crisis in 1970, and because the liquidity that crisis provocated to the central powers, they had this new necessity to lend money, to make it work. The climb of the oil prices in 1970 provocated the western banks with lot of money provenient from the oil producers countries, so what did they do with that money? lend it to third world countries, make them take debt, make the conditions to let them take debt. And considering they had militaries friends in power in Latin Amerian countries, that was a piece of cake. Afterwards, we have all along the 80s the debt crisis, Mexico in 1982, etc, the social crisis we have in 1989 was provocated from creditors, so they have even more power over this countries after the dictatorships ended.
So, how do you call it?
These policies were the same that the ones implemented in Chile, that you do consider neoliberals. And by the same people (Chicago boys) with a lot o similarities that are totally oposed to the state model society we used to have.
So, how do you name this change, these policies implemented in these two particular times of Argentine society?
Dont you think that if they werent purely neoliberals, (where do you find a pure model anyways? in Chile? the results are not so different from your hated Argentina!) they were in fact at least in that direction? that the main measures they took in these almost 20 years, and those structural changes were adviced by neo liberals? that the guidelines of making a small state and letting the market regulates are neoliberal? Reforma financiera 1977, apertura comercial, estatizacion de la deuda, reforma del estado (1992), privatizations, convertibilidad (if this wasnt neoliberal it served at least to the purpose of neoliberals to have stabilization and combat inflation, both central criticisms of the welfare state society) deindustrialization, letting the financial capitals flow, do whatever they want, etc, that in my world is clearly neoliberalism. Perhaps isnt the perfect neoliberalism model, but its pretty close. Dont forget that the theorists (from Argentina but also the IMF, World Bank, Washington Consensus, etc, clearly neoliberals) were the people behind these governments, the ones that had total power to do whatever they wanted.
