Do you fear a crash similar to 2001?

[pizzadreams]

Lamarque:

I stand by what I said. I see major flaws in your arguments. There are big differences even between those countries. Countries around the world with a higher or just a high GDP per capita have a much lower quality of life than Norway, which ranks 1st in the HDI by the UN year after year. Nevermind the fact that Norway is extremely similar to its neighbours (which are also rich) culturally. In fact, I would bet out of all instances, the case of Norway is probably the most clear in terms of what would happen if it didn´t have large reserves of natural resources. The same cannot be said for many of the countries on that list. Natural resources such as oil aren´t necessarily good. They can be even bad (the resource curse, countries with rich natural resources but mired in poverty) To sum up everything, my main point was and still is that oil or any natural resource for that matter can be very important, but its importance pales in comparison to the values of a people, which decides how that gold mine is gonna be used. Norway doesn´t have the impressive indicators I mentioned because of oil, despite the fact that oil does make things easier, but because they are and have been a pragmatic nation with rational individuals. I would go as far as saying that if for some reason Norway, like it happened to Japan, was to be destroyed along with its oil reserves, it would steadily climb the development ladder and join the rich nations in a couple of decades again.

Let´s agree to disagree on some things and agree on others.

 

[lamarque]

Lamarque:

I stand by what I said. I see major flaws in your arguments. There are big differences even between those countries. Countries around the world with a higher or just a high GDP per capita have a much lower quality of life than Norway, which ranks 1st in the HDI by the UN year after year. Nevermind the fact that Norway is extremely similar to its neighbours (which are also rich) culturally. In fact, I would bet out of all instances, the case of Norway is probably the most clear in terms of what would happen if it didn´t have large reserves of natural resources. The same cannot be said for many of the countries on that list. Natural resources such as oil aren´t necessarily good. They can be even bad (the resource curse, countries with rich natural resources but mired in poverty) To sum up everything, my main point was and still is that oil or any natural resource for that matter can be very important, but its importance pales in comparison to the values of a people, which decides how that gold mine is gonna be used. Norway doesn´t have the impressive indicators I mentioned because of oil, despite the fact that oil does make things easier, but because they are and have been a pragmatic nation with rational individuals. I would go as far as saying that if for some reason Norway, like it happened to Japan, was to be destroyed along with its oil reserves, it would steadily climb the development ladder and join the rich nations in a couple of decades again.

Let´s agree to disagree on some things and agree on others.

Amen, lol, Agree on that last part, and i was never meant to say that Norway would be poor now a days even without oil, I only told you that they will not be in the club of the richest country’s, they of course have some good values, but the true is that they have a lot of very bad habits as well if they were to become a real free trade economy without a resource they have to exchange with the world as is the case of oil and aluminum. This fails are only tolerated because of the richness that oil provide to them, they have an extreme burocratic state, extremely high cost to do almost anything, ridicusly high taxes and are mostly dependent now a days on the state directly or indirectly (32% of the population work directly for the gobernment, and indirectly almost all its inhabitants get some form of government help, from pensions to, free health, to payed education you get pay to study there quite a lot so is normal to see people at the age of 35 still receiving public money to keep going on their 2 master for art or social caring or any kind of degree, at the end of the day this let you with a very small percentage of the population doing the heavy lifting and this is only sustainable because extreme oil income and small population base to divide this richness with, if you where to increase the population of Norway you will decrease more than proportional their gdp per capita as most of the new population will need to be employed by the government that will need to take away from the saving portfolio to spendings, oil industry don’t need more workers, fishing jobs are mostly done by foreigners, same with mining or most jobs related with the base economy).

In any case i do agree that Norway would be somehow ok without oil (not in the top positions but somewhere in the middle), at the end of the day it has other richness and still a very low population to share that big rich country and even if they were to have a small poor land they will do fine, not great but fine, mostly because small economies are dependent on neighboring big country’s and if the region does well they will tend to slowly go in the direction of the large economies that surround them if they are in a free trade union with them, if they lag behind they become cheap and new companies move in, but this will be at a high cost for them, no more free health, no more infinite money on studying your entire life and barely working no more huge pension spendings, no more having almost the entire country depending on the government jobs, in any case they have another advantage that is the need in this kind of country’s to know a second language or even third to actually communicate with the world as Norwegian is not useful outside of the 5 millions inhabitant that live there and use it, so if you ever need to look for material on something or watch tv or listen radio outside the very limited offer you have of content in Norway you are obligated to do it in English or other language making this languages even more useful than their own, that help them become very proficient on English and other languages, so if they were to become a cheap and poor country because of lack of commodity’s it will be a good location for new offices and headquarters for the biggest nation, only if they lower taxes of course like Ireland did to incentivize this big company’s to move there, after all 10% taxes is from a company that sales to Germany and pay taxes in your small country is a lot better than having 35% tax on nothing because no big company will ever move to your country if you don’t make it attractive as a small fiscal paradise for them to do so.



By the way I’m not looking to convince you of nothing, I’m just telling you why I believe what I believe and the logic that goes in my head to justify it.

 

[jantango]

 

[toongeorges]

It is going to get worse before it gets better. The IMF wants Argentina to reduce borrowing, public debt, the budget deficit, subsidies, ...

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Article...onomic-recovery-8-answers-to-explain-the-plan

 

[pizzadreams]

Too bad that channel is a propaganda vehicle funded by the very same people that led Venezuela to its current situation and a certain government that not only hid alarming poverty levels, but claimed Argentina had less poverty (-5%) than Germany when the number was almost 30%. Poverty levels today aren't that much worse than before, and these scenarios have been going on for decades.

 

[sergio]

It is going to get worse before it gets better. The IMF wants Argentina to reduce borrowing, public debt, the budget deficit, subsidies, ...

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Article...onomic-recovery-8-answers-to-explain-the-plan

"Children are facing an uncertain future".....That's hardly news!

 

[jantango]

From what we see today living here, it's hard to believe that Argentina was one of the ten richest countries in the world.

 

[perry]

Too bad that channel is a propaganda vehicle funded by the very same people that led Venezuela to its current situation and a certain government that not only hid alarming poverty levels, Argentina had less poverty (-5%) than Germany when the number was almost 30%. Poverty levels today aren't that much worse than before, and these scenarios have been going on for decades.

I find it sad that many expats are openly praising telesur a communist mouthpiece that recommends Venezuela as a model to aspire too. Maybe we can send those expats there to live there on 5 dollars a month and without any funcioning medical system and we can see how long they are screaming to get out!

 

[pizzadreams]

From what we see today living here, it's hard to believe that Argentina was one of the ten richest countries in the world.

Many people don´t know or ignore that in spite of that, Argentina wasn´t a "developed" country. Education levels were very low in comparison to, say, the US. Literacy rates were obviously lower then, but Argentina´s fared worse in that regard. Similarly, its economy relied too much on what happened abroad, as was the case with its trade relations with England. To make things worse, there was a harmful rural-urban division that still exists today, with a few powerful and influential landowners who possessed a disproportional amount of land. Don´t get me wrong, I´d like to think Argentina was at some point in the distant past at par with major powers, but upon further reading you realize that wasn´t really the case. Hence, the longing for becoming what it was is partly founded in false or inaccurate premises. Argentina´s success was short lived and one could argue non sustainable. Let us remember that the first populist and financially irresponsible President wasn´t Peron (even if at this point it seems clear he´s the one that did Argentina the most damage in the long term) but Yrigoyen, who was overthrown in 1930. My suspicion is that Argentina, in a way, was long doomed before Peron even took power.It is true other countries have suffered bouts of authoritarianism, populism and coups, but something has to be seriously wrong in a country for these things to be a recurring phenomenon for so many years.

Argentina never really was, and probably never will be.

 

[pizzadreams]

To top it off, Buenos Aires excessive centrality and disparity with other regions is certainly something to take into account. This is from a 2017 article showing the Human Development Index of every Province as elaborated by the UN. The Provinces at the bottom have African levels of poverty, with Santiago del Estero being disturbing.