Fabricated Argentina Vs. Usa

[John1017]

I'm no expert on international finances and I don't speak Spanish well enough to capture everything Cristina has been saying but I have a couple of doubts, opinions and questions.

Is Cristina ignorant enough to believe it is the USA vs Argentina in all of this or is it just easier to get the country to rally around her when she attacks the USA as a whole. Are the argentine people ignorant to believe it is the USA attacking Argentina's financial system and debts?

If I understand correctly this was actually a blow to the Obama administration, and not a "victory" for the USA in general. This is more like the IMF vs Argentina. Yes no?

I feel like what Cristina and the government are saying, their anti American rhetoric, and their stubborn verbal attacks can only serve to fuel anti-USA feelings within the general public. I've spoken to several argentines who I consider well educated and they seem to know that the fault lies with the argentine government, this president as well as past presidents.

I feel however that the general public will buy into this anti-USA rhetoric and could actually make things difficult for expats.

Does anyone have an opinion on this, what can we do as an expat community here in Argentina to help people understand the situation? I try to tell people about the separation of powers and explain a little about the legislative branch, as well as a little about hedge funds and the IMF. Ideas?

 

[thorsten]

If there is one constant in politics (not only in Argentina, but in the whole world), then it's blaming a different group to detract from the local problems. The different group can be e.g. other countries, religions or terrorists. And it's used over and over again, because it works very well (in terms of a significant number of people believe the propaganda, not in terms of problem solving).

 

[ajoknoblauch]

If there is one constant in politics (not only in Argentina, but in the whole world), then it's blaming a different group to detract from the local problems. The different group can be e.g. other countries, religions or terrorists. And it's used over and over again, because it works very well (in terms of a significant number of people believe the propaganda, not in terms of problem solving).

Cristina may mean well, but she is mistaken. I thought even she knew it was the perfidious Brits from their power base in the Falklands.

 

[HenryNisental]

Dear John: welcome to the labyrinth of Argentine politics. The situation is clear for me, I think.
Is the logical consequence of a series of estatist (big government) policies originated by the Kirchners from day one in office. For example, the policy of trying to control the price of dollar here (cepo), which reduced our bank reserves by half, so far.
Also, many Argentines do not understand that in the USA, the division of power between the Executive and the Courts is more serious than here. They tend to think that Mr Griesa is just another Judge Oyarbide for Obama, but clearly he is not.
And third, politicians here usually play two different battles: one real outside in the Courts of New York and another different here for the populace or his followers(mostly ignorant of any int´l laws).
Also she may needing an excuse to quit now and blame it all on "greedy yanquee capitalists", and God knows who else. This way she may leave the door open for a return to Casa Rosada in 6 years or so.
Capisco?

 

[toongeorges]

If I understand correctly this was actually a blow to the Obama administration, and not a "victory" for the USA in general. This is more like the IMF vs Argentina. Yes no?

It is more like Argentina versus its irresponsibility.

You really cannot expect a US court to say that it is ok to default, since this would have implications on non Argentinian bonds as well, e.g. US treasury bonds would suddenly become "risky" as well.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Dear John: welcome to the labyrinth of Argentine politics. The situation is clear for me, I think.
Is the logical consequence of a series of estatist (big government) policies originated by the Kirchners from day one in office. For example, the policy of trying to control the price of dollar here (cepo), which reduced our bank reserves by half, so far.
Also, many Argentines do not understand that in the USA, the division of power between the Executive and the Courts is more serious than here. They tend to think that Mr Griesa is just another Judge Oyarbide for Obama, but clearly he is not.
And third, politicians here usually play two different battles: one real outside in the Courts of New York and another different here for the populace or his followers(mostly ignorant of any int´l laws).
Also she may needing an excuse to quit now and blame it all on "greedy yanquee capitalists", and God knows who else. This way she may leave the door open for a return to Casa Rosada in 6 years or so.
Capisco?

When the Kirchner(s) took over, they didn't have much choice but to institute neo-Keynesian policies (which worked for a while). The problem is that they never recognized the limits (or, if they did recognize the limits, they simply didn't care). Now, in the wake of failed policies the cepo, it's time to echar la culpa.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

Yes, people are stupid enough to believe most of what they hear. I have relatives in the US who are certain Obama is a Muslim and was not born in the US. They also believe that pretty much anyone from the Middle East (and anyone who wears a turban) must be a terrorist.

Stupidity really has no bounds.

 

[EdRooney]

Due to my weak stomach, I don't usually listen to politicians' ramblings (be they by Ms Kirchner, Mr Obama, or anyone else), but your post piqued my curiosity, so I just read the speech from yesterday and I couldn't find where she even mentioned the US or its people. I then tortured myself further by watching her speech from the day after the SC ruling, and again I saw nothing against the Obama government or the US in general.

Both the Obama administration and the IMF filed amicus briefs in favour of Argentina in this case, surely she knows that? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I haven't seen or read anything that could be construed as "attacking the US as a whole". Maybe there are older speeches I should be looking at or other sources I'm not aware of? Either way, I don't know how much more of the Queen's Speech I can go through without barfing up what had been a very pleasant breakfast, so could you maybe forward a couple of links or something to back up what you're saying?

 

[Gringoboy]

Barfing up, that's a larf.
Maybe the OP is referring to the Campora (aka Nazi Youth) stirring up anti colonialist/imperialist fervour in its march outside the US embassy?
Anyway, any perceived anti US feelings will be as nothing compared to anti UK sentiment as she rails on about he Falklands ad nauseam.

 

[EdRooney]

Agreed Gringoboy on both points, and I did notice the obligatory Malvinas Mention in yesterday's blather-fest. It is much easier to argue that she has an anti-UK rhetoric than an anti-US one. But I think there is an important distinction to draw between the rhetoric of the minions and the official state policy.

My point is that we often get a picture in the press about what a head of state is saying/doing that is completely inaccurate if not completely the opposite of the truth, eg:

• Obama is a Socialist! (even though he is dismantling the welfare state)

• Cameron is a right wing Nazi! (even though he has championed some leftist causes that Labour dared not touch)

• CFK is an anti-capitalist crusader! (even though her govt was the one that finally negotiated to pay off most of the country's debts)

In yet another example, today's Clarín leads with the headline "Ahora Cristina Está Dispuesta a Pagarle a los Fondos Buitres" even though she has already said many times over that she is willing to pay the holddouts. But the misleading headline feeds into a discourse that both the Cámporistas and the Opposition feed off of, just as both MSNBC and FOX feed off the utter falsehood that Obama is a socialist.

The over-arching lesson is that there is a lot of over-personalisation of politics here and elsewhere, and we expats seem to fall right into line with it, obsessing over manichaean images of leaders instead of actually looking at issues objectively.