Generation Z and Argentine Election

[Api]

No one is defending MM. I'm certainly not.

Yes, you're correct - 30% inflation year after year is the result of the state printing money when they can't rely on exports or loans. 30% inflation is obscene. Behind Venezuela and Zimbabwe it was the highest in the world. It kills the internal market. Disincentives investment. Leads to lower employment. Lower growth. Taxes the poor disproportionately.

There are other ways to develop an economy. It's not just the MM model or the CFK model - both disasters. Study the models of the successes like South Korea. They don't involve desperately relying on high prices for a few agricultural goods and expanding m2 at such rates it brings about stifling inflation.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

No one is defending MM. I'm certainly not.

Yes, you're correct - 30% inflation year after year is the result of the state printing money when they can't rely on exports or loans. 30% inflation is obscene. Behind Venezuela and Zimbabwe it was the highest in the world. It kills the internal market. Disincentives investment. Leads to lower employment. Lower growth. Taxes the poor disproportionately.

There are other ways to develop an economy. It's not just the MM model or the CFK model - both disasters. Study the models of the successes like South Korea. They don't involve desperately relying on high prices for a few agricultural goods and expanding m2 at such rates it brings about stifling inflation.

Bla. Korea is a US colony overpopulated and close to the other asian tigers. We are in the middle of no where lacking population.
The internal market was working very well with 30% inflation because the salaries were adjusted to inflation.
To pay 70% of interest to lebacs and leqiqs ehen CFK got the same for free is obscene.

 

[Joglide]

No one is defending MM. I'm certainly not.

Yes, you're correct - 30% inflation year after year is the result of the state printing money when they can't rely on exports or loans. 30% inflation is obscene. Behind Venezuela and Zimbabwe it was the highest in the world. It kills the internal market. Disincentives investment. Leads to lower employment. Lower growth. Taxes the poor disproportionately.

There are other ways to develop an economy. It's not just the MM model or the CFK model - both disasters. Study the models of the successes like South Korea. They don't involve desperately relying on high prices for a few agricultural goods and expanding m2 at such rates it brings about stifling inflation.

The real news from the political battlefront is the scale of the poverty facing a substantial minority of Argentinians:
"Poverty in Argentina rose from 32 percent to 35.4 percent in the first six months of the year, data from the national statistics bureau showed this week – the highest level since the economy collapsed in 2001. More than a third of those considered poor live in the country's 31 large urban centres, INDEC said. …
"The devaluation [in August, which saw the peso slump by 20 percent against the dollar], which occurred after the INDEC measurement, is already going to start to impact on poverty rates
...
The destitution rate, or extreme poverty, which measures those considered poor who cannot meet their minimum needs of any kind, increased from 6.7 percent to 7.7 percent from the second half of 2018 and in first half of 2019."

That is why as a privleged westerner I can understand why the mass of the population hate conservative policies.

 

[Api]

That is why as a privleged westerner I can understand why the mass of the population hate conservative policies.

I understand as well why most of the population doesn't want to give MM another 4 years. I don't think his policies were necessarily conservative / free market though. Besides loosening capital controls and eliminating or weakening some subsidies, there weren't many changes. Wall Street stopped lending money just for that reason.

They continued to run large budget deficits, continued to expanding money supply at high rates, tax structure the same, labor laws the same, managed the exchange rate, high tariffs on most imports.

 

[Joglide]

I understand as well why most of the population doesn't want to give MM another 4 years. I don't think his policies were necessarily conservative / free market though. Besides loosening capital controls and eliminating or weakening some subsidies, there weren't many changes. Wall Street stopped lending money just for that reason.

They continued to run large budget deficits, continued to expanding money supply at high rates, tax structure the same, labor laws the same, managed the exchange rate, high tariffs on most imports.

 

[Joglide]

Cannot agree with you. Macri explicitly heralded a new age of liberal economic policies as a means of transforming Argentina and ending poverty and unemployment. Hence the end of subsidies for utilities etc. He was given enormous support by the consrvative IMF for this reason. He freed the dollar controls and wanted to do more re labour laws. The fact that rsistance wss so strong in instituional structures does not indicate a desire to retain the legacy of controls he wished to end. Only his chronic failures and electoral warnings persuaded a return to policies of support for prices and controls. So he loses not because he did not want liberal-consrvative reforms but because he could not make them effective and dismally failed in terms of economic indicators. If he had been more raidcal and adventurous do you think he would have had more success and more popularity?? The evidence hardly suggests that.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Cannot agree with you. Macri explicitly heralded a new age of liberal economic policies as a means of transforming Argentina and ending poverty and unemployment. Hence the end of subsidies for utilities etc. He was given enormous support by the consrvative IMF for this reason. He freed the dollar controls and wanted to do more re labour laws. The fact that rsistance wss so strong in instituional structures does not indicate a desire to retain the legacy of controls he wished to end. Only his chronic failures and electoral warnings persuaded a return to policies of support for prices and controls. So he loses not because he did not want liberal-consrvative reforms but because he could not make them effective and dismally failed in terms of economic indicators. If he had been more raidcal and adventurous do you think he would have had more success and more popularity?? The evidence hardly suggests that.

With all my respect, what MM did was to revival the economy of the Virreynato (when we were a colony).

 

[julian63]

I'm a frequent visitor and even more so now that I married a Portena. It's been a while since I participated here, but feel obliged to comment on a discussion seeking to assign blame for the chronic economic problems suffered by so many, if not, most Argentines. I'm not sure who or what is responsible for Argentina' s long lasting failure to realize its potential as a veritable economic powerhouse given its high literacy rate, fertile campo and other vast natural resources, (though I might start by revising the antiquated labor laws). However, one thing is for sure. As an expat with US$, I no longer feel guilt taking advantage of the low cost of living for those of us expats with access to hard currency, esp the almight buck.

 

[Joglide]

I'm a frequent visitor and even more so now that I married a Portena. It's been a while since I participated here, but feel obliged to comment on a discussion seeking to assign blame for the chronic economic problems suffered by so many, if not, most Argentines. I'm not sure who or what is responsible for Argentina' s long lasting failure to realize its potential as a veritable economic powerhouse given its high literacy rate, fertile campo and other vast natural resources, (though I might start by revising the antiquated labor laws). However, one thing is for sure. As an expat with US$, I no longer feel guilt taking advantage of the low cost of living for those of us expats with access to hard currency, esp the almight buck.

You feel obliged to comment - so what is the point here? Are you saying that whoever is responsible then just enjoy the ride? Are the politicians and wealthy of Argentina free of responsibility also? I'm interested in your point but cant see it.

 

[julian63]

You did indeed understand my point -- enjoy the ride. I have been doing so, off and on, for over 45 years. I no longer empathize with the locals as I once did. Of course, some of the politicians and some of the wealthy share responsibility for the sorry state of affairs. So do others, e.g., the media (though this is redundant as they are controlled by the wealthy, union leaders (also wealthy via corruption), the students/youth who fail to generate serious political reform, a citizenry that accepts a villa 31 as the norm.
I'm not sure who else or what institutions (e.g. the church) are at fault for the chronic inability of Argentina to generate greater economic well-being for its populace. I'm not claiming expertise, but I believe a good starting point would be to revise labor laws (and perhaps tax structure), facilitate importation, invest in infrastructure, and eliminate all subsidies for people who do not need or deserve them.