It's hard to have anything to export, except agricultural commodities, when you have little industry and/or little to no quality product to export and no incentive to innovate and compete internationally. When you have nothing else to export, and your imports are controlled through actual import restrictions and/or the amount of products your citizenry can afford to purchase (with or without credit), it's not too hard to have a surplus I reckon.
If you had even a semi-efficient industry, not only would you have decent jobs for a lot of people, but you'd be selling those products "outside." Argentina could be well-placed to do that - China figured it out to an extent in their own way, Brazil is working on it. It's not completely hopeless. Argentina could take advantage of the nations with money who consume by producing something more durable and cheaper. If you can produce cheaper and more efficiently than others, you can make a profit on more than just selling food and a lot of people win.
Of course, then Argentina would face a problem of continuing to compete - que paja.
How is their trade balance on non-agricultural items? Is their trade of agricultural commodities sufficient to move an economy forward in the 21st century? If not, is it really helping the Argentine citizen to make it impossible to profit from other ventures?
Maybe, I'm not an expert, but I tend to think not as well as other countries who are moving forward in other areas. Food is still necessary, for sure, but what kind of price does it command in relation to other industries and opportunities for workers? Farming nowadays, even in Argentina, doesn't employ enough people I think.
It takes more than just opening up the credit spigots and buying everything on loan, you're right - the US is showing us that nicely as well.
Argentina could compete very well internationally, was my point, if they set their minds to it. I didn't mean just open up trade between Argentina and other nations and put the cost on the back of the people. I was talking about reforming labor laws, banks, courts, corruption, making business easier and less costly, giving opportunities to more and more people, etc. Get away from this concept that the government knows all, helps all, except when the big baddies from "outside" ruin things and don't give their "ideas" a fair chance. That the government has to control things for the good of its people and without the government intervention and control, all hope is lost.
How well did the government here implement such concepts as free(r) markets, personal reliance and responsibility, education, rule of law, etc, while they were opening credit spigots and spending it on social programs and coima and such, instead of investing in infrastructure and schools and police and other things that can help business instead of impede it? I mean hell - what Argentina could do with a functioning (again) rail transport system! Why is it that one city and its outlying area holds almost a third of the entire population of the country, in a pretty big country?
I've driven through Argentina to the north. You can't get anywhere easily. It's like the US in the 40's, before the interstate highway system was constructed. But at least the US had rail to ship its industry back then. Trucks clog the little two lane highways that run like small varicose veins through the country.
BTW - those charts you show originated from the same lovely group that just gave us the word that one is only poor if one makes something less than 1600 pesos a month (anything over that and, well, congratulations, you're not poor - but you have no options and no buying power and live una vida de mierda. Ok, you're really dirt, dirt poor if that's all you make, let's face the reality. In my opinion, you're very poor if you make three times that for the same size family, but hey, who's quibbling?). And 9.99% annual inflation. And a dollar rate that way overvalues the peso and allows the government to save its money while putting a lot of crap on the backs of the working people (well, I reckon not INDEC on that last one, but you get the drift of what I'm trying to say).
Not saying the charts are right or wrong, but I'd bet you a month's pay they're not telling the whole story.
Governments don't do well controlling everything, for the most part. Not even smart, relatively efficient governments in developed nations. What makes one think that the moves Cristina is doing, including having a nifty trade balance on the commodities markets, are well thought out and have a good probability of raising Argentina out of poverty? Even if the forced exports when importing items keeps the trade balance going in their favor, how many companies are going to continue to fold up or reduce business because people are in business to make profits, not support social programs?
Is stealing a multi-billion dollar oil company really going to change things? If the oil companies she is talking to now end up not wanting to do business because they don't trust Argentina, is she going to blame her inability to start the oil-money pump (which could give the illusion that her policies are working - give me enough money to build a big enough lever and I could move the Earth) on them, or on her policies, which don't really seem to be stabilizing things over the long run, as the success of a country's economy is made of more than a trade balance sheet.
I don't know. Probably China will end up taking a chance there at least - they need the actual oil, the other companies just want to make money.
What I do know is that Argentina is headed toward something that doesn't look too fun, and a whole lot of people are worried about it.
As far as the money borrowed goes, again, the country borrowed the money, right or wrong. They defaulted on the loans and told a lot of people, who are not governments and big businesses (well, not all of them), to go screw themselves, even to calling the debt "the invalid foreign debt."
So how is it exactly, as was one of my main points, that the "outside" is punishing Argentina for being on the cutting edge of defaulting, isolationist nations? Are they expecting the "outside" to just give the money for free, without either the requirement to pay it back, or the need to pay interest on it? Are they expecting everyone to rush in and risk money in Argentina based on past performance? Is it punishing someone else to not take a chance on them after they've screwed you? Do they really think the "outside would, or should, do anything else?
Or is she just saying that Argentina did what it had to do and they'll all be laughing out of the other side of their face when she gets done?
Argentina has every right to turn protectionist if that's what they want to do, but saying they're being punished by the "outside" is diverting attention from the real problem. And claiming that today, Argentines are better off, or even that they will be better off due to the government's policies, is a pretty big pill to swallow if you ask me.
And how, exactly, have the Argentine people begun to live better? I don't see it. Since she took over, things have gotten worse, no matter whose fault it is. Something's not working and the trade balance doesn't seem to be helping much. Well, I guess it's keeping things from completely collapsing. For now. Hope something doesn't change there.
