Interested in Argentina

[Quantum Sparkplug]

Hi, I've been lurking for about 6 months and am impressed by the website and it's forum members.

The politics and economics of Argentina fascinate me--albeit, somewhat morbidly!

I hope to ask intelligent questions that provoke discussion, rather than pontificate ad nauseam; a personal challenge for me!

 

[PhilinBSAS]

I hope to ask intelligent questions that provoke discussion, rather than pontificate ad nauseam)

Customary greetings and warm welcome.

Maybe you will visit Buenos Aires one day? Good place to be in my opinion.

 

[Quantum Sparkplug]

Thank you, Phil. I appreciate the welcome-- I will be returning to the Caribbean again this winter but wouldn't rule out BA, in the future-- if my personal psycho-geography permits!

I am intrigued by what to me has been inevitable since as long as I can remember; the present Socialist revolution taking place in parts of S. America.

As surely as Martin Luther King, Robert and John Kennedy were murdered while attempting to slowly inch America towards a more truly egalitarian society, so has Central and South America been, in a sense, murdered--but it is coming back to life. I am not a Communist, but understand the pure frustration and anguish that drive revolutions. I am a democratic Socialist, through and through and always will be.

I'm afraid of the disruption, crime and chaos that all of these changes may engender and also the mob rule that democracy can bring. Nevertheless, I appreciate some of the basic changes Chavez and Kirchner are attempting to make.

Take care!

(That's what i mean by pontificating!)

 

[Bajo_cero2]

well, with all my respect, chaos and attemps of revolutions happened in sout america during the seventies. Now adays the governments you talk about are against the neoliberal economy doctrine and the FMI. They follow some kind o neo keynes doctrine tuned up to the particulary status of each country plus anti trust mesure. So, keynes was no precisely a communist. Regards

 

[ItsyBits]

From a social democratic point of view I think Uruguay is the most interesting player in South America. Sadly for them they have to depend on the performance of their neighbors and their bullying big brother Argentina. They don´t have any of the muscles in terms of natural resources, but have been smart and now have a diversified export to be less dependent of Brazil and Argentina's ups and downs.
Democracy index 2011 ranks Uruguay(17) higher than the UK(18) and the US(19).
Argentina is considered a flawed democracy and has rank 51. Venezuela, is considered a hybrid regime(97) and is beaten by a bunch of African countries.
Corruption levels in Uruguay are low, at least compared to its main trading partners.
Press freedom index is pretty good.
Social programs are implemented and seems to be under control.
Being a small economy they seem to have adopted a similar economic strategy as for example Sweden with an active central bank and monetary policy to fight inflation and keep prices stable. I think this is a better way to deal with the dollar problem than Argentinas. De-dollarization by credibility in your own currency.

To me, all this shows what countries like Argentina and Venezuela has to deal with instead of ignoring and in many cases making it worse.
Doesnt matter if you lean more to socialism or capitalism, without a working democracy, independent institutions, transparency, rule of law and professional people in charge the outcome is most likely gonna be a failure.

If it is cold, you can pee your pants and get warm. Argentina style. But it will get even colder later and it wont dry easily. Better to get dressed properly to be prepared for cold days. It takes more planning, it is boring but in the end more efficient and less humiliating.

 

[HenryNisental]

Respect to south americam "socialism", pls note that socialism has failed here in cuba and anywhwere it was implemented.
In venezuela the revolution is financed with petrodollars(that is,a very high price of their main export: Oil).
As a matter of fact the opposite is true, most countries are moving to market econmies and very succesfully so.
However, i know that there is not worse blind that he who does not want to see.

 

[Quantum Sparkplug]

The success of third world and or former Communist countries moving towards market economies has been mixed, with media emphasis on the individuals who have benefited. China, is a case in point. There are still 800,000,000 Chinese who have not seen any benefit and who may be going backwards in some crucial areas. For others, participating in a global market economy means the freedom to be a factory slave.

With respect to Cuba, HNisenthal, I would call it a Communist regime, not Socialist. I don't think federal govt is elected. I would say that Cuba is likely better off than Hispaniola, both Dominican Republic and Haiti, neither of which are Communist. Is it as successful, in terms of gdp, as Brazil? No...but neither does it have death squads that bump off street kid vagrants. It is probably more stable than Trinidad and Tobago, too.

Part of Venezuela's revolution purpose is to educate all of it's people, provide basic infrastructure, fresh water, etc..I'm guessing. These features Chavez' revolution will stand them in better stead once oil is replaced by other forms of energy.

Canada's 'socialism' is also financed with tax dollars that fluctuate up and down with the price of oil. The average Canadian benefits--is relatively well educated, has universal health care, paved roads, fresh clean water. Should Chavez forgo instituting Canadian and Scandinavian types of change because they are purchased with proceeds from oil?

I am well traveled and well read-- not particularly ideologically blinkered-- so the reference to 'blindness' is lost on me.

Itsy Bitsy, The 'evolution was quelled in Central and South America AND the U.S., in the 60's and 70's and early 80's after key leaders were assassinated and worker's unions were solidly trounced. Whether it would have led to Communism, had it not been subject to foreign and elite interference is a question. Had it succeeded it may have simply meant more employee control, less money automatically funneled to the top 1%.

The super wealthy do NOT want the expectations of the underclass to alter appreciably. This is a two fold response to the poor. The wealthy are motivated by greed, in part, and fear of being overthrown in truly ugly ways

One of the reasons I am interested in this forum, is I am trying to gauge whether the upper class, particularly expatriots, are being singled out for mistreatment, crime partly because of resentment. Is there real class war brewing? That would be tragic as change can and should take place without violence.

 

[Quantum Sparkplug]

From a social democratic point of view I think Uruguay is the most interesting player in South America. Sadly for them they have to depend on the performance of their neighbors and their bullying big brother Argentina. They don´t have any of the muscles in terms of natural resources, but have been smart and now have a diversified export to be less dependent of Brazil and Argentina's ups and downs.
Democracy index 2011 ranks Uruguay(17) higher than the UK(18) and the US(19).
Argentina is considered a flawed democracy and has rank 51. Venezuela, is considered a hybrid regime(97) and is beaten by a bunch of African countries.
Corruption levels in Uruguay are low, at least compared to its main trading partners.
Press freedom index is pretty good.
Social programs are implemented and seems to be under control.
Being a small economy they seem to have adopted a similar economic strategy as for example Sweden with an active central bank and monetary policy to fight inflation and keep prices stable. I think this is a better way to deal with the dollar problem than Argentinas. De-dollarization by credibility in your own currency.

To me, all this shows what countries like Argentina and Venezuela has to deal with instead of ignoring and in many cases making it worse.
Doesnt matter if you lean more to socialism or capitalism, without a working democracy, independent institutions, transparency, rule of law and professional people in charge the outcome is most likely gonna be a failure.

If it is cold, you can pee your pants and get warm. Argentina style. But it will get even colder later and it wont dry easily. Better to get dressed properly to be prepared for cold days. It takes more planning, it is boring but in the end more efficient and less humiliating.

Thank you. This is very interesting. When I lived in Spain briefly, in the 80's, whenever I asked anybody what kind of govt they preferred, a right or left leaning one, they would automatically respond that they just wanted an honest one! PJ O'rourke wrote a very interesting book some years ago, wherein he travelled the world and established that right or left mattered much less than a strong rule of law that citizens integrated into their psyche's, that the judiciary stuck to and govts respected.

 

[Quantum Sparkplug]

The success of third world and or former Communist countries moving towards market economies has been mixed, with media emphasis on the individuals who have benefited. China, is a case in point. There are still 800,000,000 Chinese who have not seen any benefit and who may be going backwards in some crucial areas. For others, participating in a global market economy means the freedom to be a factory slave.

With respect to Cuba, HNisenthal, I would call it a Communist regime, not Socialist. I don't think federal govt is elected. I would say that Cuba is likely better off than Hispaniola, both Dominican Republic and Haiti, neither of which are Communist. Is it as successful, in terms of gdp, as Brazil? No...but neither does it have death squads that bump off street kid vagrants. It is probably more stable than Trinidad and Tobago, too.

Part of Venezuela's revolution purpose is to educate all of it's people, provide basic infrastructure, fresh water, etc..I'm guessing. These features Chavez' revolution will stand them in better stead once oil is replaced by other forms of energy.

Canada's 'socialism' is also financed with tax dollars that fluctuate up and down with the price of oil. The average Canadian benefits--is relatively well educated, has universal health care, paved roads, fresh clean water. Should Chavez forgo instituting Canadian and Scandinavian types of change because they are purchased with proceeds from oil?

I am well traveled and well read-- not particularly ideologically blinkered-- so the reference to 'blindness' is lost on me.

Itsy Bitsy, The 'evolution was quelled in Central and South America AND the U.S., in the 60's and 70's and early 80's after key leaders were assassinated and worker's unions were solidly trounced. Whether it would have led to Communism, had it not been subject to foreign and elite interference is a question. Had it succeeded it may have simply meant more employee control, less money automatically funneled to the top 1%.

The super wealthy do NOT want the expectations of the underclass to alter appreciably. This is a two fold response to the poor. The wealthy are motivated by greed, in part, and fear of being overthrown in truly ugly ways

One of the reasons I am interested in this forum, is I am trying to gauge whether the upper class, particularly expatriots, are being singled out for mistreatment, crime partly because of resentment. Is there real class war brewing? That would be tragic as change can and should take place without violence.

I meant response to Bajo Cero, not Itsby Bitsy--excuse me