Is Argentina's Economy "unstopable" Or "growing And Growing"

[ElQueso]

Hey Magico, I understand where your frustration comes from. I just wanted to make a point about unions, charity and libertarianism. I know you don't want to have a conversation about that, but since you laid out a bit of a misconception about exactly that, I feel I need to respond.

First, Libertarianism has absolutely no problems at all with unions and workers organizing, in concept. Zero. The problem that Libertarianism has about unions as they currently are (at least in the States) are things like the government making a law that says once the workers of a company vote to unionize, that by law (at least in some States, backed up by a federal law) that: 1) all the workers at that company have to be in the union and 2) the company cannot simply fire everyone and start over, but rather must treat with the union.and 3) that union workers are allowed to use force (be it legal force or physical force - and I know, physical is not condoned by law but rather often overlooked unless the violence gets out of hand) to meet their ends, where the companies really have no recourse.

Also, Libertarianism isn't the only belief system that has a problem with unions, in the US, as they are today. Unions and charity don't have to have anything to do with Libertarianism, although from your comments you are as wrong about Libertarianism as most conservatives are about the "evil liberals" in the US. The idea that Libertarianism is "a horribly selfish high income bracket fetish. Let us get richer, "charity" can look after the poor." kind of belief system is not accurate, but sounds a lot like what both Democrats and Republicans say about us in the States. I.e., misleading propaganda.

I can see nothing wrong with workers banding together and demanding higher salaries and better working conditions. I also see nothing wrong with the company saying "no". What we have in the US in many cases has far outstripped the meaning of trade unions to begin with and is moving more towards the old Guild system, which was basically a monopoly in any given industry for which there was a guild (and again, only in places - States like Texas, a right-to-work State, doesn't have those problems. People may think Texas has other problems, but that's fine, we'll continue to accept fleeing industry and workers from other States to a State where there is no state income tax and no union laws! The workers don't complain all that much that I'm aware and I worked from construction, to designing, to software development [and that in a couple of different industries] in the last 34 years - a few different industries, some of which were shit work pure and simple). And at least some of the industries where criminal elements have entered to take advantage of the union system are helping to make those industries much less competitive and are causing serious problems.

I can remember a time in Chicago (mid-90s) when I was a presenter in a booth at a big QA trade show (the ISO 9001 QA software that I wrote for the offshore drilling company I worked for was so good that many other companies were asking if they could buy it and we decided to see what kind of a market existed for it). It took forever to get anything done getting our booth set up because we weren't allowed to touch anything until everything had been set up. One union had the rights to this bit of work, another union had the right to the other work, and god forbid should I try to attach my computer to the display system that yet another union was going to set up. Ridiculous. Really, like a bunch of children.

What I would strive for is a better balance (and here, I'm taking off my Libertarian colors and simply trying to be human - and it's pretty much what you stated as well). You can't have workers demanding from entrepreneurs and businesses more than they can pay, as businesses should not demand that workers work for less than the job is worth, or treat those workers like slaves and not give a crap about working conditions.

If workers want to get together and unionize, more power to them. If they want to go on strike, more power to them.

Think about this: why does the government have to require that a business treat with workers who go on strike? Why can't people see that a majority of workers walking away from a job will cause that company big problems in re-hiring and re-training their workers? The business would no more want that than they would want to give the janitor the same amount of money as a welder (for example) because the two jobs require completely different skill sets and pretty much anyone could be a janitor with about a week's worth of training.

If such a strike happened, you wouldn't be placing the business against the wall, but would require it to take a good, long look at its policies and if there was an industry-wide work stoppage because employers had gotten together and tightened the screws on all workers, they would be justified in bringing that industry to its knees.

But if someone else wants to come in and do the same job for a cheaper price - that is what the market will bear. I'm not sure I understand this concept that workers are better than employers. They are both extremely important to the economy and neither side should have a bigger advantage than the other. But that doesn't mean a garbage collector should make the same as a pipe fitter. Some jobs are shitty and don't pay very well - but those jobs, no one should try to make a career out of. They should be stepping stones to others or should be emergency fall-back jobs in lieu of being out of work. However, if no one will work at those shitty jobs at the price offered, the businesses that employ people in those positions will have to pay more or they won't find anyone to work the job! these are no longer the says (in countries that have relatively functioning economies, anyway) where people are forced to work how they don't want to. Well, except with all of the government interference in the US, maybe people are being forced into positions they don't want because of the lack of opportunities.

Anything in the past related to employers, en masse, treating the workers bad was actually in a time when governments worked more directly and openly with the rich owners of business to shut down the workers. Unions were effective in changing this, but at least in the US it has gone too far. I know it's gone too far here, in Argentina, where bus drivers make more than many doctors. And BTW - companies here are required to pay the worker's union fees! Let's not even talk about all of the labor laws created here to make things "fair" for workers and are outright damaging to business...and the target of the "aid" is far from helped except in specific cases where they are "in" with the government or have friends that can get them a cush job.

As far as charity goes - the problem I have with government-sponsored charity is that it never stops, is horribly inefficient, and many people have different ideas about how charity should be implemented. The government telling me that I should pay x amount of my earnings for each baby someone has, for example, is unwarranted force - I (and a lot of people, not just Libertarians and conservatives!) think that giving money in this fashion is actually contributing to the problem and making it worse, not solving anything or really helping anyone. In fact, it is a big way in which politicians leverage their votes, much as choripan and futbol para todos here. I won't go into the economics of this, but there are many writings on this all over the place.

It would be like you coming up to me with a gun and telling me that you are collecting money to give to people that you deem worthy, even if I think those people are fooling you into thinking they need help and can't get it any other way. At least that would be more personal than some faceless bureaucracy sending me to prison for not agreeing with such a thing.

If people want to be humanitarian and help others - do it! You have that right! And in fact, in this day and age of every body having such a hard time, I find myself working three different projects from two different companies just to keep me and my family afloat, and I still help poor people! Every freaking day! But I choose who to help, who is deserving and who I can actually help. I don't give money to bums on the street because I know there are shit jobs available and these guys aren't doing a thing to help themselves (old men and ladies, obviously mentally or physically handicapped people are one of my exceptions - but kids have their healthy parents waiting nearby to collect the money they beg). However, I have loaned money without asking for it back, I have built houses (not with all of my money - I usually help others help others), I've bought water pumps for wells so subsistence farmers can irrigate their crops, given advice on what to grow, how to get it to market, etc.

Teach them to fish, maybe help them buy the rod, string and hook, but don't give them the fish because they will continue to be a drain on your resources. And like the lesson I learned in India when I gave a poor kids some pocket change - they'll swarm you after the first one!

The government takes incentive away from people to help other people and vast sums of money and effort are wasted as a result.

You have an incorrect view of Libertarians (at least what you stated), and not all people who don't like unions and government-run charity are Libertarians and Conservatives, and many (if not most) of those who hold these views are not selfish wankers who don't give a crap about anyone else. They simply have different views on the best way to approach these serious problems, which have gotten worse and worse with more government intervention not better (at least in the States).

Although there are many rich, racist and/or elitist people in all parties, Libertarians aren't only rich, racist elitists who want to get richer and hold others as slaves. In fact, even the most racist Libertarian only wants to be free to choose with whom he or she associates, and has zero desire to see anyone else held back, no matter their race, or they're not Libertarians - that I guarantee! And of course, government intervention along racist lines in the US has done so much good to resolve the problem

I know you said you didn't want to debate this, and I'm not, I'm just giving an alternate view to your rather harsh statements, specifically about Libertarians

 

[JoeGillis]

ElQueso, great post. You're never less than thorough on a subject, and the clarity of your writing is commendable. Your summary of the basic tenets of Libertarianism will, hopefully, clear up a lot of the misconceptions about it.

 

[ElQueso]

I did not say the economy was growing and growing this exact year.

I said the GDP (not the economy) has been growing and growing under the K years. Pretty much what the chart says. But I guess everybody can understand whatever they want.

I was referring as the GDP under the K years, not the last two years. Look, if you read me, you know Im the first one who recognises the recession and the curren t problems (for instance, the import restrictions represented maybe 3 or 4 points of less growth. I talked and talked and talked here on that and Im the first one who says that).
But if someone says that the GDP under the Ks, as in the 12 years, has been going backwards Im the first one to say "you re wrong". BTW the recession, as I said, is not that strong, nothing compared with Menemismo/Alianza recession, some people say we can continue growing next year. Lots of people all these years were telling "the chaos will come" "the economy is weak" "we are very bad". The same people that now talk of unemployment. Time will tell (and it has been telling bad news to these people).

God, I'm such a masochist.

As far as your use of "is" versus "has been" - you're right, I apologize. You weren't using past simple tense (my obvious mistake), but rather present-prefect continuous. Which, BTW, mostly indicates something that was happening in the past and continues to happen in the current time frame. You should have used "had been", which is past-perfect and indicates a situation which terminated in the past and is no longer happening.

When did Cristina get out of office? I thought she still had a year left, and as I've mentioned repeatedly and repeatedly, at least since 2012, part of the "K" years, the growth was running down and as of 2013 had stopped. And again, those are false numbers. Even if they weren't false numbers, the economy starting slowing significantly in 2012 and topped out in 2013 (the graph shows that clearly). Leave aside whatever posturing and lying Cristina does with her administration, that leaves 3 years still in the "K" years. Clearly happened during the "K" years (assuming it either stays the same or drops, as expected, during 2015), and more specifically, during the first half of Cristina's second term, when she really started going "nuts".

[Edit:] Now, perhaps I don't understand what you mean "during the K years". If you mean while Nestor was still in office, and afterward when he was still alive during Cristina's first term, then you would be right, that there was growth during the K years. I alwasy take the "K" years to mean Kirchner, which also take to mean both Nestor and Cristina. [End Edit]

But you continued to argue that it "had been" growing every time I refuted what I thought was you saying it was still growing. Not until now did you state that you understood the growth had stopped (unless I missed it).

And we ain't even close to a full-on recession yet. As I stated, the worse is yet to come when the government runs out of ways to prop things up and make it not seem so bad - as if around 40% inflation isn't bad already.

However, you tell me that the recession is not that strong, that it's not going backwards - and still ignore the actual value of the Dollar versus Peso, as opposed to the current fantasy level the government has devoted so much of its resources to over the last two years or so trying to make it not.

And while I've seen you every once in awhile say you don't support the "Ks", your comments often do not reflect that. The fact that you say Cristina and the "Ks" have done so well refutes your very statement that you do not support them. Or, at the very least, you are defending them which is certainly a manner of support.

 

[ElQueso]

ElQueso, great post. You're never less than thorough on a subject, and the clarity of your writing is commendable. Your summary of the basic tenets of Libertarianism will, hopefully, clear up a lot of the misconceptions about it.

I tend to get on my soap box too much, I think, and actually alienate people some times. I don't think I will change anyone's mind, but at least, when people talk about us "evil Libertarians" and often confuse us with right-wing conservatives in the States, (maybe because there are now some self-professed libertarians running as Republicans, I think), I just can't shut up.

 

[Alicia karr]

El Queso: Well for what it's worth, I don't view libertarians as self centered extremists any more, thanks to your articulate (and verbose) postings. Thanks for your time, patience and self disclosure that has helped inform and educate me. And great that you walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

 

[StevePalermo]

I'll add my thanks to El Queso for his time and and effort in his posts. I'm certainly no libertarian but he's always interesting and makes me think.

 

[StevePalermo]

And to Magico, my friends in the banda amariilla think you were the best ever. A true legend. One friend often used to hang out with you on the beach, with you playing your guitar and smoking a porro, on the day before a a game!

 

[Pensador]

You seem to have imagined an entire scenario where I am Argentine and sticking up for Argentina. I am glad I am not in this instance, as I would have read your message as patronising misty eyed hokum, frankly.

I am not.

I am Irish, work for a US multinational in a regional role, having worked extensively in Europe in a similar position.

I am not interested in the no govt-small govt-big govt spectrum of debate. Your experience is just that, I don't think it's common or universal and wealth distribution patterns bear that point out without me getting involved. It's nice that you believe thar hard work gets you too the top, but it's not a universal truth. I imagine you are aware that the epoch in which you grew up and the current one present vastly different barriers to education and employment, ones which are not lept over solely via "hard work".

A solid legal framework, regulated unions and employer flexibility should exist in tandem. My point is simple, and doesn't require an emotional argument nor an imagined foe to present itself.

Explain to me exactly how someone working on a zero hour contract, with no financial recourse to get themselves through college, or even without the intellectual capacity to do so, can "hard work" their way up and out of the current US poverty trap.

Not possible. +

Lucky you grew up in an era before the wealth distribution pattern we are stuck with took hold and barriers to education and zero hour contracts were created. Can we imagine that, can we ? Can we not be highly subjective and maybe take a broader view of the problem in a contemporary context? Might that not be more important than your own personal Dick Whittington story?

The game has changed, the pitch has tilted and effective unions are a necessary counterbalance. I understand that in the hyper sensitive north american context this amounts to socialism, or worse the old pinko bogeyman, however it's not. It's simply a counterbalance to an employer dominated playing field and a legal framework which does not support any type of social negotiation or bargaining. This is again all outside of my personal needs, I'm all right jack gringo, but I am not so lacking in empathy (even though I might vote Macri!) that I cannot see the need for some balance between employer and employee. Not a very American concept, but us Europeans are fairly fond of it.

A little more regulation might might have avoided any myriad of crisis, that's another discussion.

I don't believe for one second in libertarianism in any of it's guises, cards on the table, I think it's a horribly selfish high income bracket fetish. Let us get richer, "charity" can look after the poor. I won't debate it for a second as experience tells me it's about as worthwhile as launching yourself into online climate debate or worse religion. No thanks, not going there. It's all wrapped up in the same selfishness that allows us to think that no employee bargaining is a good idea.

Again, I'm not in a union, I don't need to be, thanks for patronising me with your campfire tales of a how you made your fortune, it´s not inspirational to me or relevant. However, there are folks to whom it a well regulated union could be the difference between social mobility or not, to me that's important.

PS. Just for fun, google Magico Gonzalez, he's not Argentine.

PPS. Assumptions, what is it the say about them again....

Your post made it but your English text well we won’t go there. So I assumed you were Argentinian. I apologize for that. Having dislexia myself I thought my text was bad.

I will reply your post in detail in the next day or two.

 

[Jaredberryman]

I am not a full on libertarian but do identify with many of the ideals that elqueso just pointed out (and also libertarians). Most libertarians or who think like Elqueso are small business owners. They think a lot about their 3 or 4 workers and how they can continue to keep those three or four workers employed. When the government starts imposing a lot of taxes, it makes it very difficult to have many employees at a small business. Keep in mind that most businesses both in Argentina and the US are small businesses.

The point here is that keeping things efficient and having common sense solutions go a long ways. The problem is that large national governments are incapable of implementing a strategy for an entire huge country and usually try to manipulate and jocky for power without considering the impact of their decisions on the average person. For instance, if I make 35,000 USD a years in Texas, I am not truly poor. On such a salary it's basically possible to own a house, a car, and put food on the table every month. I don't really consider that poverty. But if I make 35000 in New York? Then you are in trouble. So why on earth should we expect such drastically different places to have all the same social programs? Wouldn't it be better to let each state handle its own social issues as they arise?

Libertarianism is about giving power back to the people and not a national government. It's also about limiting the power of a bloated military that is completely unnecessary, reducing debts, divorcing business from government, and making things more efficient for everyone from the poor to the rich. Argentina could use some more libertarianism.

Thomas Jefferson, who is the architect of American democracy, was basically libertarian. Although there are some points I do not share with some libertarians, it is far more attractive than a lot of other political ideals that are out there, such as democrat/Republican, Socialist/Communist, or Peronist/Radical. I think there are some major misconceptions about that from many people on this forum, and especially about the kind of people that support such a political system.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

Your post made it but your English text well we won’t go there. So I assumed you were Argentinian. I apologize for that. Having dislexia myself I thought my text was bad.

I will reply your post in detail in the next day or two.

Pensador - Don't bother, seriously. You were hovering around my ignore list for a while, so this was an easy decision. Chau querido.

I was working in Spanish and often when writing off the cuff posts to people like you in another language I don't apply much rigour to my grammar or spelling. That's kind of how this new fangled internet chat forum concept works.

Kewlll, innit? XxX

If it bothers you, I can assure you my grammar in English or Spanish is more than adequate to deal with your long winded, self absorbed campfire dirges.

Mmmkaayy.

El Queso, nice post. I don't see that your caring, sharing market anarchist views stack up with the all pervasive Koch brothers malign version . I don't understand how social services, public infrastructure and education would be funded in your model and that's the problem I have. Theoretical politics are the luxury of the unelectable I suppose, but really I have never seen a costed model which would support a country with a wealth distribution problem and a growing mass of people living in poverty. Please, don't go to the lengths of trying because I really really don't want to go any further.

Again, Libertarianism is of late a North American phenomena thankfully, so it's not something I feel the need to get into in great detail with you on a thread on the Argentine economy. By the way, we share the same diagnosis but would prescribe different medicine. I respect your beliefs, whilst I can't agree with them. Let's leave it at that. Otherwise we will both end up down the rabbit hole followed closely by the ironically named Pensador.