Look Matias your stance on the IMF is pretty clear but if your going to be objective in any form you would have to acknowledge the significant role of corruption and poor management (including high public deficits caused by surprise surprise, high public sector wages amongst other things) played in the 2001 crisis. There was also many external factors. The IMF have already acknowledged a lot of its failings anyway (ie the fixed exchange rate). But, that doesnt mean that the free market theory doesnt work and wouldnt work (if applied properly) in Argentina.
Just like Bajo Cero you dont want to answer the question: Why is it that a free market is working so beautifully across the Andes in Chile?
You re right. I said it a lot of times here and in other threads before, that unlike the argentinean, the chilean dictatorship with its neoliberalism project and the chicago boys recepies did work out and is a successful experience. Although they started with a coup d etat to a democratically elected government that not by chance had the total opposite ideas. That made it with the 100% support of the US (who by the way killed former Allende ministers like Prats or Letelier -google Michael Townley).
Chile is indeed a very success experience.
We can say that Brazil also was a good experience. The 1964 coup d etat (curious, another country that had these ideas implemented anti democratically... and if we dig a little deeper we found that the tarán
100%!! of Latin American countries had this people with these new ideas coming outside the law to implement them... just curious) of Brazil had the same purpose that had the 1966 in Argentina: create a solid, consistently bourgeoisie that could lead economically the country. Brazil was in this aspect even better since they had an industrial bourgeoisie, that mean that from 1964 Brazil started unstoppable industrialization (unlike Chile or Argentina).
In Argentina as I said before these ideas came with the 1966 dictatorship, and it didnt work, in fact, those militars lost the control of the country and had to allow the return of Peron. But the 1976 bloody dictatorship, made a second try, they did anything the US said, and allow the bigger enterprizes of this country to take debt in dollars to finally traspassed it to the State. There was a liberated interest rate, an indiscriminate commercial opening, that destroyed the local industry, there was a crisis provocated by the poor management of the exchange rate with the "tablita cambiaria" with a posterior devaluation: the day before the devaluation the minister of Economy said: "el que apuesta al dolar pierde"... They did everything wrong.
So basically there were two tries to implement these free market ideas in Argentina: one under a bloody dictatorship, which consequences were still the hyperinflation of 1989 -since was provocated from the debt, and the other experience was menemismo, a totally fake stability that private sectors and IMF demanded to make bussiness with peoples money, like privatizations, AFJPs, etc, which ended as we all know.
I dont know if it is a cultural matter that made Chile a good experience and Argentina a failure. Chile also has issues, like a huge inequality (compared to Argentina or Uruguay). The not free education law, for instance, is from the dictatorship, and there are lots of chileans that have to come here to live and study. Every time more and more. So, it was successful, but Chile is not so far better than this country is. At least from social indicators. They havent got industry like once we had. They have not diversificated their exports, they still have a strong dependency on the copper, more than we have it with the soy.
The less corruption is something that explains (a part of) the success of an economic model.
The three more developed countries from a social point of view of this continent are Chile, Argentina and Uruguay, in that order, by a little difference. Then it comes Cuba in the 4th place, with a little more difference. Argentina and Uruguay have always had almost the same socio-economic model, and the same protectionist policies. Chile is different, it has an open economy, its another model.
I would say the three of them are a (relative) success.
