Los paises mas corruptos del mundo

[cabrera]

Sheep like Ghost and Mini who believe all that they read in the New York Times and Clarin and Wall Street Journal such honest newspapers, such unbiased reporting , such crap...............................

 

[mini]

Sheep like Ghost and Mini who believe all that they read in the New York Times and Clarin and Wall Street Journal such honest newspapers, such unbiased reporting , such crap...............................

blah blah blah. You have no idea what I think, believe or know. You are showing again you have serious reading comprehensions problems. When did I say anything about the NY Times or Clarin or the Wall Street Journal? Please point that out for me. I never read any of those newspapers. Nice try.

 

[steveinbsas]

I highly doubt that. From the tenure of your posts I can tell you are quite uneducated.

You misused the word "tenure" in your post. That was quite surprising, given the context in which you used the word.

Here's your vocabulary lesson for today:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tenure

Perhaps you should also learn the meaning of this word:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/malapropism

And then change the word tenure to tenor.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tenor

Perhaps tomorrow we can correct some of your grammatical errors and you may also learn when to use the word whom instead of who:

Do you understand what you are trying to discuss and with who ?

You left a space for the "m" but you didn't use it. Perhaps you just need an "emena" (juxtaposition intentional).

 

[SaraSara]

Sheep like Ghost and Mini who believe all that they read in the New York Times and Clarin and Wall Street Journal such honest newspapers, such unbiased reporting , such crap...............................

Such unbiased views, such clear thinking, such class..........

 

[cabrera]

Such unbiased views, such clear thinking, such class..........

Querida Sara you secretly admire and love me I know

 

[KatharineAnn]

I´m going to ignore the cat and dog fighting that has been going on for at least 4-5 pages of this thread (totally did not read any of it, scan right over all those posts containing blatant insults and cursing for no reason).

DISCLAIMER: ALL THAT FOLLOWS IS, IN FACT, MY OPINION BASED ON COMMON-KNOWLEDGE FACTS, BUT OPINION IN THE END. THANK YOU.

I´d like to take a stab at answering one of the question many posters asked in this thread: ¨Why do Argentinians always blame others for their problems?¨ Trying to ignore the offensive way this question was stated, I´d like to take a little trip back into history to think about why Argentina is ¨so corrupt¨, ¨a third world country¨, and victim of 6 dictatorships within one century, which would perhaps help explain why people feel the way they do?

If back in the early 1900s, the US and Argentina were both up and coming nations, very viable destinations to immigrate to, why did Argentina go downhill and not the US? Well of course lots of people like to blame the ¨Spanish influence¨ and I think this is correct, but not because its descendents are a bunch of lazy, incompetent idiots who just like to drink mate all day rather than get any work done. I blame the Spanish because of the way they colonized the continent, claiming land and resources for the Spanish crown, which in turn gave all lands to a valiant few who risked their lives killing off the natives to add to the wealth of their country (spain).

Argentina´s, and all Latin America´s, colonial history was a disaster, concentrating wealth into a very small few, giving power to a very small few, not giving opportunities to all but a very small few.

So that makes a lot of people victims of a wicked system. Being victims of this system, which is of course perpetrated by the haves (and certainly not the have-nots), I can completely understand the attitude of ¨why try, if it´s just going to be in vain?¨ which I find many locals have. I agree with the first worlders in that this is not a ¨productive attitude¨, but before you get on your high-horse and pat yourself on the back for being such an effective, sensible person, maybe you should consider that this self-defeating attitude is a product of their history, and not the cause of it.

I personally do not take any responsibility for my country´s (the USA) infrastructure and economy that allows us all to live so well and be so optimistic, efficient, and effective. I give that credit to the country´s founders, and many of their descendants, who have given me the possibility to have the incredibly easy life I have always had.

If all I saw were setbacks and barriers, I don´t think I would have any other attitude than the Argentine one, anyway. It´s the chicken/egg argument. I really feel like history shat big time on all latin america, so I don´t feel it´s their fault at all, but rather just a really terrible stroke of luck.

PS - If there was any question that countries founded on the premise of colonization with the purpose of sucking natural resources out of their land creates a very feeble foundation for an independent country, we need look no further than pretty much all of Africa, or large parts of Asia.

So, in summary, I do think it is the ¨first world´s¨ fault that many countries are so screwed up. I wouldn´t blame any of these countries for being inferior human beings or any such silliness.

 

[Lucas]

I´m going to ignore the cat and dog fighting that has been going on for at least 4-5 pages of this thread (totally did not read any of it, scan right over all those posts containing blatant insults and cursing for no reason).

DISCLAIMER: ALL THAT FOLLOWS IS, IN FACT, MY OPINION BASED ON COMMON-KNOWLEDGE FACTS, BUT OPINION IN THE END. THANK YOU.

I´d like to take a stab at answering one of the question many posters asked in this thread: ¨Why do Argentinians always blame others for their problems?¨ Trying to ignore the offensive way this question was stated, I´d like to take a little trip back into history to think about why Argentina is ¨so corrupt¨, ¨a third world country¨, and victim of 6 dictatorships within one century, which would perhaps help explain why people feel the way they do?

If back in the early 1900s, the US and Argentina were both up and coming nations, very viable destinations to immigrate to, why did Argentina go downhill and not the US? Well of course lots of people like to blame the ¨Spanish influence¨ and I think this is correct, but not because its descendents are a bunch of lazy, incompetent idiots who just like to drink mate all day rather than get any work done. I blame the Spanish because of the way they colonized the continent, claiming land and resources for the Spanish crown, which in turn gave all lands to a valiant few who risked their lives killing off the natives to add to the wealth of their country (spain).

Argentina´s, and all Latin America´s, colonial history was a disaster, concentrating wealth into a very small few, giving power to a very small few, not giving opportunities to all but a very small few.

So that makes a lot of people victims of a wicked system. Being victims of this system, which is of course perpetrated by the haves (and certainly not the have-nots), I can completely understand the attitude of ¨why try, if it´s just going to be in vain?¨ which I find many locals have. I agree with the first worlders in that this is not a ¨productive attitude¨, but before you get on your high-horse and pat yourself on the back for being such an effective, sensible person, maybe you should consider that this self-defeating attitude is a product of their history, and not the cause of it.

I personally do not take any responsibility for my country´s (the USA) infrastructure and economy that allows us all to live so well and be so optimistic, efficient, and effective. I give that credit to the country´s founders, and many of their descendants, who have given me the possibility to have the incredibly easy life I have always had.

If all I saw were setbacks and barriers, I don´t think I would have any other attitude than the Argentine one, anyway. It´s the chicken/egg argument. I really feel like history shat big time on all latin america, so I don´t feel it´s their fault at all, but rather just a really terrible stroke of luck.

PS - If there was any question that countries founded on the premise of colonization with the purpose of sucking natural resources out of their land creates a very feeble foundation for an independent country, we need look no further than pretty much all of Africa, or large parts of Asia.

So, in summary, I do think it is the ¨first world´s¨ fault that many countries are so screwed up. I wouldn´t blame any of these countries for being inferior human beings or any such silliness.

Do you reckon?...really

Read a bit and maybe you will change your perceptions about this country and South America in general.

DEBT & DESTRUCTION SOUTH OF THE BORDER

In their well-researched paper, Serial Defaults and Its Remedies , Reinhart and Rogoff write “Cycles in capital flows to emerging markets have now been with us for two hundred years”. If we are to understand the dynamics of serial default, it would do us well to look at these cycles and their relevance to what is happening today.

Argentina is at the very epicenter of Latin America borrowings and defaults and a cursory judgment may well lay the blame for such on Argentina . But understanding the past is akin to sedimentary sampling and a deeper reading of events reveals far more than the too familiar story of a spendthrift deadbeat nation borrowing more than prudence would otherwise dictate.

The capital flows from England and the US in the last two hundred years to Latin America were flows of credit, not money. The distinction is critical in understanding what has happened during the last two centuries.

It explains the basis of the British Empire and current American power.

It also explains the exploitation of Argentina .

The British Empire was founded on the central bank invention of credit-based money and the subsequent ability to substitute this new “money” for costly gold and silver; and the issuance of paper money allegedly backed by gold and silver is a critical component in the confidence game of central bankers to pass off their printed coupons as the real thing.

What the private bankers accomplished with the creation of the Bank of England was the government's “legitimization” of the bankers' new credit based coupons, sic paper money—coupons upon which the private bankers could now charge interest just as they had when loaning actual gold (what a wonderful scam). The new coupons were a lot easier to come by, especially when the king gave them a monopoly over its issuance.

The advantage to the king was that the king now had an unlimited supply of “money” that could be used to finance his wars—wars which led to the establishment of the British Empire; the cost of which was transferred directly as a burden to the people as the new counterfeit debt-based money was now an obligation of the state, not of the king.

This was the genesis (genius to the bankers and government) of the modern income tax where the people are forced to pay interest on the credit-based money issued by their own government. This was also the beginning of credit-based markets, deceptively called capitalism in order to closely identify the newly counterfeit credit based economy with the real money it had replaced.

CAPITALISM THE SPREAD OF DEBT IN DISGUISE

The flow of credit from England and then from its surrogate successor, the US, to developing nations such as Argentina was but the flow of printed coupons designed to harness and indebt the wealth and productivity of new lands.

The “capital” was really only credit, thinly disguised debt in the form of paper money originally issued by central banks, the Bank of England in Britain and the Federal Reserve Bank in the US , the twin towers of monetary Mordor.

The wonderfully sounding idea of unfettered capitalism is but a smokescreen for bankers to leverage their coupons in the form of credit and thereby indebt and control the productivity and wealth of others. As such, it has accomplished its goal admirably but its success will now cost the bankers dearly.

Three centuries of indebting nations, businesses, and the citizenry with constantly compounding debt is no longer sustainable. This is why central bankers in London , New York , Paris , and Tokyo are in such distress. Debtors can no longer pay their debts, defaults are on the rise and bankers may actually have to find real jobs if their confidence game continues to disintegrate.

EVIL BANKERS FACT OR FICTION?

As the World Bank's Chief Economist, Summer's memo is a chilling reflection of the heartlessness that lies at the core of bankers and banking establishments. The World Bank itself seems to be a favorite watering hole for those of questionable intent.

Robert McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War was President of the World Bank as was Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq War. The current President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, is also an ardent supporter of the Iraq War (also on Zoellick's considerable list of “credits” is his service as advisor to Enron, his membership on the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission and his attendance at the secretive Bilderberg meetings from 1991 to the present and his role as Senior International Advisor to investment bank Goldman Sachs).

It is no coincidence that those heading the World Bank are closely associated with America 's vast war machine. Bankers have profited from fueling the military ambitions of both England and the US for the past two centuries and continue to do so today.

But perhaps the most damning indictment yet of the World Bank and today's bankers is John Perkins's Confessions of an Economic Hitman (Barrett Koehler, 2004) in which Perkins reveals the hidden intent of the World Bank and US bankers to cold-bloodedly indebt third world countries such as Argentina and profit by their misery.

DEFAULT OR JUST DEADBEATS

While Reinhart's and Rogoff's work on sovereign default is worthwhile and important, their glaring avoidance of the geopolitical aspect of credit flows from England and the US to Latin America and other developing regions is indicative of the blind eye scholars turn to the activities of those who pay them.

Lawrence Summers was President of Harvard University where Kenneth Rogoff is now employed. It is not likely those who hired the likes of Summers would look kindly upon Rogoff should he begin asking questions whose answers would lead to truths Harvard's trustees would rather not see the light of day.

So instead of dealing with the critical issues raised by John Perkins, Reinhart and Rogoff consider the phenomena of sovereign defaults as an innocent rite of passage much like high school through which developing economies must pass. Perhaps it is so, perhaps not.

But their “trained” eye wanders a bit, even to an untrained eye such as mine. According to Reinhart and Rogoff, the US is a “default virgin”, sic the US has never missed a debt repayment or rescheduled on at least one occasion. While this is strictly so, the US is nonetheless at the center of the largest default in monetary history.

In the 1970s, the US defaulted on its gold obligations under the Bretton-Woods Agreement. After overspending the greatest hoard of gold in history, 21,775 tons, between 1949 and 1971, the US had 7,000-8,000 tons of gold left and still owed perhaps over 31,000 tons to others.

In 1973, when the US officially refused to convert US dollars held by other countries to gold, it was the biggest monetary default ever. In that one act, as a consequence the entire global monetary system shifted from a gold-based system to a fiat-paper system.

Of the US default on its gold obligations, Professor Antal Fekete wrote in June 2008:

http://www.professorfekete.com/articles%5CAEFItsNotADollarCrisisItsAGoldCrisis.pdf

DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA

SAVE YOUR TEARS FOR YOURSELF

In 1976, the Argentine military overthrew the democratically elected Argentine government. The first to recognize the dictatorship was the US . The second was the International Monetary Fund, and within 24 hours of recognizing the soon-to-be most brutal regime in recent history, the IMF arranged a loan to the military junta.

At the time, Argentina 's external debt totaled $7 billion. When the bloody dictatorship ended with the return of democracy six years later, Argentina 's debt totaled $43 billion, a debt owed mainly to US banks.

The common law concept of caveat emptor has particular relevance here, caveat emptor —Latin, “let the buyer beware", is a legal precept that buyers must take responsibility for the conditions under which the sale was made.

If you loan to a dictatorship, don't expect to be repaid if a democracy emerges.

Richard Perle, former US Assistant Secretary of Defense and neoconservative lobbyist

Richard Perle who supported the Iraq War said those words shortly after the US invaded Iraq . While it is doubtful Perle believes the same applies for debts incurred by the US supported dictatorship in Argentina , the truth of Perle's words extend beyond Perle's situational principles or a lack thereof. In a court of law, an illegal contract cannot be enforced—unless, of course, the court has been bought off.

A critical distinction between the debt “owed” by Argentina and the debts owed by the US is that Argentina's debt was illegally imposed upon Argentina by the IMF, the US and international bankers without the consent of the Argentine citizenry, The US debt, however, was incurred with the consent of the American people—or was it?

That, my fellow Americans, is a $99.2 trillion question.

BANKRUPT BE THE BONDS THAT BIND

Americans with their outstanding obligations now measured in trillions of dollars of outstanding US bonds have much in common with the Argentine people. We have both been enslaved and bankrupted by the same financial system.

While it is impossible for the debt burdened Argentines to do something about US banks, it is not impossible for Americans to do so. The US Federal Reserve Bank—the largest emitter of debt-based money in the world—while not an official US government agency is nonetheless still subject to the rules and laws of our land.

Cheers.....and click on my signature to know a little more....of the same

It's hard to accept the truth when the truth isn't come our way....it's better to ignore it, isn't it?

 

[KatharineAnn]

That was an interesting post, and I don´t doubt the veracity of much of it, but I´m not sure it changed the way I think of Argentina or Latin America. I still think the largest contributing factor to the way Argentina is is their own history, which crippled their system from the very beginning (and with extreme inequality in everything from money to education, with periodic military dictatorships interrupting everything, it must be very hard to make any progress, and any progress they have made, and I do feel that they have made a lot, I find very admirable).

It is of course logical that with this unfair system already in place, they are an easy target for the big boy imperialists to make their move and take advantage in every way they can. But I wouldn´t say Latin America is the way it is just because of the US and England, or just because of the banks, because there were so many internal problems to begin with. Even if Argentina as a nation had a lot more money today, have no doubt that not too many more starving children would get fed and not too many lower class families would acquire much social mobility.

 

[igor]

That was an interesting post, and I don´t doubt the veracity of much of it ...

Lucas just reposted an article of some guy who is making money out of global crisis scare. My guess is that neither of them has read the Reinhart and Rogoff's article they are referring to.

 

[Lucas]

Lucas just reposted an article of some guy who is making money out of global crisis scare. My guess is that neither of them has read Reinhart and Rogoff's article they are referring to.

Nope, but yes the article is from Dr.Darryl R. Schoon, and he explains very well what happened to good part of South America in the last 200 year and Argentina in particular.

Why and how it happened, what for, and by who.

We are not denying here that all this can be accomplished without any help from inside, there was a obscene lot of help from inside its easy to corrupt people and organizations with massive flow of easy money to commit a crime, like when a important and secure bank is robbed there is always some kind of help from inside...corrupt and honest Argentines citizens ready to be corrupted from outside.

The United States of America is the Next Argentina
Aug 27, 2008 - 01:56 AM
By: Darryl_R_Schoon

DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA SAVE YOUR TEARS FOR YOURSELF - While bankers do control the issuance of credit, they cannot control themselves. Bankers are the fatal flaw in their deviously opaque system that has substituted credit for money and debt for savings. The bankers have spread their credit-based system across the world by catering to basic human needs and ambition and greed; and while human needs can be satisfied, ambition and greed cannot—and the bankers' least of all.

Cheers