Macri , Dec 11Th End Of Cepo Foreign Exchange Restrictions

[Matiasba]

BTW, for all of those folks wondering why FVP candidates are all showing Cristina in their campaign ads, it's because she's still quite popular, even according to not-so-government-friendly pollsters: http://www.diarioreg...a-cristina.html -- This would suggest that Macri's presidential election won't be a slam dunk, no matter how much money he has because there is a difference between actually making a difference in voters' lives and saying you will. (And I base that statement on the results of the various polls over the past year that show relatively decent approval for CFK and her government.)

I have talked here several times about this problem. Argentina is peronist. Its a vast majority. Fact. People like Macri, if they say what their programmes are, or their plan, or what they would do if they win, that is for a tiny minority, represents like 2% or so. So he MUST go and conquer the peronist vote, and that is exactly what is he doing now, despite it is the exact oposite of what they want. I mean, Macri wants a full 100% government aligned with the US, as the right historically did in this country, and that means no Political Sovereignty or Economic Indepedence (two of three peronists slogans, the other is Social Justice).

 

[thorsten]

What exactly is political sovereignty or economical independence in todays world? It's like peronism just a fuzzy term where everyone can have his own vision of how it looks like...

 

[Matiasba]

What exactly is political sovereignty or economical independence in todays world? It's like peronism just a fuzzy term where everyone can have his own vision of how it looks like...

Washington Consensus or IMF programmes are the exact oposite of Economic Independence or Political Sovereignty...

 

[thorsten]

And how about the recent trade agreements with China? Where exactly is the fine line between "strategic partnership" and "being economically dependent"? As long as one doesn't provide a clear definition, all these terms are populistic babble.

 

[Matiasba]

And how about the recent trade agreements with China? Where exactly is the fine line between "strategic partnership" and "being economically dependent"? As long as one doesn't provide a clear definition, all these terms are populistic babble.

Interdependence is very different that a clear dependency. It is very difficult in todays world to not become interdependent, for instance with Brazil, or with China. Dependency is when you only have one way, you are dependent, it is your only source.

 

[thorsten]

So given your definition of economic dependency, it would be bullshit to use the term e.g., in relation to the nationalization of YPF as this government did, right?

 

[Matiasba]

I find on the way of economic independence for a country to have a national oil company. Seems better than in private (foreigners) hands. That is dependent.

 

[thorsten]

So either you just don't care about your own definition anymore or you should be consistent and say all companies should be state-owned as your latest argument would apply to any kind of production. Besides "seems better than in private hands" is also a term used a lot here, for instance in the case of YPF nationalization "it's better to have it nationalized as then the prices won't get raised anymore" - we saw how valid these kind of things are after a short time... By the way, the majority of countries in this world don't have national oil companies and are doing not too bad compared to Argentina

 

[Noruega]

And how about the recent trade agreements with China? Where exactly is the fine line between "strategic partnership" and "being economically dependent"? As long as one doesn't provide a clear definition, all these terms are populistic babble.

Yes, this is such BS. Giving away rights to China is totally OK; being seen as a collaborator of the US is totally bad. Really annoys me!

 

[Matiasba]

It is a big fallacy to compare China with the US.

You just cant compare, its a world of difference. China does not have the power the US used to have. Its another world, with Brazil, with Unasur, with Russia, AND the US and Europe as alternatives if you dont like China. Every country now has the China card to play to get out of US domination. And probably in the future, Russia.

This, to not start talking of the way China dominates, with investment, productive invcestments, totally the opposite as the US that was deindustrialising, dismantle of railways (for example). We are talking of another way of investment, we are talking of investment to grow, productive, industrial, etc.

And of course, China does not have the imperial vocation the US has, does not invade countries constantly, or put dictators friends in power, no plan condor, or Viet Nam or Irak, or Afghanistan. No atomic bombs. If they had this vocation, they already would have done something in the way.