Macri's Challenge

[Gringoboy]

Unrelated to work training, but training nonetheless, people need to realise that it's not ok to jump the lights, drive the wrong way down a one way street, ride a bike with your girl on the back with no helmet and generally hare around as if no one else exists.
Rant over.

 

[ElQueso]

Ed, I think we agree on #1 and #3.

But the second one - I didn't say that money spent by the government isn't a stimulus (or at least, I didn't mean to say that if I did), I just think the effectiveness of such a stimulus is nowhere near the same as if the government allows business to do business and government keeps where it belongs - enforcing laws equally on all parties. Also, a government that is lacking money isn't going to do much good at all, seems to me, at least in the case of Argentina who can't print dollars and depend on its strength (currently and short-sightedly) throughout the world as a means of financing its idiocy - as the US does.

But the $800B stimulus that Obama pushed (and it would have come from whichever president took over from Bush and Bush would have pushed the stimulus as well had it not been so close to the end of his presidency) - who ended up with that money? Wasn't it the car industry (minus Ford!) and Wall Street banks who got a big bailout out of it? Maybe it did some good in the short term, but I don't think it resolved anything for the long term. And people who mismanage their businesses and who cheat others out of their money got a nice windfall from this, all in the name of propping up the economy. The other money went to things that were perhaps needed, but even then, it was not an investment in the future, it was using money for things we already needed and would have no long-term future return. None of that money went to the creation of wealth as far as I can see.

Besides, I believe it was government policy which helped create the mess to begin with, on many levels. They take our money and decide what to do with it, ostensibly under control of "the people" but the people are so divided and often ignorant as to reality so that it is easy to pull the wool over their eyes as a whole.

I would have rather seen Obama dump that money into something that could have been a windfall for the entire population of the US, a true investment in the future, not trying to keep the past from screwing us. One thing that comes to mind is something like NASA Centennial Challenges is doing with the X Prize Foundation. Why not offer prize money - giant prize money instead of the much smaller amounts that NASA and X Prize offer - to companies that could figure out how to bring the cost to orbit down to dollars per pound (instead of thousands of dollars per pound) and help kick-start a space-based economy? Imagine all the jobs that would have been created eventually: janitors, skilled and unskilled laborers, clerks, teachers, engineers, scientists, and so on. For the good of the people of the US, it would be good to be the first ones to colonize space and begin to draw from space-based resources, which are quite a bit larger and can be easier to get to once the industry exists, than getting many of the same resources here on Earth. Not to mention new fabrication techniques, new materials, new energy sources and so on.

Stimulus controlled by the government is inherently political and not necessarily done for the good of a nation. I don't trust it. If the government can enforce its laws equitably the government shouldn't need to provide its own stimulus, the market will take care of that and yes, people will have to adjust to new market forces. This idea that government should try to keep buggy whip manufacturers in business just because it may be a big industry and jobs will be lost is fraught with danger and often is pushed by the buggy whip manufacturers themselves as a monetarily-consolidated group - I doubt very much by those who buy the buggy whips, unless they too are investors. (buggy whip manufacturers is just a term for all obsolete or mismanaged industries supported by, I'm not really suggesting that any government still tried to keep buggy whip manufacturers themselves in business )

People who make buggy whips can find other jobs when other industries start up - and it's not like one will have to wait to start up for the other to go the way of obsolescence, it should be an ongoing, evolving process. The market would actually allow for those resource transfers to happen on a more stable basis than the government stretching things out and causing a rubber band effect when it snaps.

 

[EdRooney]

A couple of clarifications:

I think you might be confusing the Stimulus Package (ARRA) with the Bank Bailouts (TARP) and the Auto Industry Bailouts.

In the latter case, the bailouts were-- I agree wholeheartedly-- just ginormous wastes of government money to "solve" problems they themselves fostered. Highway robbery and a tragic transfer of wealth from the public to a small group of beneficiaries. (And this is without mentioning the other disastrous financial solutions, QE and ZIRP, but that's for another discussion.) In the former case, however, the Stimulus Package, was at least spent on a mix of infrastructure and social programmes, at least creating some jobs. Two different programmes.

Meanwhile, the China example is actually a "cleaner" example of what stimulus should be, because more of the money got spent directly on infrastructure: things like the world's largest hydroelectric dam (3 Gorges), a huge expansion of high-speed rail (even connecting Beijing with Kazakhstan, modernising the Silk Road), major bridge and tunnel projects throughout the country... in sum the largest infrastructure projects in human history, all of which created literally millions of jobs. More jobs meant more internal consumption, thus multiplying throughout the private and public sectors, and thus reversing the effects of the 2008 crisis, which China continued to grow through while Europe and the US were still mired in recession/depression. China has now launched another round of stimulus spending to the tune of USD 1.5 trillion-- thrice as big as the one from 2009.

The Chinese example is not directly translatable to Argentina, because it's apples to oranges, or big giant grapefruits to little tiny grapes, but the concept is constant: creating jobs creates aggregate demand, which in turn means growth for the economy as a whole. In Argentina though, as you rightly point out, there is a long history of favouritism and social exclusion, so any such programmes need to be highly democratised and utterly transparent, not that I'm holding my breath. But why shouldn't Inginero Macri be the Great Argentine Infrastructure President, destroying poverty with good quality jobs. One can dream.

Oh and one last clarification... you mentioned Reagan and trickle down economics. In his defence (!), I never heard him use that term and I suspect he would have expressed the same qualms about the terminology as you did.

 

[wineguy999]

I thought trickle down economics was the purview of GHW Bush.

 

[TwentyThousandRoads]

My fear is that the economic elite of the country see the Macri victory as a huge success and will lose sight of the fact that it was a narrow victory and one only made possible by the deperation of enough people to cause them to vote for someone whom many Argentines view as an uncaring neoliberal interested only in the advancement of corporations and investors. Macri must avoid this trap. He can do so only by demonstrating that he has a vision and a plan that will help everyone. In this way he will show that he truly loves every citizen as he stated repeatedly on the balcony of the Casa Rosada.

Argentina is at a crossroads. I am convinced that this is a last chance to change course. Mauricio Macri faces many challenges. Does he have the will to do what is right or will he favor a small sector of the nation?

Brilliant. He must try to find a middle ground. Look what happens in America. When the right is elected, they destroy the middle class by helping the rich. When the left is elected, they destroy the middle class by helping the poor. The result is a society with extreme wealth and poverty, extreme divisions. Hopefully Argentina will avoid this trap. In a way, CFK helped because now there are no international obligations to worry about -- everyone thinks Argentina is a basket case, so he gets to start from scratch

 

[EdRooney]

Bush Sr famously called Reagan's economic policies "voodoo economics" in the 1980 GOP primaries. But supply-side economics have been the norm in US politics since then. Obama's recent QE programme is a perfect example.

 

[AmigoArtistico]

Unrelated to work training, but training nonetheless, people need to realise that it's not ok to jump the lights, drive the wrong way down a one way street, ride a bike with your girl on the back with no helmet and generally hare around as if no one else exists.
Rant over.

Got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

"Hare around?' That's a new one for this Yank.

 

[AmigoArtistico]

Ok, now officially too drunk to be taken seriously, so I've decided to make a tribute to EdRooney and his "theme" avatar over these last years:

Ted Lange, aka, Isaac Washington:

Captain Stubin (Gavin McLeod, also of Mary Tyler Moore fame)

And famous guests:

Richard M. Nixon (unaired episode)

I was going to go on posting links until I found this. Amazing!

Ed, you were really on to something. I remember watching these as a child, but I could never have imagined this list of guests:

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls003505129/

And if that's not enough, some folks at tumblr decided to add their "wish list of [background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]guest-stars for the ultimate adventure on [/background]The Love Boat[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)].” [/background]
[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]Without spoiling too much, John Holmes headlines the wish list:[/background]
http://www.avclub.com/article/imagining-parallel-world-where-love-boat-had-even--226378

---------------------------------------

Well, the birds are chirping outside my window, and a brief check has revealed that it's not my drunken imagination (la pajarita de Chavez isn't talking in my ear), and so it's off to bed.

I'd just like to thank EdRooney (I think) for dredging up those old childhood memories every time I see that -- shall we say "nostalgic" -- avatar.

I might have preferred an early rendition of "the beaver," but maybe that's just Freud talking.

Here's to you, Ed! (I hope this last cuarto vaso de vino tinto doesn't push me over into the realm of una gran resaca.)

And whatever side you're on, let's not forget Ed's immortal words: Macri good, Cristina bad. (If Ed doesn't want to take credit for them, you can attribute them to me.)

My god! I think I'm sobering up! Good night (or good day), all, before it's too late!

 

[sergio]

I know you weren't suggesting a continuation of Kirchner policies. But again - what jobs should the government concentrate on training people into? You'd have to find current industries that have jobs to offer before that would even do any good. i haven't heard of a dearth of workers in industries here, not even tourism. And how long does it take to train someone? Will that job still be available when their training is done? Maybe the number of people trained in that particular industry had already reached its peak, but governments react slowly and will continue to crank out more of an unneeded skill set because of that and then how much money needs to be put toward fixing that issue?

Is the government going to create new industries for new jobs? How does a government that doesn't have enough money do that? Actually, Macri is working on that, but too many people hate the idea of foreign investment and seem to believe Cristina that such is simply not needed.

People have been studying English here for decades. I've never been in a country that has so many English speakers (of varied levels to be sure) where English is not their first language (OK, I've never been to Germany and some of the Nordic countries, nor industrialized, relatively-wealthy parts of China - though I did talk to one of the Chinese engineers who are coming here now - at the gym on Friday - he spoke English with nearly an American accent). But France doesn't suffer from tourism issues and my wife and her friends found more people in Italy that spoke English than in France on their European tour. That may well be because the French don't like to admit they speak English (tongue-in-cheek comment) but whatever the reason, it doesn't seem to hurt tourism there.

What hurt tourism here is the government's policies of the last 8 years or so. Not because not enough Argentinos speak English. Who wants to come visit a country that has so many issues economically and politically? How many travelers who came here for a week or two as a lark even knew about the blue dollar? A few years ago tourism was booming. My wife helps manage temporary apartments for tourists and they used to be overworked - the last two years things had almost dried up. This summer, things have already picked up hugely as people seem to think that things are changing here. i'd be willing to bet that as tourism picks up, there will be plenty of people who speak enough English to pick up any slack.

However - do you want an economy dependent on tourism? Should the government push that industry and depend on it like they do agriculture as well? I'd think the market would be a better motivating force than the idea that more people need to be trained in English to handle tourism.

But - what about things like the IT industry? Yes, English would help significantly with that, for sure. Funny thing is, when I came here in 2006 the software development industry was going strong and damned near everyone I dealt with spoke great English. It was one of the reasons we decided on Argentina. Argentina was turning out good technical people from universities in Cordoba and Bahia Blanca. Where did all of that go? Two of my programmers moved to Scotland because of how things were going here. Others work for local companies making a fraction of what they were making when international companies came here to hire their labor and those companies pulled out. Yet others have found jobs in lower-paying fields that aren't doing what they trained for.

And what happened to Argentina's previous production capabilities? the government took away a lot of incentives for people to have factories. Taxes, labor laws, etc. who wants to run a factory when you will be branded a traitor when the government's weight causes you to have to declare bankruptcy and instead of just figuring out how to pay your creditors you have to figure out how to defend yourself from the government itself?

I'm not suggesting that the poor are unimportant and should be ignored. Cristina had a method for selecting the poor, among other classes, who would "succeed" (as long as they adored her and were loyal). They were given money or positions without having to work. They were literally given food and such for their vote, while remaining poor (because there are a lot more poor than even Cristina could hire).

Is that what is good for a country and its poor? The rest of the poor remained ignorant and as bad off or worse than they were when Cristina became president. But there are all kinds of free education here - why didn't they take advantage of that? Because they weren't driven, they figured they had no hope anyway or they didn't have the educational background to take advantage of going further (because their primary and secondary education sucks something awful). the law opening up attendance to anyone who graduated secondary here is almost laughable (if it weren't so serious) - it ignores so many basic problems and fixes nothing.

I could see UBA opening up some kind of retraining program, OK, I get that. But UBA already has problems meeting all of its obligations at various levels. Macri could open up some kind of federal training program, but again, what should it concentrate on? How does it get funded without enough economic support to get anywhere when even UBA can't handle what it already has as well as it should? That is something that richer countries can afford, but I don't know how Argentina could find the money in the next few years to have enough industry to retrain people to work in them.

But again, this whole idea that the government can make everything alright, that it can employ everyone (and I don't mean directly, although Cristina tried that, I mean "creating jobs") and that it can be the judge of what's needed didn't work recently. It could work a whole lot better under other management, but you can't depend on the management staying the same.

I believe that working with the industrial sector to create jobs means three basic things: if you're going to provide public education - do it, don't fake it. Adherence to the law and the application of the law for all equally, and finally getting out the way of those who know what they're doing economically to allow them to create jobs within that fair framework. This should allow people from all walks of life to have opportunities and then let them make of their life what they will.

What jobs should people be trained into?

Offhand I would say that there is a need for better computer skills. I suggest some public works projects. I don't say that this can begin immediately however projects like the revitalization of intercity railways which was advocated by the Kirchners (but ignored) should be taken up. This alone could create employment.

English language skills are poor and no matter how much people may say that the French or Italians do not speak English, the fact remains that everyone wants to go to these countries no matter what the language skills of the people may be. This is not the case with Argentina. Tourism boomed in Argentina for awhile due to devaluation and very low prices if you had dollars. It was short lived. Argentina is not an equally popular tourist destination compared to Europe so Argentina has to work harder at attracting tourists. English is not just tourist related. It is needed in all kinds of work and presents problems for many Argentines, including professionals who are ill equipped to function internationally, whether that means attending conferences outside of Argentina or just interacting with international colleagues. They are way behind their peers in Europe.

We can argue over how involved the government should be in dealing with issues of poverty and employment. I don't see "trickle down" as working in Argentina if it worked in the US (and I don't think it did there). In Argentina profits trickle down into the pockets of a few people, not the masses. My point is that Macri cannot lose sight of the fact that the country consists of mostly poor people and a declining middle class - a middle class that was once larger and the envy of Latin America. If he wants to succeed he needs to keep this in mind. All benefits cannot go to wealthy landowners and big business owners. Endless tax increases will continue to crush the middle class. Inflation has to come down. My fear is that the economic elite of the nation see Macri's election as a huge victory, not for the nation but for a small group of people, themselves. Macri was elected by a small margin because enough people finally got fed up with all the corruption and incompetence. Things had to reach near rock bottom before someone like Macri could attract enough votes to make it to the Casa Rosada. This is a great opportunity to reverse the decline of the Kirchner years. I just hope that he does not blow it.

 

[Gringoboy]

Got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

"Hare around?' That's a new one for this Yank.

That often happens mate.
What I really mean is education. Educate people that certain things are just not acceptable, or is it a lost cause?