Neoliberalism In Argentina In The Past 10-20 Years

[Montauk_Project]

janitor91, I think that it is a great idea to ask expats what they think about a subject, but if this if for a university presentation you need to academic research. The documentaries I gave you are available on line, they take a clear political position but EVERYTHING on this subject is very political. The best thing you can do is research the backgrounds of the people who write the articles/books or make the films you cite. Context is very important! Some people who did some really bad things now present themselves as economists and hold positions in universities such as Harvard.

I am not sure what your academic level is--is this for an intro class? Is this in a History or Econ class?

PS--if you want an example of resistance to neoliberal policies that was written up in the economics press a lot, look into "treque" or trade-markets which sprung up around the collapse. They used their own currency for people to trade goods and services without money, since no one had money. The currency was then counterfitted and devalued by the Duhalde regime, but very interesting while it lasted. My husband like many Argentines survived off of treque for a year. He was jeweler and in the markets got food, clothing, barbie dolls and barbie clothes for his daughter, medicine, etc. Some people bought houses, cars, etc.

 

[RAus]

I agree with Montauk_Project you need to do some academic research. Don't dismiss articles written by foreigners though, often they have some valuable insights (as well as some not so valuable oversights) that people intrenched in a society might miss. Neoliberalism is a jargon word that people throw around without understanding what it means and it's relationship with government. To say that Menem was a neoliberal, that neoliberalism caused the crisis and the current government has rejected all that is neoliberal is an incredibly simplistic view of a complicated situation.

I would recommend you read a book called "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" by Ha-Joon Chang, a South Korean who grew up with the economic transformation of his country going on around him - some of the same structural adjustment policies that took place in Argentina from the 70s onwards. He's an economist who studied under Stiglitz and is currently at LSE I think. it is very accessible to people who don't have a background in economics, and although the title of his book gives away his political stance he argues his case brilliantly and explains many of the key concepts you need to begin to understand what is going on here, and to be able to read between the lines of the criticisms and praises of the current administration which are so goddamn polarised you'd think that people in both camps lived in parallel universes.

To understand the position of those who argue that Neoliberalism caused the crisis in Argentina there is an article called Rise and Collapse of Neoliberalism in Argentina: The Role of Economic Groups by Argentine Miguel Teubal. There's another one called "Poster Child or Victim of Imperialist Globalisation? Explaining Argentina's December 2001 Political Crisis and Economic Collapse" by Mario Carranza. These are some articles I found in an old bibliography, I can't remember what I said about them but do not take them for gospel by any means and read them critically but perhaps it's a starting point and might help you solidify your ideas a bit. There is another book called Industria y Nacion by Schorr, a more in depth economic analysis of Argentina but I'm not sure it's available in English.

Good luck with your project!

 

[Matiasba]

So tell me Matias,

Where in the 1970s LATAM (outside of Chile) did the military dictatorships implement privatizations, flee floating currencies, fiscal responsibility and small governments? I can tell for sure that not in Brazil nor Argentina (or Uruguay, or Peru).

Hi, sorry Im late, I just want to answer this.

The militaries in the seventies settled the pilars of what happened later in the 90s, when neoliberalism became world wide. It was done in countries where Keynes was still the king, so we had the state intervening a lot in economy. It wasnt that the militars once in power named neoliberal economists (that proclaimed "achicar el Estado es agrandar la Nacion") it was like the economists, the neoliberals linked to big enterprises, multinationals, etc, they had a party here, the UCD, and they got like 2% of the votes in 1973 ellections. They didnt have democratical power but they did have economic (as I said the concentrated local capital + multinationals) and political (US embassy) so THEY were the people who called the militars to implement by force the economic plan and not otherwise.
No militar government took the power because of the power itself. They did it to impose an economic plan, which is called neoliberal, which not by chance benefitted the United States, and their enterprises in their propose to the region.
After the cordobazo and with the guerrillas, in a scenario with big States, with enterprises like YPF, etc, they wanted to disciplinate the entire society. There was an international context of liquidity because of the petrodollars, and they, the banks, IMF, etc needed to lend money, especially to poors countries, thats why the militars multiplied by 6 the external debt in 6 years.

So because of the difficulties they had in the first years, with a complete Keynesianist-welfare state panorama, probably it wasnt 100% neoliberalism since where it started. Although, in Argentina, measures like Apertura Comercial (the end of EVERY protectionist measure of Argentine industry) plus the Reforma Financiera (which allowed bicicleta financiera, plata dulce, deme 2, and opened the doors big time to speculation capitals that did not want to invest in production but in easy money, allowed by the liberated interest rate, etc) plus the tablita cambiaria which means a very cheap dollar plus at the end, take all the enormous dollar private debts of big enterprises and pass it ALL to the State, to all of us, were indeed neoliberal measures. If that wasnt neoliberalism lets say they went in that direction. They inverted the inertia the country had.

We had in 1981, during the military government, the first financial crisis of all our history, and was the begining of the saga: 1981-1989-2001.

What they did with these measures imposed by force was change the ecuation of argentine economy. They also allowed something unique, like the alliance of (heavy) industry, not pymes, the burguesia local concentrada, with the agro, the burguesia agraria, who historically fight for different countries. And they divided the CGT, intervened sindicates, with a lot of repression.
They multiplied by 6 the external debt and that was the main cause of the crisis several Latin Americans countries suffered (not by accident, after the militaries governments) during the 80s. All the debt they took in the seventies because of the petrodollars, the liquidity, etc had changed in the 80s with a higher interest rate.
It wasnt easy in the 80s to obtain money like it was in the 70s. The US played with that and provocated those crisis, since they were the most of creditors.
That context of crisis allowed the washington consensus in the 90s, which was in the same direction than the militars in the seventies.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

You are asumming that neoliberal economy dogmas are good.

Without any political comment, those dogmas cannot work out because the tax evasion is too high in Argentina. If you don t collect enough money, you have 2 choises: 1) to print 2) to take international loans to pay the expenses of everyday. This is the way it worked neoliberal dogmas in Argentina and it was a disaster. It is suicidal to apply neo dogmas without proper background conditions. The 2 times they were used, the international debt rised about 90 billion dollars. In 1974 we didn t have almost any debt. The huge actual debt is product of the 2 periods were the neo dogmas were enforced.

The way of neo dogmas were applied was to dismantle the control institutions under the euphemism of decreasing the size of the State. You cannot collect more if you make afip and other institutions smallers.

The K are serious about what they are doing: They print money because they have to; they don t take loans; they work very hard against tax evasion.

If you see the conflict with Scioli, he wants to take an international loan to pay the salaries of the teachers this year intead of updating the tax on land (you pay tax on land according to the value of the land. The land in BA state rised about 300% the price in dollars plus the rise of the price of the dollar, about another 100%). So Scioli is not serious.

Even her husband was super pragmatic, she still is.

Regards.

 

[JamJam]

the US has largely turned into a socialist population

Oh dear, you really need to look up the definition of socialism.

 

[JamJam]

It always makes me laugh when anyone from the US describes it as a socialist country.

They are basically brainwashed by righ wing nut jobs who hate the idea of healthcare for poor people. Or a society that shares wealth.

 

[camberiu]

Oh dear, you really need to look up the definition of socialism.

It is really two sides of the same coin in terms of definitions.
Punctual socialist policies do not make a country socialist. Punctual liberal policies does not make a country "neoliberal".

 

[JamJam]

Yes, the people shown on that movie deserve blame and even jail. However, they are not the ONLY ones to blame. There is plenty of blame to go around, including towards politicians and those who elect them, namely us.
We are all part of this fraud. We all want politicians who paint rosy pictures, who promise us that life will be easy and that free lunches are possible. We all want politicians who tell us that we can retire at age 60 with a near full pension and have almost free medical care until we die. We want politicians who tells us that we should all be able afford a suburban home, 2 cars and large screen TV if we just follow some basic simple rules (such as getting a college degree and finding a blue collar job).
We all want to live in this completely unrealistic fantasy world. We feel entitled to it, so we elect any corrupt snakeoil salesman who can convincingly make such promises. Ad then we look away when they run huge deficits, when they mortgage the future of the yet to be born generations in order to finance their current impossible promises. We all look away, we ignore, we cover our eyes and ears, because we want to believe, no matter if we are in Europe, US, Japan or Argentina, that life can be easy and comfortable, and we just need the right politician for it to be so.
And when the whole fraud comes crashing down, we look at each other surprised and angrily, and then as a mob, we go out looking for SOMEONE ELSE to blame.

Its not un realistic to want a good life if you work for it.
Part of the propaganda now they are pumping out is "There is no money (yet we have troops in Afghanistan), we HAVE to cut services, you have to work harder now for less

 

[JamJam]

Argentine economics:

You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors kill you and take the cows.

You have two cows, both are on strike.

 

[camberiu]

Its not un realistic to want a good life if you work for it.
Part of the propaganda now they are pumping out is "There is no money (yet we have troops in Afghanistan), we HAVE to cut services, you have to work harder now for less

Actually it is. The problem is that the planet has limited resources and the entire world now wants to have a house in the burbs, 2 cars, a large TV, itoys and a one nice trip overseas per year.
Because we got accustomed to middle class life in America after World War II, we think that this is the "natural way" of things in America. It isn't. That was a period of great exception, when the US was the only major Western country to emerge out of WWII with its industry intact. That allowed the US middle class to have an unprecedented increase in lifestyle. However, after decades, not only the European economies have rebuilt, we also see 3rd world countries going through heavy industrialization and having a large emerging middle class too. We have South Korea, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, South Africa, Russia, Indonesia and many others having significant middle classes that also want houses in the burbs, 2 cars and everything else that a typical US middle class family has. And guess what? In a world of limited resources, where everyone wants the same things, something has got to give. There is not enough fuel for everyone to have 2 SUVs on the garage. Prices of commodities will go up, because now it is not just the US middle class that can afford pizza, meat or ice cream.
There is a whole set of new adjustments that need to be made, but the US middle class thinks that we still live in the world on the 1960s, and it just take a few changes in policy to bring back the "good old days".