Never Mind The Falklands - Look Out Washington Dc!

[Matiasba]

A lot of dictators were popular for several years despite actions we condemn today... She did well in understanding panem et circenses still works for the masses.

dictator? I thought she got there democratically. And please, do not underestimate peoples vote. The choripan argument to explain politics is very childish.

 

[thorsten]

I didn't say she was not elected, but my point is that political figures can be popular for a time despite horrible actions for their country. Imagine I'd be the next Angela Merkel and my first actions would be to increase social services, to increase retirement payments, and to enforce that public TV shows all Bundesliga matches for free, all of which can be easily financed from reserves. The majority of people would like it as they see personal gains in the short-term, but don't understand the implications for the country in the longer term (i.e., it cannot be financed w/o increasing taxes or reducing other services). The same happens here - people like to be able to see football para todos for free, but if you'd tell them that it's not free, but you have to choose between watching 2 teams hunting a ball or put more police men hunting criminals on the street/build a reliable infrastructure so you have power,gas&water available throughout a year, invest in better education, ... - you might get a different answer from at least some of them.

 

[sergio]

The Argentine middle class is smaller than it used to be and less influential. The masses are very poorly educated. They csn be manipulated. It's a pretty hopeless situation.

 

[Matiasba]

I didn't say she was not elected, but my point is that political figures can be popular for a time despite horrible actions for their country. Imagine I'd be the next Angela Merkel and my first actions would be to increase social services, to increase retirement payments, and to enforce that public TV shows all Bundesliga matches for free, all of which can be easily financed from reserves. The majority of people would like it as they see personal gains in the short-term, but don't understand the implications for the country in the longer term (i.e., it cannot be financed w/o increasing taxes or reducing other services). The same happens here - people like to be able to see football para todos for free, but if you'd tell them that it's not free, but you have to choose between watching 2 teams hunting a ball or put more police men hunting criminals on the street/build a reliable infrastructure so you have power,gas&water available throughout a year, invest in better education, ... - you might get a different answer from at least some of them.

That is a false dichotomy. Why cant a State finance both things? is 600 million pesos a lot of money for a State? I believe in a big state, with big participation in economy, regulating amost every sphere of action from privates. I believe in a strong state, with taxes and regulations for every market. I think you can perfectly have futbol para todos and infraestructure, education, etc.
This governemnt invests 6.5 of GDP in education, while the ones before invested like 2% (of a much smaller GDP, cause with the Ks the GDP doubled or tripled its size). For the first time in decades, the State educates scientists to work here and not to go live and work abroad in NASA, in France, in Germany, etc, so for the first time the State does not lose that money invested in every professional (those were like 50k dollars each, an investment the State never seen again).
I dont agree with the way they manage insecurity problems, and immigration in our borders although insecurity is a very complex issue with a lot of important actors and not only more police is the solution.
And regarding the power gas and water, we now have to import energy, but they settled the bases to the future with nuclear plants with Russia and China, and besides, subsidios is something people should be grateful for. Im not saying they are ok, but they were a relieve to lots of homes here for like 10! years...

Check out what the free market politicians said about education, what the rates of private services were like (one of the most expensive world wide -and of course a crappy service) during privatizations, and which was the economic policy when the security problems started in this country.

 

[thorsten]

That is a false dichotomy. Why cant a State finance both things? is 600 million pesos a lot of money for a State? I believe in a big state, with big participation in economy, regulating amost every sphere of action from privates. I believe in a strong state, with taxes and regulations for every market. I think you can perfectly have futbol para todos and infraestructure, education, etc.

Yes, in theory that's possible as long as you have sufficient income to distribute - which is not in case in Argentina as in most countries in the world. That's why one needs to prioritize spendings. What happens here is a) more money is spend compared to the amount of regular income for the state (you just finance from reserves, which works short term but will be horrible long-term and B) money is spend in areas like futbol which seem to be a priority compared to areas like security, infrastructure, etc.
You can have different views on how much state is "the right amount" and that's basically a normative decision which the people need to make - there is not right or wrong answer. But I don't think that spending huge amounts of money on government publicity, futbol para todos and stuff like that is appropriate given the situation of the country.
And comparing GDPs from this government to another one which worked under totally different conditions is something that people who don't understand that performance indicators like that are caused mostly by a) external factors such as the global economic climate and B) decisions made in the past instead of decisions made currently.

 

[lamarque]

Couldn't agree more with you thorsten. Thanks for saving me time in writing it down

 

[ajoknoblauch]

so you say that a leader is only competent if he/she govern for certain sectors (but not all)?

A competent leader is one who's willing to sacrifice short-term popularity for long-term good. While legitimately elected, CFK is a demagogue who's convinced herself that her best interest is your best interest. Willingness to leave a mess to her successor - one that only she or her acolytes will be able to solve in a couple years' time - is not a sign of leadership.

 

[Matiasba]

Yes, in theory that's possible as long as you have sufficient income to distribute - which is not in case in Argentina as in most countries in the world. That's why one needs to prioritize spendings. What happens here is a) more money is spend compared to the amount of regular income for the state (you just finance from reserves, which works short term but will be horrible long-term and B) money is spend in areas like futbol which seem to be a priority compared to areas like security, infrastructure, etc.
You can have different views on how much state is "the right amount" and that's basically a normative decision which the people need to make - there is not right or wrong answer. But I don't think that spending huge amounts of money on government publicity, futbol para todos and stuff like that is appropriate given the situation of the country.
And comparing GDPs from this government to another one which worked under totally different conditions is something that people who don't understand that performance indicators like that are caused mostly by a) external factors such as the global economic climate and B) decisions made in the past instead of decisions made currently.

if I thought like you, or anyone in government thought like that, then is impossible to grow, to have AUH. Its not a matter of how to (re)distribute a given number, its how you create it. It is not that you have a fixed number, is how you organise to create a final number, its not a given number, is something that depends on your job on governing. So I think this government has the capability to have futbol para todos. I look at it as a social plan too, given the futbol is something sooooo important in lower strata culture, I think its ok they can have it for free. I will always prefer this demagogia propaganda stuff than some private company making money on it. So I consider it priority, as well as other stuff too (AUH, for instance).

The conditions, the external conditions that determine somehow the path of a government, it is also made by the government. I mean, they create that conditions. I can perfectly argue that in the 90s we had a factory of poverty with 25% unemployment, and privatised companies, and a huge debt problem, etc, because of the way they governed. The Ks also had the 2008 world crisis, coping it with counter cycle measures, pure keynesianism if you will, and by governing made that 25% in 2003 to 6% for several years. Also by not taking debt, we do not have big problems with the debt and with the interests money we can have the AUH or any other social plan.

The GDP mutiplied for two at least, and of course the K years is an important variable to expain that. Its even bigger than the best years of market friendly policies in the 90s.

 

[Matiasba]

A competent leader is one who's willing to sacrifice short-term popularity for long-term good. While legitimately elected, CFK is a demagogue who's convinced herself that her best interest is your best interest. Willingness to leave a mess to her successor - one that only she or her acolytes will be able to solve in a couple years' time - is not a sign of leadership.

I beg to disagree. The Neoliberalismo or market oriented policies or whatever you like to call it, left the State in total bankruptcy, broken, after the worst social crisis ever, with 54% under the poverty line, with a huge debt.
Today, besides the vulture bussiness, we have a debt as big as 40% of GDP, a lot lower than lots of countries, and something like 25% under the poverty line. Unemployment 6%, lots of people with something totally new: a fixed income per month. Lots of subsidios, also. Definetely, not the best panorama, but far better than the legacy of Menem/Alianza, and Alfonsin and the militars. So to find a better legacy than this one Im afraid we have to go to before the dictatorship.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

So I think this government has the capability to have futbol para todos. I look at it as a social plan too, given the futbol is something sooooo important in lower strata culture, I think its ok they can have it for free. I will always prefer this demagogia propaganda stuff than some private company making money on it. So I consider it priority, as well as other stuff too (AUH, for instance).

If soccer (or any other professional sport) is so important, people should be willing to pay for it. If they're really devoted and can't afford to pay, they can watch - or even better, participate - for free in the park.