New Exchange Rate On Wednesday

[Bajo_cero2]

You are missing the point here I think. Cuevas do not profit from the gap between official and blue, they profit from a very small margin buy/sell blue rate. This small margin will always be there for them, and in an economy where there is a lot of money being paid under the table and undeclared, they will have a steady stream of clients for sure.

Nikad, please, cuevas were fed by usd from cocaine and public officers who got the usd at 9 and they sold it at 16.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I have every faith in Prat Gay that he knows what he's doing. Same for the whole administration.
They've hit the ground running and in just one week into their mandate, have fulfilled numerous promises of their campaign, which 51% of the population voted for after all.
It's going to be a very short honeymoon, if at all. Just look at what they've inherited.
On the other hand, I don't expect it to be comfortable over the next few months, but by heck, it does appear that the Argentine economy is in the hands of people who understand economics, rather than a bunch of chimps, as was the case beforehand.

They know what they do, no doubt, the point is who is going to be beneficiary: few people.

 

[Redbeanz]

Nikad, please, cuevas were fed by usd from cocaine and public officers who got the usd at 9 and they sold it at 16.

Bajo, please explain? I don't understand. By "public officers" do you mean that people appointed by Cristina worked the system for personal gain?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Bajo, please explain? I don't understand. By "public officers" do you mean that people appointed by Cristina worked the system for personal gain?

I always critize you for vomiting hate instead of doing serious criticism.

Sure, who else could get usd at 9 pesos in large ammounts? (I m not guessing, i have someone I know who works at a public bank).

There is always corruption. While the former officialism took advantage of the system, Niembro just stole 20.000.000 pesos. The corruption of the 2 parties work different.

Don't forget that i made a dismissal trial against a K friendly judge because she asked me for a brive, and she was accused. He had to point a defender lawyer and give explanations before the Consejo de la Magistratura (the Court where judges are judged)

 

[TWB103]

The opposition arent happy with the lifting of the cepo obviously but they have absolutely no answers. Fine, highlight the potential pitfalls of lifting the cepo but also offer solutions!

The ks were voted out because they had no more answers. They didnt just lose by 2 points. Macri won with a 25%+ handicap to peronism
. The majority of argentines want 'a change'. Time to try something new..

 

[Redbeanz]

I always critize you for vomiting hate instead of doing serious criticism.
Sure, who else could get usd at 9 pesos in large ammounts? (I m not guessing, i have someone I know who works at a public bank)

EXCUSE ME??? I asked you to clarify a simple statement that I didn't understand, and you replied "I always criticize you for vomiting hate instead of doing serious criticism?"

1. You don't "always criticize me" because you and I have never engaged in any kind of exchange. Nor would you be well advised to do so in the future.

2. I have never "vomited hate" and have never been accused of doing so. Nor, actually, am I "doing serious criticism." Because I did not understand what you were saying, despite your clearly excellent linguistic skills, I was, very simply, asking you what it was that you were trying to say.

Are you confusing me with someone else (in which case, you may now apologize), or are you just so unhinged that you are lashing out at anyone in your path?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

EXCUSE ME??? I asked you to clarify a simple statement that I didn't understand, and you replied "I always criticize you for vomiting hate instead of doing serious criticism?"

1. You don't "always criticize me" because you and I have never engaged in any kind of exchange. Nor would you be well advised to do so in the future.

2. I have never "vomited hate" and have never been accused of doing so. Nor, actually, am I "doing serious criticism." Because I did not understand what you were saying, despite your clearly excellent linguistic skills, I was, very simply, asking you what it was that you were trying to say.

Are you confusing me with someone else (in which case, you may now apologize), or are you just so unhinged that you are lashing out at anyone in your path?

You in English means you and means all the other members of this forum. I ment the second. No offense.

 

[ben]

They know what they do, no doubt, the point is who is going to be beneficiary: few people.

Few enough, it seems, to have won an election.

That wasn't meant as a glib retort. Really, here in bajo's response I think there's a point that transcends conscious political bias (as evidenced, there's plenty of that too): dogma.

It's all about protecting people, particularly the poor, from themselves, and assuming them to be stupid, rather than respect them for both who they are and who they can be, given a bit of non-patronizing help. It's a mindset that assumes that anybody who reads that the fiscal "hizo lugar" for a position, will mistakenly think that the fiscal is positioning himself as a judge - even though the article explicitly says that now the judge must weigh in on the matter. It's a mindset that deeply disrespects people and their capacity to move forward and upward.

It's about the ugly belief that "us vs. them" is a way to run a society, that if people are permitted to buy and sell as they please that's a problem, they're doing it at the expense of others. Better regulate everyone's lives as the self-proclaimed defender of the helpless.

There are a lot of predatory practices out there, and government certainly has the responsibility of ensuring that the most vulnerable elements of society are not unfairly taken advantage of. But the way to make the poor able to afford more is, perhaps, not to force everyone into the little scheme you hatched on your multimillion-dollar vacation (funny how these people don't seem to mind their own enjoyment and amusement, whatever the cost - with rare exceptions like Mujica), but rather giving the 'lower' classes mobility, opportunities to be able to do the same.

The problem with populist movements is that not only do they show little compunction about crossing the line from legitimate public protection into intruding into all elements of commerce and life, it's that they seem to have little awareness that such a line even exists.

 

[Redbeanz]

You in English means you and means all the other members of this forum. I ment the second. No offense.

This is a pathetic and weak excuse instead of an apology. You ( singular) tried to bitchslap me (singular) and I take serious offense.

 

[TWB103]

I always critize you for vomiting hate instead of doing serious criticism.

Sure, who else could get usd at 9 pesos in large ammounts? (I m not guessing, i have someone I know who works at a public bank).

There is always corruption. While the former officialism took advantage of the system, Niembro just stole 20.000.000 pesos. The corruption of the 2 parties work different.

Don't forget that i made a dismissal trial against a K friendly judge because she asked me for a brive, and she was accused. He had to point a defender lawyer and give explanations before the Consejo de la Magistratura (the Court where judges are judged)

Why is the corruption of Niembro worse than 'public officers' of the then acting government taking advantage of the disparity between the official and blue which the government might have engineered for that purpose?

If you want to use the plural ' you' its sometimes better to clarify ie you lot ' or 'you guys' etc.