Priceless: This Is The Start Of The Anti Corruption

[trennod]

"El organismo estatal dice que la canasta básica para una familia tipo cuesta $ 688,37 mensuales o 23 pesos diarios"
http://www.ieco.clar..._754724538.html

The government never suggested that a typical family lives of 6 pesos a day. They calculated that a family spending less than $688 would be malnourished, based on the absolute minimum cost of the cheapest calories available. All anyone had to do to confirm this was to go the same source Clarin was taking their information from.

This was an anti-government PR campaign masquerading as news, and it was based on wilful misprepresentation. For me, this constituted an egregious lie. It was cynical and manipulative.

Thing is though - they are entitled to be cynical and manipulative. They have no charter to tell the truth, or serve the public. Whilst the story was irresponsible and unethical, I'd still defend their right to print anti government propaganda. I just don't think they shoudl have the right to own so much of the nation's media. Under ordinary circumstances, in a healthy media landscape they would have been rightly called out on their lie. Instead, it just got repeated by on every Clarin group channel until everyone assumed it was fact.

Each month INDEC publish figures for La Canasta Básica Alimentaria & la Canasta Basica Total. The former, basically represents the income needed to satisfy nutritional needs and the latter includes both nutritional and clothing etc. Here is a report from INDEC in November 2012:
http://www.indec.gov...nasta_11_12.pdf

If you look you at the figures for July 2012 (of which the Clarin article referred to) a male, 35 years old could survive on $222,77 pesos per month ie AR$7,42 pesos per day. Works out that a standard family (that male, a female 31 yo and 2 kids 5 and 8) could survive on $6 pesos a day for the family.

You can see in this report that this Canasta Básica is not made up of eating just bread and butter, but as Clarin mentioned "Esos alimentos incluyen pan, galletitas, carne, pollo, leche, café, te, quesos, huevos, dulces, hortalizas, frutas, verduras y bebidas". You can see the items in the report.

Now, I understand that perhaps Clarin has been a bit misleading in this article, but the figures are there in the INDEC Report - a grown adult being able to eat ok on 42 pesos a week? Come on. The problem arises not from Clarins dressing up of the Report, but of the Report itself, the sheer madness of it is brought about because the INDEC figures are a pure lie and an absolute slap in the face to everyone that lives in this country.

Media all over the world twist and bend the truth. Just a few months back there was an article in Australia which mentioned that 2.2 million people are living below the poverty line (ie about 10% of the population). Turns out the article was based on figures from a Social Development Society that had calculated their numbers basically on a % of the median income, amongst other factors.

Yes, just like any media you have to take Clarin with a grain of salt, but I would rather that than have a media 100% controlled by the government.

 

[trennod]

Delete post.

 

[jp]

the figures are there in the INDEC Report - a grown adult being able to eat ok on 42 pesos a week? Come on. The problem arises not from Clarins dressing up of the Report, but of the Report itself, the sheer madness of it is brought about because the INDEC figures are a pure lie and an absolute slap in the face to everyone that lives in this country.

With respect I think you've missed the point of the report. The numbers don't imply that someone can live happily on 42 pesos a week. They state that any family spending less than this will definitely be malnourished, because it is completely impossible to live off less than that in Argentina. The report doesn't contain a definition of indigencia, which is a shame because it would have made squashing this fake story a lot simpler. Indigencia is defined as being unable to cover the minimum cost of the most basic necessities of life. So in this case - not being able to cover the cost of enough food to stay alive.

Absolute measures are useful in defining poverty, especially when you are trying to determine how many people in the country are malnourished. Setting the limit at 700 a pesos a month doesn't imply that everyone who can afford this is doing just fine. They will be malnourished. As will people spending 800 pesos a month, or 900, or 1000 and so on. But based on the minimum prices of the cheapest calories available anywhere, it is technically possible that some people can avoid malnutrition if they spend more than 700 pesos. Nobody spending less than 700 a month can avoid malnutrition. By setting the definition at 700 a month, you can quantify how many people in Argentina are malnourished, based on the fact that they live on less. And sadly plenty of people do. You also need to think about what 700 pesos buys you in mercado central, not what you spend during a weekly shop at Disco. Thats where they are basing their numbers. I personally can't imagine feeding my family for 700 pesos a month in Las Canitas. But then I'm very thankful to have never known extreme poverty.

Around half the planet live on less than $2 USD a day. The international poverty line has been set at living off $1 USD a day for years (although it was recently revised upwards and is now $1.25). That covers all costs, not just food. INDEC's figures which define absolute poverty in Argentina aren't even out of line with the numbers used globally by the world bank and other organisations which measure poverty. This was a fairly pertinent fact that was absent from Clarin's reporting. But then the Clarin article wasn't about abject poverty and malnutrition in Argentina. Instead, their article was about an out of touch government who thought we were all lousy shoppers because we spend more than 700 pesos a month on food. This wasn't just twisting the story, it was making one up.

A few links you might find interesting:
http://en.wikipedia....ving_in_poverty
https://en.wikipedia...verty_threshold
https://www.livebelowtheline.com/

The question remains why this was suddenly a story. You can see from the report you posted that the absolute definition of abject poverty has been the same for years, slowly rising with inflation each month. It's not like INDEC hid the numbers, or suddenly revised the numbers downwards dramatically. So why did the story suddenly blow up? There was no reason for it. Nothing new had happened, nothing significant had changed. It wasn't news. It was a well coordinated attack.

Yes, just like any media you have to take Clarin with a grain of salt, but I would rather that than have a media 100% controlled by the government.[font=Helvetica Neue']

[/font]

Sure, completely agree. But there's no real threat of that happening in Argentina. The Clarin newspaper isn't under any threat. The Clarin bloc may be forced to relinquish some of their assets and sell them off. But they will still be an immensely powerful media bloc even after parts of their empire are broken up.

 

[trennod]

JP, I never said happily, I said live ok. Take it as being able to live Ok / survive if you like. I get your point completely, you used this article as a fact that Clarin lie. I disagree. The figures dont lie. At best, the article may be slightly misleading. But, hey what media in the world would not be guilty of that?

Look what La Nacion presented re the same issue (dont worry I know they are not pro-government).

http://www.lanacion....-se-puede-comer

I understand completely what the INDEC report refers to - that anyone earning less than that would be living below the poverty line (linea de indigencia). But, that also means that anyone earning on that threshold, would not be on the poverty line. So, according to INDEC a grown adult earning above $7.42 pesos a day, would not be malnourished/on the poverty line. Plus, JP have you seen what foods are included in the INDEC report? You reckon you can have a diet of that for 7.42 pesos per day. I dont believe it.

INDEC then uses these figures to present its numbers on poverty. Go figure.

I have no problem with Clarin etc all of sudden highlighting these facts. Its well known that INDEC and the government lie, so Clarin/La Nacion etc have written an article to highlight what a joke it is.

Media threat - I wouldnt be so sure. Understand completely the law is just about dampening Clarins influence, but I am not talking about the media law, I am talking about whats in store afterwards, for the future? Whats next? If the Ks get re-elected in 2015 who knows where this ship is sailing to.

 

[jp]

I understand completely what the INDEC report refers to - that anyone earning less than that would be living below the poverty line (linea de indigencia). But, that also means that anyone earning on that threshold, would not be on the poverty line. So, according to INDEC a grown adult earning above $7.42 pesos a day, would not be malnourished/on the poverty line.

This isn't true, however it is a valid criticism of using absolute measures of poverty - it can create the impression that a family earning a peso above the poverty enjoys a different quality of life to those living on a peso less. This would be true no matter where the line was drawn. If there was an absolute measure of wealth, those earning just under the threshold would be categorised as not being wealthy. Cue outrage. For this very reason, sometimes poverty is measured using indeces and other statistical devices.

I have no problem with Clarin etc all of sudden highlighting these facts. Its well known that INDEC and the government lie, so Clarin/La Nacion etc have written an article to highlight what a joke it is.

I think you are being very generous to both, assuming that they are publishing old news simultaenously with the same spin in the interests of public information.

Anyways, I think we're probably at an impasse. I personally couldn't tell you whether it's possible to buy enough calories to live on for 8 pesos a day, my point was that this was a non-story based on wilful misreprentation, and it demonstrated the danger of one media bloc being able to repeat a non-story across its empire - it makes fiction into fact.

 

[trennod]

You did use this story as an example of a clear Clarin lie (which is what the thread was discussing).

Post this story, the head of INDEC has come out and acknowledged that this measure of La Canasta Básica is outdated and no longer very relevant. In addition, she has said that it shows variations in prices and not exact amounts.

So, INDEC have basically discredited their own figures and report. I guess the question is, if there is no point for it, why continue presenting it? And why use it as a basis for your poverty calculations?

The thing is, they know all the inflation & other figures they present are a lie.

Here is some advice for the government: how about presenting a bit more truth in what you say, what you present and it wont make it so easy for Clarin to attack you.

 

[notebook.fix]

Here is some advice for the government: how about presenting a bit more truth in what you say, what you present and it wont make it so easy for Clarin to attack you.

Spot on! Could not have said it better! You nailed it excellently. Thanks!

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

8 pesos now is it? An alfajore and a half, hopefully it rains and you get some free rainwater to drink.

 

[jp]

Check out what 700 pesos buys you here:
http://www.mercadoce...-minoristas.pdf

 

[Gringoboy]

Once upon a time in a land of pixies and goblins, there lived a wicked witch who reigned over her kingdom from a pink castle high upon a lonely mountain............................................