Priceless: This Is The Start Of The Anti Corruption

[Matiasba]

With all the hidden changes to the election laws favoring the KKs in the last few weeks THERE WILL BE NO CHANCE OF VOTING THIS GROUP OF CRIMINALS OUT. It's HYPOCRITICAL to say the least.

so you re saying a change is not possible and the only way to make them leave is with a coup? If you cant change with the vote how? didnt they lost elections in 2009 and recognised openly the defeat?

 

[Matiasba]

With all respect, your statement seems naive.

CFK got elected with XX% of the popular vote. I think I heard it was 65%. You vote for a President thinking they will take certain measures and go in a particular direction.

The latest polls show CFK's support at about 25% of the population. That must mean that between the time she was elected and now that about 50% of the people who originally voted for her think she is going in the wrong direction. I think that if Argentines knew exactly what she was going to do the election might have been very different.

Your statement would be true if the population got to vote on every measure that the President decides to do. You really only get "control" about once every 4 years.

what I meant is that the political power of these politicians is not for ever, they are here with a limited mandate. You like it or not, the exercise of power of this people is not indetermined and it has precise time limits. In fact, even if they want to stay, they cant. They can propose someone with the same ideas, but will never gonna be the same (see in a few months how many people voted for Chavez and then changed for Capriles).
So, the political power is limited, although they have a lot of power their mandate is short, and depend 100% of peoples vote.
With the corporations, that had almost the same of political power, plus economic power, they dont change! we dont vote for Magnetto or Aranda!! they have equally political power than the government, but they dont depend directly of the people, they dont depend on a vote, they are in power indefinitely, they dont have a mandate with a beginning and a closure, or elections in the middle.

Thats what I meant when I said that the political power of a government can be controlled by people but that does not happen with corporations.

 

[dennisr]

"El organismo estatal dice que la canasta básica para una familia tipo cuesta $ 688,37 mensuales o 23 pesos diarios"
http://www.ieco.clarin.com/economia/Estadisticas-polemicas_0_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.

Appears many publications confirm the 6 peso number and is confirmed by Moreno. Guess Clarin just pulls the number out of their ass. Oh well, not worth loosing any sleep over.
http://www.lapoliticaonline.com/noticias/val/90825/el-indec-sigue-diciendo-que-se-puede-comer-con-6-pesos-por-dia.html

http://www.rionegro.com.ar/diario/indec-insiste-en-lo-irrisorio-se-puede-comer-con-6-por-dia-1164594-9532-nota.aspx

 

[scotttswan]

The real definition of a monopoly:

mo·nop·o·ly

/məˈnäpəlē/


Noun

• The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
  
• The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: "men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love".

Ed's definition of monopoly:

"Clarín owns well over half of the cable market, and its control of Papel Prensa (see below) makes utterly dominant in print. Then there's its huge radio presence."

Ed, not only do you clearly not understand what a monopoly is, but saying that Clarín owns well over half the cable market (what percentage is it, Ed?), even if that should be true, does not make it a monopoly, which you would understand if you knew what a monopoly was. Moreover, your argument is disingenuous, because in this changing technological world of ours, cable is not the only game it town. Far from it. Did you forget about Telefonica, Telecom, and DirecTV?

What's really fucked is the fact you have all these options and the internet is still fucking shite.
Argentina needs to copy Romania

http://foxnomad.com/2012/03/15/why-is-the-internet-in-romania-so-damn-fast/

 

[Bajo_cero2]

With phrases like "serial denuciatory" I'm sure he is getting rich.

Funny how, just a year ago no K supporter would fight or acknowledge the opposition - they would simply pretend the opposition did not exist. Now, after many many failures, it seems like they are trying to do some damage control.

Too late, Bajo.

Question: do you get a bonus for writing your propaganda in English?

Sorry guys, only the Pro spend money on trolls in internet because they don t look for votes, they just conspire. So, even people without voting rights are useful.

The official government (not only this one) uses the social assistance for getting votes.

However, the article was interesting because it evidence the hipocrecy of politicians like Carrio (the queen of the corruption complaints) who got less than 3% of the votes. I remind you that she was government with De La Rua. Now she barely got the votes to keep the party open. This is justice.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

And there is a typo, I ment that she is the Star of the anti corruption

 

[jp]

Appears many publications confirm the 6 peso number and is confirmed by Moreno. Guess Clarin just pulls the number out of their ass. Oh well, not worth loosing any sleep over.
http://www.lapolitic...os-por-dia.html

http://www.rionegro....-9532-nota.aspx

Sorry, I've not made my point clear enough.

The 6 peso figure is not in dispute. $688 pesos a month for a family of four roughly works out at $6 pesos a day, if you assume a child needs as much food as an adult, and that a family living in abject poverty buys an equal amount of food for each person on a daily basis.

My point was that Clarin purposely presented the "6 pesos a day" figure as what the government implied a typical family spent a day on food.

This was a lie. The government very clearly stated that a family paying less than $688 a month could not possibly afford sufficient nutrition.

There is a huge gulf between these two statements - one suggests average family expenditure on food, another determines the threshold for malnutrition. Clarin purposefully conflated the two. I believe willful misrepresentation of information constitutes a lie.

It was an incredibly well executed lie though. It was cynical, manipulative and beautifully executed. It quickly became a national talking point, and even received extensive international coverage. The fact that the lie could quickly be debunked seemed to escape the international press. They conflated government inflation lies (well documented) with government household expenditure estimates (misrepresented) and reinforced the notion that the government have no credibility.

I think it was a beautiful political manouevre. The government's credibility is rooted in it's work in alleviating poverty. Attacking this track record, through accusation of manipulation of poverty data is incredibly powerful, especially amongst the middle class voters who vote for CFK out of a belief that she is improving life for others, even if she is not improving life for them in particular.

Full credit to Clarin. I honestly thought it was Machiavellian in its ingenuity. Anyone know what INDEC determined the malnutrition level to be in previous years? Prior to INDEC's statement that a family could not live on less than $688 pesos a month - does anyone know what INDEC stated a family could live on? I'm guessing no. Nobody cared until Clarin made it an issue. Masterful political espionage.

But like I said earlier - Clarin are entitled to print whatever fiction, fantasy or objective reporting they choose to. Their advertisers are free to withdraw their support, and their readers can refuse to buy their paper if they choose to. The problem isn't Clarin, it's that Clarin group wield a distorting influence upon the nation's media. It is right to address this. Fears that the government may not address this fairly are insufficient reason to avoid addressing this very real problem.

 

[jp]

Ok, I'll buy all of that except the last part (I might even buy that if you can convince me).

I'd like to hear your case for Clarín being a monopoly in the media landscape of Argentina in the present moment. I don't see it.

You make an interesting point. I read another post a while back which decried the use of the word "genocide" to describe the systematic murder of thousands of political opponents during the dirty war. It's true that the legal definition of genocide excludes political opponents, but this exclusion is very controversial. The fact that the legal definition excludes political groups does not negate the fact that many people understand genocide to mean the destruction of a group of people, and this grouping can be made along ideological lines and not just racial, ethnic or religious lines. There can a be a big difference between a legal definition and common understandings of a term.

I'm not a lawyer, and am not well versed in anti-trust and monopoly laws internationally. But it is not uncommon for companies within certain industry sectors to be described as exercising a monopoly, in apparent contradiction to the dictionary definition. In these cases, the company in question is not accused of complete ownership of an economic activity, they are accused of owning a dominating and potentially pernicious influence, which limits competition and inhibits natural market forces. Media is particularly special as dominance extends beyond economic advantage and includes political and social influence.

The Clarin group are currently battling anti-trust laws aimed at breaking up their immensely powerful media bloc. I personally believe they can be described as exercisng a monopoly, based on this specific interpretation. I don't think that accusing Clarin of operating a monopoly implies that they are the sole provider of media in Argentina, I think it implies that they possess an influence capable of distorting the media landscape to a potentially dangerous degree.

 

[notebook.fix]

Some die hard Cristina Lovers here will argue till blue in the face defending their idol ...but EVERYONE KNOWS that she's a thief, a liar & a manipulating common criminal. In desperation to cover up for the million$ she & her dead hu$band $tole from the state, she's forced in new 'pro-money laundering' laws, she's sneaked in new legislation to shut down the free press & as if this wasn't enough she's also trying to subdue the judiciary...Clarin or no Clarin, sooner or later, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig, it's going to have to go to jail. Period.

 

[sleazemerchant]

Sorry guys, only the Pro spend money on trolls in internet because they don t look for votes, they just conspire. So, even people without voting rights are useful.

The official government (not only this one) uses the social assistance for getting votes.

However, the article was interesting because it evidence the hipocrecy of politicians like Carrio (the queen of the corruption complaints) who got less than 3% of the votes. I remind you that she was government with De La Rua. Now she barely got the votes to keep the party open. This is justice.

In the interest of historical accuracy/ interest, you should duly note that in the 2007 presidential election Elisa Carrio actually got 23% of the vote (4.4 million argentines voted for her) and came in second place behind CFK. In the 2011 election Carrio received less than 3% of the vote and was not seen as a major candidate (Duhalde and Alfonsin were the "major" alternative candidates).