Shame on you Argentina

[jp]

Did I miss some good news? You know those policies cause ruin, I know it, most not all posters here know it, a handful of Argies know it, but... who else in this country does?

Was the fixed exchange policy "socialist"? Was dergulating labour markets and selling of national assets to attract foreign investment socialist? Doesn't sound very socialist to me...

I know its popular to try blame everything on socialism these days (presumably life is a living hell in sweden) but its becoming a bit of a bogeyman.

The evil spectre of socialism is coming, with plans to provide universal healthcare a functioning welfare system. Be afraid...

 

[Matt84]

Was the fixed exchange policy "socialist"? Was dergulating labour markets and selling of national assets to attract foreign investment socialist? Doesn't sound very socialist to me...

I know its popular to try blame everything on socialism these days (presumably life is a living hell in sweden) but its becoming a bit of a bogeyman.

The evil spectre of socialism is coming, with plans to provide universal healthcare a functioning welfare system. Be afraid...

Oh please don't taunt me. I come here to exchange ideas not fight flame wars.

Those were Menem policies now accused of "Neoliberalism". They are not part of the Projecto Socialismo del S.XXI or Bolivarianism or as I call it: Pungacracia (Thugocracy)

Here, enjoy:

Don't Blame Capitalism, Argentina
by Ana I. Eiras (January 5, 2002)
A century ago, it was one of the seven richest nations on Earth.

But that was long ago, well before it was racked by a lengthy recession and a climbing unemployment rate. Today, Argentina is a shell of its former self. The street riots that broke out just before Christmas left more than two dozen people dead and forced President Fernando de la Rua's government to resign.

And the new leaders, members of the Peronist political party, say they know what's to blame for their woes: free-market reforms. They claim that U.S.-backed capitalism, supposedly forced upon the developing world throughout the 1990s, has failed. But it could not have failed in Argentina -- because it's never really been tried.

Things looked a little brighter more than 10 years ago, when President Carlos Menem took office. He aligned his government with the U.S. free-market philosophy and executed an aggressive economic liberalization plan. He privatized state-owned enterprises, discarded price controls, deregulated the banking system and removed restrictions on foreign investment. These steps brought high economic growth and helped cut the number of families living below the poverty line from 38 percent in 1989 to 13 percent in 1994.

But these reforms alone, good as they were, could never have created an adequate environment for capitalism to flourish in Argentina. To achieve prosperity on a long-term basis, Menem's government should have reduced, first, the cost of doing business in Argentina. Argentina's stubborn 18 percent unemployment rate is deeply rooted in the rigidity of its labor market. Every thing that in the United States is a negotiable benefit -- vacations, health coverage, bonuses -- is a legal mandate in Argentina. In addition, all businesses, from large corporations to the street-side booths that sell ties, face high taxes and burdensome regulations. And by keeping trade barriers high, Argentina supports a few inefficient local industries at the expense of consumers.

Some observers may point out the fact that some countries, such as France, Sweden and Norway, have taxes and regulations just as burdensome (if not more so) than those afflicting Argentina. But that brings us to a crucial element of true capitalism: Property rights. To be specific, none of the countries listed above has a problem protecting those rights -- and Argentina does.

According to the "2002 Index of Economic Freedom," co-published by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, Sweden's judiciary is independent and guarantees its citizens a fair legal process. The same holds true in France and Norway. But Argentina's courts can't be relied on to protect private property. Small wonder, then, that individuals trying to decide where to invest their money are more likely to opt for Sweden, Norway or France than for Argentina. Yet not a single Argentine government since the 1930s, "capitalist" or otherwise, has made protecting property rights a cornerstone of its reforms.

Unfortunately, this rule-of-law problem isn't unique to Argentina. Of the 161 countries graded in the 2002 Index, only 45 offer "very high" to "high" protection of property rights, while 116 countries offer weak protection. Relatively speaking, economic activity can sustain itself in less than a third of the world. No wonder, according to the World Bank, 70 percent of the world is poor.

Chile and Poland exemplify how Third World countries can achieve economic success and improve living standards by strengthening their rule of law. In the late 1980s, both countries boasted a "moderate" protection of property rights, but progressed, as reported by the Index, to a high level of protection of property rights in the 1990s. In that same period, per capita income improved steadily. In Chile, GDP per capita today is more than double the 1989 level, while in Poland it grew by 50 percent.

The Third World needs to embrace capitalism in its entirety, not piecemeal. Partially opening markets, in response to a crisis or to U.S. pressure, is not building a "capitalist" society and, as such, will never deliver prosperity. Let's hope Argentina's next government understands that -- or the next round of resignations is only a matter of time.

Ana I. Eiras is an Economic Policy Analyst for Latin America and Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation

On Social Democracies:
I could point you to a fantastic but long Swedish study of how their life is indeed miserable in some aspects, though out weighted by a level of Institutionalism unparalleled outside Skandinavia. Or I could just ask you to youtube "rosengard" in Malmö. Maybe it's just easier to point out that Swedish industries grew a LOT under a mercantilist/capitalist system from 1860 to 1930 when the country was rich enough to begin enacting redistribution policies without going bankrupy. Sweden is a perfect example of Corporativism but coupled with a real good judicial system: Saab, Tetra Pak, and probably some steel company, employ and sustain the whole population. Try your luck setting up a entrepreneurial biz in Sweden.
----------------------
By the way I'd like to know on what you base your prediction that the welfare system is going to work this time?

 

[seeker]

Yup, this does seem to be turning into a socialist vs capitalist thing. Look, almost every North American and West European country is, whether we like it or not, at least partly socialist already. The U.S, last time I went there, has state funded public libraries, free pre university education, publicly funded roads, national parks, pensions, some state provision of healthcare, and a huge military, all of which are, when you really stop and think about it.."socialist".

This is all a bit of an irrelevance though. The French, or the Swedes, for example, are big tax and spend socialists...but I would say, this kind of "socialism" isn't necessarily a bad thing. What I am saying however, is that capitalism at market level is usually a good thing, and governments should not protect home markets from foreign competition. For example there are absolutely no trade barriers at all between the Swedes and the French, and it's illegal for a Swedish company, say, to be offered government protection from competition originating elsewhere in the EU.

This trend towards liberal trade is growing annually. The EU expands frequently, it has only in the last week signed a free trade agreement with South Korea. I believe that it's this constant trend away from protectionism and towards free trade that's currently helping to lift China and India out of poverty, and which has helped to stop Europeans from fighting each other quite as often as happened before the trade liberalisation process began in the aftermath of WW2.

Argentina, btw, isn't especially "socialist", there are hardly any social services at all to speak of, a very rudimentary health care service, and a very basic social security system. It's also far more unequal than anywhere in Western Europe or North America. Argentina needs to engage fully with the rest of the world, make some money, and then it'll be able to afford to start a public debate about whether it's gonna be tax and spend kind of place or not...for now, it's a desperately inefficient place with laughable shops,uncompetitive industry, poor environmental standards, poor environment for inward investment, and much of this, of course, is because competition seems to be proactively discouraged. BTW, this seems like a rant, and it is, really. But it annoys me that this country just need to take a few simple, but painful steps to be more like, say, Canada, or Australia. But it probably won't.

btw, I agree with the gist of Matt84s post...in the sense that the rule of law and a legal system that makes decisions and dispenses justice quickly and fairly, and in which people can trust, is a big priority too.

 

[jp]

Oh please don't taunt me. I come here to exchange ideas not fight flame wars.
Those were Menem policies now accused of "Neoliberalism".

Believe me, I've got no interest in flame wars. But equally I'm bored of reading lazy assertions that socialism is the root of all evil, and can be blamed for all problems.

Its patently obvious that the last 40 years of turbulent history, the junta, hyperinflation & the 2001 crash can not be explained away using the increasingly inappropriate catch-all explanation of "socialism".

The more the term is used, the more its misapplied and the more meaningless it becomes.

I could point you to a fantastic but long Swedish study of how their life is indeed miserable in some aspects

And I could point out the fairly obvious point that life is miserable in some aspects in every single country in the world, then point you to a endless list of quality of life reports which put "socialist" countries top on every meaningful measure.

There are a litany of reasons why Argentina is the way it is. No single hobby horse explanation is ever going to adequately account for the state of the nation.

 

[mini]

Oh please don't taunt me. I come here to exchange ideas not fight flame wars.

Those were Menem policies now accused of "Neoliberalism". They are not part of the Projecto Socialismo del S.XXI or Bolivarianism or as I call it: Pungacracia (Thugocracy)

Here, enjoy:



On Social Democracies:
I could point you to a fantastic but long Swedish study of how their life is indeed miserable in some aspects, though out weighted by a level of Institutionalism unparalleled outside Skandinavia. Or I could just ask you to youtube "rosengard" in Malmö. Maybe it's just easier to point out that Swedish industries grew a LOT under a mercantilist/capitalist system from 1860 to 1930 when the country was rich enough to begin enacting redistribution policies without going bankrupy. Sweden is a perfect example of Corporativism but coupled with a real good judicial system: Saab, Tetra Pak, and probably some steel company, employ and sustain the whole population. Try your luck setting up a entrepreneurial biz in Sweden.
----------------------
By the way I'd like to know on what you base your prediction that the welfare system is going to work this time?

Are you kidding?

What about Volvo, Ikea, H&M, Ericsson, SAS, Swedish Match, Scania, AstraZeneca, Electrolux, AkzoNobel. & where did Skype come from?

http://www.swedishwire.com/business/275-sweden-hardly-a-socialist-nightmare
http://www.thelocal.se/22428/20091002/

Insert JP's first paragraph about laziness here.

 

[orwellian]

I could point you to a fantastic but long Swedish study of how their life is indeed miserable in some aspects, though out weighted by a level of Institutionalism unparalleled outside Skandinavia.

What's so miserable in Sweden, besides the weather?

Or I could just ask you to youtube "rosengard" in Malmö.

What about Rosengård?

 

[Matt84]

Sweden: I am looking at the study I mentioned, it is really eyes opening and non tendentious whatsoever.

Mini: yes many companies, 95% of them founded before the social reforms of the 40s and 50s. Once all these companies were well established, the private sector, the labor movements, and the state joined forces to have a sweet welfare state. But remember that the first newspaper in History was first edited in Malmö (can't do the circular accent on the o!), meaning that Sweden has a tradition of freedom of consciousness. Once that tradition is established and for so long, they are able to be a little materialistic because the Swedes are already law-abiding, human sanctity abiding people, like most Skandinavians after they went trhough their pirate phase, wink wink.
Now back to the companies: What could be a better deal than to start a corporation under a free market, grow it until you can easily crush the competence and THEN, let the government enact so many regulations and 50% taxes making the rise of a new competitor almost impossible?
There's a funny saying about that:
"In America the middle class is Democrat, the upper class is Republican, and the millionaires are Communist"

Skype, Pïratebay, even Ikea I believe is new but I don't know, are not the exceptions that prove the rule, but just testimony that Sweden even with its taxes, its lack of corruption still makes it a free country.

On the "miseries" of the swedes, well this is from a Swedish friend of mine's pov: he referred to the kids that were born knowing that they had their whole life secured by the nanny state and so the lack of material problems is translated into a bounty of psychological problems.

On Rosengärd: I use it as an example of the concentration of muslim immigrants. A family is by definition a welfare government. A very extended family that forms an ethnically homogeneous country (like Sweden used to be, like Japan IS) can indeed buy the luxury of a welfare state. When foreigners begin coming the system begins to crack - for it was that cohesion, and that 300 year tradition that made it possible in the first place.
In other words: if you want a welfare state, then you gotta be Nationalist and live in the Old World. For the New World (ethically heterogeneous countries) freedom is the only proven way.


JP: Socialism is not the root of all -political- evils. Non-retaliatory coercion is.
I've made a point of this in my fascism post somewhere else:
It's not right or left: it's Statism (be it a Theocracy or a Majoritocracy) vs "Liberalism" .

In fact in that study I'm trying to find one can see how in fact it was the Conservative administrations in Sweden the ones that raised taxes AND spending the most! It's not right or left issue, it's an up and down issue.

Seeker: I agree, Argentina isn't and has never been Socialist. In fact I have another name for what it technically is. well a mono-partidist democracy... but if we looked a bit deeper....
thugocratic nepotism

-----

This whole discussion makes me wonder: as more and more Americans dismiss the right and left booby-trap... what's going to happen to the current 2 party system? God save us from Lyndon LaRouche, and I don't see any Libertarian leader not worth laughing at.

So kneel before General Zod 2012

 

[orwellian]

Sweden: I am looking at the study I mentioned, it is really eyes opening and non tendentious whatsoever.

You mean the Capitalism is not to blame Article? I really don't understand your Swedish analogy.

But remember that the first newspaper in History was first edited in Malmö (can't do the circular accent on the o!), meaning that Sweden has a tradition of freedom of consciousness.

What? Show me the source of that please, never heard about it.

On Rosengärd: I use it as an example of the concentration of muslim immigrants. A family is by definition a welfare government. A very extended family that forms an ethnically homogeneous country (like Sweden used to be, like Japan IS) can indeed buy the luxury of a welfare state. When foreigners begin coming the system begins to crack - for it was that cohesion, and that 300 year tradition that made it possible in the first place.

So what are you saying? Immigration has been bad for Sweden?

In other words: if you want a welfare state, then you gotta be Nationalist and live in the Old World. For the New World (ethically heterogeneous countries) f

JP: Socialism is not the root of all -political- evils. Non-retaliatory coercion is.
I've made a point of this in my fascism post somewhere else:
It's not right or left: it's Statism (be it a Theocracy or a Majoritocracy) vs "Liberalism" .

In fact in that study I'm trying to find one can see how in fact it was the Conservative administrations in Sweden the ones that raised taxes AND spending the most! It's not right or left issue, it's an up and down issue.

Seeker: I agree, Argentina isn't and has never been Socialist. In fact I have another name for what it technically is. well a mono-partidist democracy... but if we looked a bit deeper....
thugocratic nepotism

You gotta be drunk. Or we are just speaking different languages or something.

 

[Matt84]

You mean the Capitalism is not to blame Article? I really don't understand your Swedish analogy.


What? Show me the source of that please, never heard about it.


So what are you saying? Immigration has been bad for Sweden?


You gotta be drunk. Or we are just speaking different languages or something.

1) No! I mean, not an article, a study I can't find, but will, from Uppsala University but in English.

2)Google the source man! you just enter "first newspaper in the world" and bingo: it's not rocket science.

Google

Advanced Search
WebShow options...
Results 1 - 10 of about 141,000,000 for first newspaper in the world. (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
WAN - A Newspaper Timeline
1645 World's oldest newspaper still in circulation, Post-och Inrikes Tidningar, is published in Sweden. 1690 Publick Occurrences is the first newspaper ...

3) It's all black and white for you isn't it? yueah sure, I said immigration was bad for sweden, you may call me a nazi now if it helps you sleep

4) OR SOMETHING

gosh, there's a reason I regret getting into politics threads

 

[orwellian]

1) No! I mean, not an article, a study I can't find, but will, from Uppsala University but in English.

2)Google the source man! you just enter "first newspaper in the world" and bingo: it's not rocket science.


3) It's all black and white for you isn't it? yueah sure, I said immigration was bad for sweden, you may call me a nazi now if it helps you sleep

4) OR SOMETHING

gosh, there's a reason I regret getting into politics threads

What you mean everything is black and white with me? Can you elaborate please? And yes I did google it, but got nothing when using Malmoe as a keyword.
Sweden has always had immigration, like any country. Contemporary immigration is no different. So please also elaborate what is so special about Swedish immigration right now, and why it's so bad.
And really, I didn't understand a word of that last quote, that is why I thought you were drunk when you wrote it (and also because of the time). *no offense*