The New York Times article on Argentina

garryl

Registered
Basically it says the Argentina's move away from the left did not work, and the left wing could come back. The reality is that Macri is doing the bad things of both left and right. He removed the subsidies like a ruthless right wing guy and he is printing pesos like CFK. Printing excessive peso causes direct inflation. He kept saying the inflation will be single digit by a certain time while he is printing extra pesos at double digit, how does that work ? He really screwed up the things. Not sure if he is stupid or intentional to do so ?

Argentina’s Economic Misery Could Bring Populism Back to the Country
 

artisans

Just Joined
It's an excellent read and primer on the fiscal aspects of Argentina, the trail of circumstances leading up to the present and a heavy punctuation on conditions of people at the bottom of the economic ladder, the effects on successful business' ability to grow out of the economic limitations. One hopes that Macri's government can find the tools to thwart failure and give themselves time for positive effects of their strategies to emerge. As unlikely as that seems from the article.
While the article articulates the circumstances of the poorest and a totem of successful business, they missed discussing the effects on the masses in the middle. Would be instructive to know their conditions and which way they, the voters are pointing when it comes down to a voter's choice between Macri and Kirchner.
 

Pierre Smith

Registered
Man, if you're so low down the totem that you're sifting through garbage for some meager income and eating chicken gizzards, it strikes me as a pretty obvious thing that you'd not have any children. Obviously, a person at that low level won't be writing the next great novel or splitting the atom, but still it's a pretty easy calculation that anything that raises the cost of living, and thereby increases misery, should be avoided at all costs.
 

Ries

Registered
Man, if you're so low down the totem that you're sifting through garbage for some meager income and eating chicken gizzards, it strikes me as a pretty obvious thing that you'd not have any children. Obviously, a person at that low level won't be writing the next great novel or splitting the atom, but still it's a pretty easy calculation that anything that raises the cost of living, and thereby increases misery, should be avoided at all costs.
For pretty much the entire history of the world, in pretty much every country, poor people always have the most children. Be it the American Midwest in 1900, Rural India in the 1950s, or Africa, Italy, or Korea, poor people have the least access to health care, basic sex ed, or food to feed their kids, and yet have always had lots of children.
When people become more affluent, birth rates fall.
Whether it makes sense or not, its a historical fact that continues to this day.
As incomes rise in Japan, or Italy, or the USA, birth rates fall.
Also, access to birth control, and the freedom to live NOT under a religion that requires constant childbearing.
 

camberiu

Registered
When people become more affluent, birth rates fall.
Not exactly. The combination of factors that leads to a drop in birth rates is a lot more complex than that. Child mortality rates are as big of a factor if not bigger than income. Even in poor rural areas, birth rate drops once the survival chances of the offspring increases. Birth rates in Bangladesh, a very poor and religious country (ISLAM) for example, are now at 2.1 children per couple. In Argentina, a much wealthier and more secular country, the birth rate is at 2.3 children per couple.

SOURCE
 

camberiu

Registered
Argentina’s Economic Misery Could Bring Populism Back to the Country
The main issue that I see is that Argentines want quick, easy, top to bottom solutions for very complex problems. There are no quick fixes and there are no government decrees that can fix the country. It will take a long and painful process of incremental changes at all levels of society for things to get better. But no one here wants to hear that. So instead they vte for demagogues like Macri or Cristina, who tell them what they want to hear.
 

Pensador

Registered
The majority of dirt poor Argentines think with there stomaches as their brains hardly function worth a shit populism is coming back and it will kill the country this time.
 

garryl

Registered
The majority of dirt poor Argentines think with there stomaches as their brains hardly function worth a shit populism is coming back and it will kill the country this time.
It has been like that for decades and Argentina is still here. They know how to survive. When Argentina is dirt poor, investors and tourists will come.
When US was in big trouble in 2009/2010/2011, judging by what happened in Argentina in 2001/2002, I thought US economy would rebound big time. (Argentina had almost 10 years of golden time after crash) And US did, the comeback is much bigger than most would have anticipated. US is still in the peak of rebounding today, real estate, stock market, silicon valley are sky high, so much wealth has been created (maybe lost later)
Argentina is no USA, but still a large country with smart and beautiful people.
 

sergio

Registered
For pretty much the entire history of the world, in pretty much every country, poor people always have the most children. Be it the American Midwest in 1900, Rural India in the 1950s, or Africa, Italy, or Korea, poor people have the least access to health care, basic sex ed, or food to feed their kids, and yet have always had lots of children.
When people become more affluent, birth rates fall.
Whether it makes sense or not, its a historical fact that continues to this day.
As incomes rise in Japan, or Italy, or the USA, birth rates fall.
Also, access to birth control, and the freedom to live NOT under a religion that requires constant childbearing.

What religion REQUIRES child bearing? I'm not aware of any such religion, not even Islam.
 

TWB103

Registered
Many poor people in poorer countries don't unwilling have children. Its mostly a lazy and patronising first world myth. More than lack of contraception, or ignorance, religious or cutural influence children are a practical form of social security when the parents are sick and old. More mouths to feed etc but also they quickly begin to pay for themselves and the family ie 5 year olds selling socks in the coffee shops or begging. Its not desirable but thats the reality of the situation.
 
Top