The Real Macri:

[sesamosinsal]

The Hermit of the Pampas would diss me for a "one-liner."

You guys are really lovers, right?

 

[ajoknoblauch]

You guys are really lovers, right?

I hope never to come remotely close to the Hermit's bunker.

 

[ben]

The Hermit of the Pampas would diss me for a "one-liner."

As would I, normally fairly often. Stop being an ass.

 

[Joe]

You guys are really lovers, right?

That is very observant of you Bradly. This is in fact true. I knew them back in the glory days in Palermo. The back story is quite interesting but as you probably guessed ending sadly.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

As would I, normally fairly often. Stop being an ass.

The fact is, the Hermit sets himself up so much that response is irresistible. You, by contrast, don't usually make a fool of yourself.

 

[sleslie23]

I still do not understand why people here prefer to pay for a service, entretainment, etc and that way, enrich a private company, and not get it for free.

IT'S NOT FREE MATIAS! THE GOVERNMENT PAYS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO *CORPORATIONS* FOR THE RIGHTS TO BROADCAST THE GAMES.

 

[ElQueso]

Bradley, you're right I'm a bit of a radical on these things. Doesn't make them necessarily not true. And BTW - the only reason I'm against taxation and the distribution of money is because I don't trust the government (any government, although admittedly some are much better than others at doing it) to do what is good for the people, but rather to do what is good for the politician, no matter what the results of their programs. In many countries the effect isn't so bad, and can even be good when handled properly. In many poor countries, it is very simply a matter of bribing those who are unfortunate because their opportunities have been taken away and they are given pittances that make them feel like they are getting something for their suffering.

I do indeed feel that if everyone contributes to their own welfare as much as possible, in a fair environment, that there will be less need for other people to contribute to those who are unfortunate. In fact, I have seen studies that show how things such as welfare programs contribute to further dependencies rather than lifting people out of poverty. That's why I think it's better to create conditions of opportunity rather than clientelism.

Subsidies are free shit, no matter where you are. Of course, TANSTAAFAL (There Ain't No Such thing As A Free Lunch), nothing is for free, but it can sure look like it's "free". If you live in a country that has a decent economy and isn't about to shit itself, while I still don't agree about subsidies, that's a fair enough decision. When you create national policies that try to force the market to do things that don't agree with reality and you take away opportunities from people en masse, the free shit are bribes to the people, plain and simple.

I'm pretty sure (but won't swear) that the child credits here are not dependent on income (I've been told this). Many people may not choose to apply for this, but I know poor people who get pregnant and one of the first things they say is "we've got another 500 pesos a month coming soon." I'm not saying they are getting pregnant for those 500 pesos, but some of them at least are indeed seeing those extra pesos as a boon. I've seen it first hand in villas and in Jose C Paz and hear a lot of conversation about this from my wife's family - how they can't believe the ignorance of others around them. I've also heard from the same from one of my good expat friends who married an Argentina and her daughter got pregnant at 19 and was talking about how nice that 500 pesos will be - and she didn't need it, she lived in a good house with parents to help take care of the baby. But she saw the "free shit."

Perhaps my choice of words were a bit offensive (i.e., maybe there is a bit of political correctness attached to this because we are talking about children?) - but people do indeed get paid when they have a baby. Do they need another baby with the other two or three (or more) they already have and can't afford to feed and raise "properly" as is? Would they be a little more careful about having another one if they didn't get that extra money? And consider this - when you are making $5000 pesos a month or less, we're taking about a 10% or more raise. 500 pesos is a lot of money to poor people and they often do not consider all of the other extra specific costs involved in raising another child, clear into adulthood.

As far as the positive effects on child care and education? I really think that the education part of it is quite ineffective here. I certainly don't see anything that helps with that - my wife and I buy our two nephews school supplies (not to mention clothes and extra meals) so they actually have something to work with in school and it ends up getting used by their classmates who don't have any (often stolen, often borrowed and never returned - their classmates never have school supplies - or food. One meal a day, when they get home.). It surely doesn't affect what is actually supplied in the low level schools I've seen as far as materials and the quality of teachers.

Maybe it would be better create an environment of opportunity instead of clientelism and then if you can pick up the costs for those who are still unfortunate it would make a lot more sense to me. In the sense of a poor country that has few good opportunities for poor people, I see the child credit as a bribe (free shit) to make them feel better about their situation.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Bradley, you're right I'm a bit of a radical on these things. Doesn't make them necessarily not true. And BTW - the only reason I'm against taxation and the distribution of money is because I don't trust the government (any government, although admittedly some are much better than others at doing it) to do what is good for the people, but rather to do what is good for the politician, no matter what the results of their programs. In many countries the effect isn't so bad, and can even be good when handled properly. In many poor countries, it is very simply a matter of bribing those who are unfortunate because their opportunities have been taken away and they are given pittances that make them feel like they are getting something for their suffering.

What's good for the people and good for the politicians are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[ElQueso]

What's good for the people and good for the politicians are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

That can be true, I agree with that. But I feel for the most part it is lucky coincidence when it happens to coincide, which is rather haphazard in my opinion. And sometimes what seems to be good for the people may not really be.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

That can be true, I agree with that. But I feel for the most part it is lucky coincidence when it happens to coincide, which is rather haphazard in my opinion. And sometimes what seems to be good for the people may not really be.

In a functional democracy, it would be the case. In Argentina, it's rarely so.