This is just not right! Cristina to turn foreign pensions into pesos!

[Bajo_cero2]

Ok, I m going to translate the article for you. Badeni, one of the most respected constitutional professors said it is not inconstitucional while some unknown lawyers asserts that it is super inconstitutional.

To be a colaborator of el dial means that you are nobody. El dial is a website for lawyers. While the other laywer is looking for clients what I respect and I cannot opinion about it.

I am going to explain it better, is it inconstitutional that the buy and sell of cocaine is illegal? Because if you invest your money in cocaine you get a super profit. The same happens with dollars if you sell them in the black market. Because using the word blue is an auphemism, it is black market.

So, do you hace a right about selling your dollars in the black market instead in the legal market? Seem doubtful.

Whe we had thecorralito, there were loooooooong line at Court because lawyers were asking for many hundred thouthan of amparos (class actions) while now this is not happening.

Regards

 

[Crema Americana]

People would use and save in pesos if pesos kept their value. Then the government wouldn't have to force people to use them. The problem is the government wants to have its cake and eat it, too. They take measures that purposefully devalue the peso and now they're forcing their citizens to use them to keep it afloat. People may spend their pesos because saving is useless, but I wouldn't call that "investing." Perhaps if the climate were more business friendly people may invest, but I don't really see that happening, either.


I would like as much as anyone else for the peso to be a strong stable currency that people could rely on... then pesification would occur naturally. But I'm not fooled by this government's actions. Long term stability and reliability aren't what they're after - all they're trying to do is keep the house of cards standing for as long as possible.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

We don't need to wait a year -- a recession is defined as a contraction in the economy that lasts 2 consecutive quarters. Even INDEC is conceding that various industries (construction, manufacturing) are seeing slowdowns since May. Torcuato di Tella analysts are already saying possibility of recession within next 6 mos as 99%. In 18 mos we`ll probably be entering a depression if CFK continues with these import/export restrictions.

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/07/13/argentina-the-cost-of-being-truthful/#ixzz20bnrKJX1

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/11/us-argentina-economy-data-idUSBRE86A1CU20120711

The Economist Intelligence Unit is predicting ....

"The government faces a host of challenges, including growing public discontent with foreign-exchange controls, corruption and crime; union unrest over wages in a high-inflation environment; and persistent pressure on the peso amid a weakening balance-of-payments position. Consumer and business confidence is falling rapidly and we are projecting a sharp slowdown in GDP growth in 2012, to 2.1%, and still-weak growth of 2.7% in 2013."

Wow if Europe could get a growth rate of 2.7% then we would be saying that's the peak of a boom!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9173199/UK-is-back-in-recession-says-OECD.html

A recession is conventionally defined as two quarters of negative growth or if you dont like the oxymoron then use the term reduction in the overall size of the economy (GDP)

Not a reduction in the rate of growth

So as to be totally clear then use mathematics i.e the first order derivative has to be minus for minimum of 6 months!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative

K economics isnt quite so disastrous as some would have it

and ... no one can call The Economist any sort of neo-peronist fellow travellers!!

http://www.economist.com/node/15580245?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e

 

[Bajo_cero2]

People would use and save in pesos if pesos kept their value. Then the government wouldn't have to force people to use them. The problem is the government wants to have its cake and eat it, too. They take measures that purposefully devalue the peso and now they're forcing their citizens to use them to keep it afloat. People may spend their pesos because saving is useless, but I wouldn't call that "investing." Perhaps if the climate were more business friendly people may invest, but I don't really see that happening, either. .

history of this country shows something different. During the dictadura the dollar was cheap and people saved in dollars instead of producing goods because it was more profitable. Even ford stopped producing cars because the bicicleta financiera was more profitable.

So, facts show that the financial gamble destry the economy, i suggest you read "fuimos todos". Or ask any Argentine about la plata dulce. They destroy our industry that way.

When you have inflacion and you cannot buy dollars, then you have to invest your money and then you avoid recesion.

Europe is doing exactly the opposite and they are not showing any success.

More facts and less feary tales about how liberal gosspels transforms argentina in sweden, please.

 

[nicoenarg]

The Economist Intelligence Unit is predicting ....

"The government faces a host of challenges, including growing public discontent with foreign-exchange controls, corruption and crime; union unrest over wages in a high-inflation environment; and persistent pressure on the peso amid a weakening balance-of-payments position. Consumer and business confidence is falling rapidly and we are projecting a sharp slowdown in GDP growth in 2012, to 2.1%, and still-weak growth of 2.7% in 2013."

Wow if Europe could get a growth rate of 2.7% then we would be saying that's the peak of a boom!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9173199/UK-is-back-in-recession-says-OECD.html

A recession is conventionally defined as two quarters of negative growth or if you dont like the oxymoron then use the term reduction in the overall size of the economy (GDP)

Not a reduction in the rate of growth

So as to be totally clear then use mathematics i.e the first order derivative has to be minus for minimum of 6 months!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative

K economics isnt quite so disastrous as some would have it

and ... no one can call The Economist any sort of neo-peronist fellow travellers!!

http://www.economist.com/node/15580245?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e

Yes of course. And inflation is 9% too. GDP numbers are released by INDEC too. Let's not be naive. If they can lie about inflation, they can lie about GDP growth.

Read the following:

http://www.economist.com/node/21548242

EDIT: I should add that EIU seems to be using INDEC's figures e.g. their fact sheet on Argenina shows average inflation of 8.8%. I wouldn't use that report to prove the K's were right. All it proves is that lying works every once in a while.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Yes of course. And inflation is 9% too. GDP numbers are released by INDEC too. Let's not be naive. If they can lie about inflation, they can lie about GDP growth.

Read the following:

http://www.economist.com/node/21548242

EDIT: I should add that EIU seems to be using INDEC's figures e.g. their fact sheet on Argenina shows average inflation of 8.8%. I wouldn't use that report to prove the K's were right. All it proves is that lying works every once in a while.

Thank you yes indeed I have previously read the Economist article about the INDEC lies and happy to cite it as an example of how the Economist is no friend of Cristina or her Ministers.

So you believe that the Economist Intelligence Unit doesnt read The Economist? and is using the INDEC inflation lies and also distorted GNP figures. Barely credible but I will write to them and ask and Ill ask them to write to you as well if you like.

We can have a discussion about inflation - again historically that is and has been much lower than in other periods of Argentinian history.

I'm not trying to prove the K's were right. I've said that K economics isnt quite so disastrous as some would have it. My words. Please pay attention.

Maybe Ill qualify and say "thus far" as there is still some way to go and the political effects of a slowing down economy (not yet in recession!) have yet to work through. It is the political durability of K brand NeoPeronism which is entirely suspect to my mind,

I also have said elsewhere that K Economics has been on the whole a lot better than what preceded it. Does that present you with a problem also?

 

[davonz]

I wonder how much growth is required to counter the effects that inflation is having in the economy.

From my experience, when you have high inflation you have an economy that is shrinking, but because of inflation the economy still looks to be growing. People tend to spend every cent they have, and this means you have consumer demand, which looks good for growth, but in reality they are spending because they would be going backwards if they saved. Then one day it all comes to a head, people realise unemployment has gone up, businesses have closed down, exports have decreased, and the gov is printing money to pay the bills because their tax revenue has dried up - and then house of cards comes crashing down !!!

 

[nicoenarg]

Thank you yes indeed I have previously read the Economist article about the INDEC lies and happy to cite it as an example of how the Economist is no friend of Cristina or her Ministers.

So you believe that the Economist Intelligence Unit doesnt read The Economist? and is using the INDEC inflation lies and also distorted GNP figures. Barely credible but I will write to them and ask and Ill ask them to write to you as well if you like.

We can have a discussion about inflation - again historically that is and has been much lower than in other periods of Argentinian history.

I'm not trying to prove the K's were right. I've said that K economics isnt quite so disastrous as some would have it. My words. Please pay attention.

Maybe Ill qualify and say "thus far" as there is still some way to go and the political effects of a slowing down economy (not yet in recession!) have yet to work through. It is the political durability of K brand NeoPeronism which is entirely suspect to my mind,

I also have said elsewhere that K Economics has been on the whole a lot better than what preceded it. Does that present you with a problem also?

Do I think EIU doesn't read the Economist? No I don't think they don't read it but their reports could have been compiled using older figures. Their inflation figures are INDEC's if you look at the fact sheet they provide. The average inflation from 2007-2011 is presented as 8.8% (if you take the inflation numbers from INDEC for those years and then average them out, like I just did, you get 8.8%).

The reason I linked to the article from the Economist is that it was written in February of this year. The analysis of EIU is probably from a date before the said article.

And what that conjecture brings me to is, if they're using INDEC's inflation figures, which they are, then why would I trust their analysis on the GDP figures, also published by our infamous INDEC?

EDIT: Here are INDEC's published inflation figures for 2007-2011: 8.8, 8.6, 6.3, 10.8, 9.5

 

[John.St]

It's all very strange this outrage from expats over the pensioners. How many of these same expats have tried to receive a check from a foreign country denominated in a foreign currency in the US? Were they able to cash the check and receive foreign currency? Probably not!!

Your comparison of currencies in Argentina and the US has a flaw.

Which currencies have been legal tender in the US these past, say 20 - or 100 - years? the US$ and none other.

In Argentina? The AR$ and the US$, even to the extent that Argentina was close to abandon the AR$ in favor of the US$.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Do I think EIU doesn't read the Economist? No I don't think they don't read it but their reports could have been compiled using older figures. Their inflation figures are INDEC's if you look at the fact sheet they provide. The average inflation from 2007-2011 is presented as 8.8% (if you take the inflation numbers from INDEC for those years and then average them out, like I just did, you get 8.8%).

The reason I linked to the article from the Economist is that it was written in February of this year. The analysis of EIU is probably from a date before the said article.

And what that conjecture brings me to is, if they're using INDEC's inflation figures, which they are, then why would I trust their analysis on the GDP figures, also published by our infamous INDEC?

EDIT: Here are INDEC's published inflation figures for 2007-2011: 8.8, 8.6, 6.3, 10.8, 9.5

As I mentioned I have written to EIU and received back a prompt but opaque reply which seems to suggest the use of INDEC figures even thought their sister organisation The Economist says they are the most untrustworthy official economic statistics (on inflation) in the world and is refusing to publish them!!

So!!

I've written back asking for some clarity and if nothing more is forthcoming I am contemplating writing to the Editor of the Economist along the lines " Dont Lie to Me Economist Intelligence Unit (about Argentina)" - I doubt if they will give me a job writing their headlines however.

And if so then it gives me no pleasure to have to admit publicly you are correct in suggesting i'm naive - but then this goes to the credibility of The Economist/EIU as a whole ... including the original "Dont lie to me Argentina" Article in February. Ooops.

I fear that wherever this is going and may eventually end up it will be giving schadenfreude to INDEC's apologists in undermining the stance adopted by The Economist !

But we only seek the truth!


Here is the exchange of messages so far ..........

Hello Adriana

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I am confused by your answer I regret to say.

Is it correct therefore to assume that the forecast growth figure in the EIU Country Report is or is not the Argentine Government Department's own figures i,e those produced by INDEC. You appear to be saying yes but not transparently.

Looking at the EIU Country report I do not see any of the cautionary words you express.

It has been pointed out to me that the inflation figures on the fact sheet appear to be INDEC's The average inflation from 2007-2011 is presented as 8.8% (if you take the inflation numbers from INDEC for 2007-2011: 8.8, 8.6, 6.3, 10.8, 9.5 and then average them out you get 8.8%).

Is the explanation perhaps that the analysis of EIU produced before the date of the Economist article in February I sent you?

I'm assuming that the growth figures are not adjusted for inflation but given the cynicism expressed by the Economist towards INDEC it seems rather strange that these should be reproduced verbatim when The Economist is now refusing to accept INDEC statistics out of hand.

To remind you the headline of the Article said
"Don’t lie to me, Argentina - Why we are removing a figure from our indicators page". Then going on to explain that INDEC figures are unreliable .... In 2010 we added a precautionary footnote to our statistical tables. From this week, we have decided to drop INDEC's figures entirely.


I'm hoping you can clear this up for me and for others who have questioned the credibility of your information when I have presented the EIU information to them.

For ease of reference I attach my original question sent to you.

Yours sincerely

Philip


Dear EIU
I have a query about the Argentina page forecasts... projecting a sharp slowdown in GDP growth in 2012, to 2.1%, and still-weak growth of 2.7% in 2013.
Please can you confirm the source of these statistics? I have cited these to an economist in Argentina who is sceptical that they are too optimistic in comparison and citing "Torcuato di Tella analysts are already saying possibility of recession within next 6 mos as 99%" Hence me writing to you..
Are you by any chance using the Argentine Government INDEC figures as a base. Can you confirm you are aware of the doubt placed on these including by The Economist? (on inflation figures)http://www.economist.com/node/21548242






On 19 July 2012 16:47, Adriana Defilippi <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Philip,

We received your web enquiry.

Our forecasts are based on the official data. We are well aware of concerns over reliability of official data. We go into a lot of detail in our subscription services about how these data are considered unreliable and how growth will "feel" much worse than the official data suggest.

Kind regards,
Adriana
Economist Intelligence Unit
www.eiu.com
Direct tel: +44 (0) 20 7576 8170