What does Kirchner winning the Primaries mean to you...

[jazrgz]

There are not Villas in San Luis.

However, do you really believe everything is wrong? You don't like opposition neigther. So, seem what you don't like is democracy, am I right? Who do you propose? When this country was better? Between 1976 uto 1983?

Sorry, my bad, indeed, San Luis is the only Province without villas, without unemployment, without poverty overall and with excellent infrastructure (has built more highways that the rest of the country). Wi-Fi for everyone and you can actuall buy a house at 50 or 60 years paying the amazing sum of 90 pesos a month. It is actually cheaper to buy than to rent. The problem for you is that this is the only province where cristina lost elections and this is the provice handled buy Rodriguez Saa and this answers your second (crazy) question.. who do i vote for ? this is a good option, another would be binner or even Carrio. Hell, i´ll vote homer simpson over Cristina !
See, this is where you kirchneristas take it to. Since i dont like Crstina´s regime i dont like democracy ????????????????? are you kidding me ? because I like democracy I dont like crsitina´s regime !
In short, if you look at San Luis, that´s exactly what Cristina should have done nation wide and reality shows she actually did completaly the opposite !! Plenty of villas, poverty, unemployment, no infrastructure, no opportunities for millions of ppl and definately no chance in hell of buying your own house.....no credit whatsover !!! this are inequivocal indications of , at best, a very poor administration !!

 

[Philsword]

Economies boom and bust. No matter what they're based on, no matter who is in charge. Say what you will about CFK and Boudou, but I'm pretty sure they're aware that things can't go up forever. However, until the sky falls, I'm going to assume that something like this will continue:

Argentina isn't perfect. I moan and groan (Futbol para todos -- really?) just about as much everyone else here. However, if you've been here for any decent amount of time, you have to recognize the decent things CFK has done for the people in Argentina. Asignacion universal por hijo, jubilaciones, conectar igualdad, matrimonio igualitario...

I think the graph in the link below is a little more accurate.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...ry&idim=country:ARG&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

What this shows is that a lot of the so called growth is just getting back to where they were before the last crisis, actual growth between 98 and now has been minimal. Also since 2008 actual GDP per capita is again falling as the result of high inflation. Pretty sad that the best they could do with the huge boom in commodity prices is get back to where they were a decade ago, they should be doing a lot better.

 

[scotttswan]

I think the graph in the link below is a little more accurate.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...ry&idim=country:ARG&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

What this shows is that a lot of the so called growth is just getting back to where they were before the last crisis, actual growth between 98 and now has been minimal. Also since 2008 actual GDP per capita is again falling as the result of high inflation. Pretty sad that the best they could do with the huge boom in commodity prices is get back to where they were a decade ago, they should be doing a lot better.

adding in brazil, chile and uruguay makes interesting reading.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...try:ARG:BRA:CHL:URY&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

 

[Bajo_cero2]

See, this is where you kirchneristas take it to. Since i dont like Crstina´s regime i dont like democracy ????????????????? are you kidding me ? because I like democracy I dont like crsitina´s regime !

I made that question because you were against CFK and the opposition too.

In short, if you look at San Luis, that´s exactly what Cristina should have done nation wide and reality shows she actually did completaly the opposite !! Plenty of villas, poverty, unemployment, no infrastructure, no opportunities for millions of ppl and definately no chance in hell of buying your own house.....no credit whatsover !!! this are inequivocal indications of , at best, a very poor administration !!

I know very well San Luis, I also know that they have a big budget for 150.000 people while only La Matanza have 2.000.000 people.

So, the Cuyo provinces have some advantages because they contributed with they men for the liberty war and they have low population because of that. It is an incentive to go and live in the middle of nowhere. And, by the way, the federal government decided to give such a budget, it is not regarding an aoustanding administration.

Regards

 

[dennisr]

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

Moody's Investors Service lowered its outlook for Argentina's banking system to negative from stable, citing concerns about the industry's vulnerability to macroeconomic factors and to interventionist measures by the government.

It cited three main concerns for the country's banks: the fragility of earnings that are increasingly dependent on favorable, but unsustainable government policies; their vulnerability to depositor confidence, and their exposure to political and event risks that could affect their capitalization and profitability.

According to Moody's Vice President Maria Andrea Manavella, strong exports, low unemployment and high commodity prices, as well as expansionary monetary policies, are driving Argentina's strong economic growth. But the growth is at levels that are difficult to sustain, and a key credit issue for the country's banks is whether they can continue to finance the consumption boom while preserving their currently stable fundamentals.

Argentina's economy has benefited from a consumer-spending spree and solid demand for the country's grains and manufactured goods abroad. There are signs, however, that the economy is overheating due to loose monetary policy and a government-spending spree on social programs and public works. Moody's said.

It said banks are taking advantage of the strong demand by offering more loans, although increased consumer indebtedness could pose a risk to banks' asset quality.

The negative outlook for the system contrasts with the stable outlook for the stand-alone ratings for the banks, which reflects the banks' well-established franchises and capitalization.

-By John Kell, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2480; [email protected]

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Well, they are not reliable, aren t they?

 

[Philsword]

Well, they are not reliable, aren t they?

Sometimes they are wrong but often they are right. What they are signaling are doubts about the sustainability of the economy. Anyone who has spend any time in Argentina over the last few years should have the same doubts. Their rating is really intended to help potential investors that may not have an intimate understanding of the situation in Argentina. If you agree with the concerns raised by the article then you should be able to see why they made their rating.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Sorry, I was acid, you are not going to find any Argentinian who trust those agencies. May you ask you something? Did they saw the US crisis comming? How were the US risk at that time? Zero? And now? Zero?

 

[Philsword]

Sorry, I was acid, you are not going to find any Argentinian who trust those agencies. May you ask you something? Did they saw the US crisis comming? How were the US risk at that time? Zero? And now? Zero?

Actually I don't think they did a good job, they had built in conflicts of interest. The people and businesses they were rating were also customers which impacted their ratings. In my opinion they should have seen the crisis coming. They could be wrong this time about the banks in Argentina as well. I don't think they have a conflict of interest in this case I am aware of. If you agree with the reasons they gave then you could agree with their conclusion, I do in this case. If you don't agree with the reasoning then you can reject the conclusion. One of the lessons out of the financial crisis is that investors should not blindly accept what comes out of the rating agencies, that it should only be one factor in their investment decisions.

 

[elalancito]

OK, Cristina's fight against the Clarin Group is stupid. Her usurping the football games and putting them on public TV is probably illegal. In turn, the Clarin Group must have turned her books and actions inside-out and has not found anything on her. Her first step against the "agricultural oligarchy" was ill-considered. However, since Cristina took office, she has an unparelled record for human rights that cannot be challenged anywhere in the world (not just in LA):

The only successful prosecutions against military dictators (Bussi, Menendez, etc) in the long and sometimes inglorious history of Latin America.

Argentina is now the only country (along with Canada?) in the Americas to offer full rights to gays.

She has supported the grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo even when it was discovered they were not squeaky clean.

She has supported indigenous causes and other marginalized groups.

She increased pensions for retired people.

The poverty rate has dropped from 40% to 21% since 2007 with similar reductions in infant mortality and crime rates.

In short, she has done a great deal to be a voice to those who previously did not have a voice. She has raised the standard of living while simultaneously growing the economy at a staggering 8% per year.

Unemployment here is 7.2% while in the USA it is festering at 9.2%.

The same people who are complaining about Cristina are probably the same people who think that Social Security should be tapped into to help pay for W's enormous war debt and probably the same people who supported a bailout (TARP) to the US's top banks in 2008-09.

I am proud to live in a country where the elderly and marginalized are not forgotten. The streets are safer and Argentines have more discretionary cash to spend than ever.

She is subsidizing the oil industry to keep petro prices lower. She is doing things for bigger business but perhaps she is not helping you the way George W. did when he was in office. Perhaps if she were lining your pockets the way most politicians do, you'd be OK with her.

"This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953