Which Has The Better Economy: Argentina Or Chile?

Which Country has the Best Economy?

  • Argentina

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • Chile

    Votes: 20 80.0%

  • Total voters
    25
I think the original question was who had the better economy, Argentina or Chile? Based on the data presented and based on changes over the past 20 years, as described by the World Bank, who would you say has a better economy?

Chile.

Stats rule. Cool, now,...moving on:

Now, do you believe that an application of the same policies would help Argentina today, taking into consideration the size of the population, the infrastructure investment required and the need to drag many many more people out of poverty than in Chile?

Do you believe in one size fits all in the region? Isn't Chile (like Ireland in many respects) different because of it's smaller population?

Can FDI solve all or Argentina's ills?

Are you given to answer questions once you turn the stat machine off for more than 10 seconds.
 
Chile.

Stats rule. Cool, now,...moving on:

Interesting that you read that from the stats in the report/article:
  • Page 9, figure 0.7 shows income inequality was indeed greater in Chile than in Argentina (as of 2012)
  • Page 19, figure 1.1 shows that the per capita GDP growth was higher in Argentina than in Chile percentage wise (as of 2009)
  • Page 138, figure 5.2 shows middle class of Argentina is larger (%) than in Chile (as of 2009)
  • Page 138, figure 5.2 also shows class of the poor in Argentina is larger (%) than in Chile (as of 2009)
  • Page 139, figure 5.4 shows middle class of Argentina is growing faster (%) than Chile's (as of 2010)
I am not saying that a larger middle class in Argentina proves that the economy is better in Argentina ... but neither that it is better in Chile.
 
I would argue if Argentina had many of Chiles qualities (economically & politically), yes it would be better. We are talking about a country (Argentina) with significantly more resources per capita and a generally well-educated population. The current system is obviously not working here, or is it? All I have seen in the last couple of years is more difficulties for the middle class (inflation, currency controls, lack of jobs & investment), increasing crime etc. And it doesn't seem to be getting much better for the poor either.

Chile more in common than Ireland? Economic policies yes, but in terms of history, resources, education systems - I doubt it.

The biggest difference is probably corruption. If Argentina were as honest as Chile, it would be in far better shape.
 
I think the original question was who had the better economy, Argentina or Chile? Based on the data presented and based on changes over the past 20 years, as described by the World Bank, who would you say has a better economy?


My answer would be the same I put before:

Chile has an economic model, started with Pinochet dictatorship but continued afterwards in democracy, that is successful.

Argentina tried that model, first with a dictatorship (not by chance both started by using the force) and then in a second period with Menem (another "force" reason, hyperinflation).
In both experiences, that model failed in this country, in both experiences changed the socio-economic panorama for worst, concentrated wealth, increased poverty, etc, etc, etc,.
So now, Argentina has other model, more industrialistic, (we produce almost 1 million cars per year, which only 13 countries in the world do) more closed to world trade, more associated to mercosur, more (sometimes too much) protectionist.

Unlike Chile, Argentina has and could have potentially a big internal market, and it exists the posibility of Brazil internal market as well, so go figure if our industry can or cannot grow.

Chile decides to not to produce so much, but import. Different models.



*Note: it does have influence in these two models cultural variables such as corruption, but overall I dont think that change my view of the aspect.
 
That is pretty much head in the sand stuff too matias...Argentina can have a big internal model of corruption, inefficiency and poor quality products or it can open up, face the world and focus on quality. The current model is no longer functional, it is unsustainable over the long term. They must face the world, remove protectionism and reach out to the international community wuth some attempt at debt negotiation.
 
Chile has an economic model, started with Pinochet dictatorship but continued afterwards in democracy, that is successful.

Do you think it would have been the same way without the copper? I mean in recent years they have tried to diversify a little with salmon, tourism etc. but in the beginning would it have gone the same way without the copper?
 
That is pretty much head in the sand stuff too matias...Argentina can have a big internal model of corruption, inefficiency and poor quality products or it can open up, face the world and focus on quality. The current model is no longer functional, it is unsustainable over the long term. They must face the world, remove protectionism and reach out to the international community wuth some attempt at debt negotiation.

i really dont see your point. I explain mine: during the 70s and the 90s there were in both periods "apertura comercial" laws, which were, basically, the elimination of any kind of protectionism, a big opening of our frontiers to products from around the globe. In the 70s, were the videocasseteras, VHS players, and color tvs, the paradigma, and also the "made in taiwan" radios, and in the 90s were all these kind of coloring things you see on the street, in Once, watches, calculators, walkmans, lots of electronic stuff that you could buy it very cheap since peso=dollar. What that that did to argentine economy? basically, since those were more competitive (internationally) than argentine industry IT DESTROYED ARGENTINE INDUSTRY, it destroyed argentine quality jobs, it destroyed the national production, and of course werent only watches, it were cars, fridges, ovens, clothes (you can stll find people on the street selling socks and underware), everything.

It was not a complex net of heavy industry (although in the 90s the Fabrica Militar de Aviones closed) but it was an extended industrial and productive fabric.
Thats one of the causes of the + 25% of unemployment, and the exponential growth of informal job and cuentapropismo.

On the other hand, this current government has an opposite direction, it have chosen the direction of re industrialize the country, although they surely talk more than they do, they have re opened the Fabrica Militar de Aviones, re activated the car industry, protect national industry from outside competition -if this is good or not is a matter of discussion, the bottom line is that I dont think that discipline and competition is good, but what happen is that the bigger fish eats the small one, the concentration of wealth in other words, a social problem of the 90s till today. And of course if you protect argentine job and not expose it to better competitors, and if you subisdize your productive nods, triplicate the investment on education, and you stimulate the pymes, then you can grow for 10 years, you can have 7% of unemployment, you can have houndreds of thousands of people getting out of the poverty, expand your middle class.

You know how kioscos are that common? those were pymes (symbol of argentine middle class) that closed! Or even when the privatization of Ypf, an enormous enterprize, that fired thousands of people that put their casa de empanadas, etc, that is cuentapropismo, or even informal job! theres a overpopulation of taxis too!! that is where this formerly prosperous middle class ended!! those people once had a job, not informal, regular, with pension, etc, they all dissappeared in the 90s. And today we are still paying that, today we still have 30-35% of informal job (unacceptable for Argentina but one of the best of Latin America), today we still have a lot of poverty, today we still have not recovered that industrial factor.
 
Do you think it would have been the same way without the copper? I mean in recent years they have tried to diversify a little with salmon, tourism etc. but in the beginning would it have gone the same way without the copper?

Chile has a copper dependency, but it have diversified a little in the last years (as every country in the region). They have a very dynamic service sector, but as I said they dont have a great production sector, they dont have almost industry. Looking to the future, resources, etc, Argentina has a lot more potential than Chile (they dont have oil either...)

But they have a very developped culture, very nationalistic, with an ENORMOUS respect of institutions. You have extreme left anti-Pinochetistas respecting a lot the carabineros, for instance. Or the idea of working for the state, it is exactly the opposite as here, where everyone assume corruption. There they almost admire you.
 
Back
Top