Why are Argentinians so accepting of corruption ?

[Somewhereinba]

Don't you mean ravaged by populist politicians that spent too much money? This seems like more blame shifting. Don't blame argentina that spent all the money recklessly. Don't blame argentina that begged the IMF for a loan so they can keep spending. At what point does Argentina have some culpability here?

Never of course. It's always someone elses fault. Just ask Bajo. This is the mentality that causes the country to end up the way it is - always some else (UK, USA, IMF, Evil Corporations). Deflecting blame is one of the most common political tactics used to bring low IQ individuals onto their side - the best way to bring dumb people together is to convince them they have a common enemy. Standard socialist/propaganda playbook stuff.

 

[perry]

Don't you mean ravaged by populist politicians that spent too much money? This seems like more blame shifting. Don't blame argentina that spent all the money recklessly. Don't blame argentina that begged the IMF for a loan so they can keep spending. At what point does Argentina have some culpability here?

That is one of my points about accepting of corruption . Macri borrowed over 100 billion dollars and this money is now all spent . Where is the accountability for this ? This and his increase of services in some cases 1000 percent destroyed the middle class and most small businesses .There was no parrallel to this in any South American country in the last 20 years but the population did not massively protest just accepted it . This would never happened in Brazil. Ecuador . Chile. Colombia . Peru . or anywhere else without massive social unrest.

By the way I do not believe that the current government will make things better as they up to now have not communicated their financial goals . Argentina has been badly governed now for a long time .

 

[semigoodlookin]

I think both sides of the argument here are correct. I don't think we can doubt that Argentina and its people played a role in the situation the country is in (has been in for decades). At the same time its obvious outside influences have sought to capatilize on that, while others (the IMF) have misguidedly made the situation worse.

One problem here is that Argentines only look at one side of the problem. It's everyone else's fault. The moment the country truly looks inwards and attempts meaningful changes, there may be some progress. I also think it's a myth that Argentine's are hard working people as I see many of them just happy to get by on the minimum effort it takes to be "okay".

Then, we have the problem with a portion of the population that is kept down and in its place by politics. Whether its Macri or populism, there is a major part of the Argentine population that is being kept firmly in its place with no potential for growth. Cristina and her political class seek to do it by selling low income people that they have all they need with cheap electricity and free football. Macri simply excluded them from the prospect of growth and told them they may have to wait decades for the benefits of his reforms to trickle down.

 

[julian63]

I'm no expert.In deed, I have been sctratching my head for much of the 45 years I have been coming here trying to figure out why this country keeps spinning its economic wheels. Nevertheless, it seems to me that restrictive import duties and an antiquated legal system (especially imbalanced labor laws and an inefficient court system) are significant factors in the failure of the country to generate wealth for its people. A high rate of literacy, lots of fertile land and a friendly climate, significant oil and mineral deposits, and an extensive coastline, etc should propel the country and its inhabitants to a much higher level of financial well being.

I'm married to an Argentine and I take no joy from the difficulties that define the Argentine condition.That said, as long as my USD enables me to live much higher on the hog here in Bs As than my native USA (NYC and San Francisco), I'll take advantage of that opportunity. Please pass the malbec.

 

[Rich One]

.. And Chile is a nation that still uses the constitution of the dictator Pinochet. It currently has 2million people protesting in the streets, about 500 of them have been intentionally blinded by police.

To clear some facts.

The "Pinochet Constitution" was created in 1980 , since then had 120 amendments by left and right wing Governments
1 million people (estimated) participated in a protest march 3 weeks ago
300 protesters have lost partial or total use of sight (intentionally ? not proven yet)

 

[ventanilla]

Don't you mean ravaged by populist politicians that spent too much money? This seems like more blame shifting. Don't blame argentina that spent all the money recklessly. Don't blame argentina that begged the IMF for a loan so they can keep spending. At what point does Argentina have some culpability here?

Since 1983, Argentina has had 2 'populist' presidents, Nestor and CFK. Actually, since the coup against Peron in 1955, there's only been 4 total: Peron and Isabel from 1973 to 1976 and then Nestor and CFK from 2003 to 2015. People who don't know much about the history or politics of this country paint it as some sort of hotbed of 'populism' but in actual fact since 1955 it has been ruled far more often by 'market-friendly' governments.

By every objective measure, Argentina's economy grew and standards of living rose during the latest 'populist' period than any other in its history.

GDP per capita: $2295 in 2002 to $13783 in 2015
Raw GDP: 97 billion to 594 billion
Poverty: down by 28%
Human Development Index (living standards): 0.769 to 0.820
Under Nestor Kirchner, Argentina had no negative deficit for the first time modern history, from 2003 to 2010. No other government has done this.

I could go on but you get the point.

I understand that these measures don't matter much to expats with foreign sources of income, but the measures taken objectively improved the lives of the vast majority of the people of the country, who have never been rich enough to be worrying about how many dollars they're allowed to convert for their next holiday to the USA, or how expensive it is to buy an iPhone.

The presidents who have received IMF loans were not 'populist'. They were the military dictatorship right after assuming power (neoliberal, left the loan to be paid off by democratic governments), in 2000 (De la Rua, neoliberal, after a crisis caused by Menem, neoliberal), and in 2017 (Macri, neoliberal).

IMF loans are a part of a strategy of neoliberal governments to legitimise austerity measures. They come with sets of demands, like repealing worker's rights, lowering wages, slashing basic services, etc, and they give them a convenient excuse to do so, by saying 'well, the IMF said we have to do it', and the funds help them with cutting said programs and propping up the currency while they do so. Other governments don't take them out.

 

[perry]

Since 1983, Argentina has had 2 'populist' presidents, Nestor and CFK. Actually, since the coup against Peron in 1955, there's only been 4 total: Peron and Isabel from 1973 to 1976 and then Nestor and CFK from 2003 to 2015. People who don't know much about the history or politics of this country paint it as some sort of hotbed of 'populism' but in actual fact since 1955 it has been ruled far more often by 'market-friendly' governments.

By every objective measure, Argentina's economy grew and standards of living rose during the latest 'populist' period than any other in its history.

GDP per capita: $2295 in 2002 to $13783 in 2015
Raw GDP: 97 billion to 594 billion
Poverty: down by 28%
Human Development Index (living standards): 0.769 to 0.820
Under Nestor Kirchner, Argentina had no negative deficit for the first time modern history, from 2003 to 2010. No other government has done this.

I could go on but you get the point.

I understand that these measures don't matter much to expats with foreign sources of income, but the measures taken objectively improved the lives of the vast majority of the people of the country, who have never been rich enough to be worrying about how many dollars they're allowed to convert for their next holiday to the USA, or how expensive it is to buy an iPhone.

The presidents who have received IMF loans were not 'populist'. They were the military dictatorship right after assuming power (neoliberal, left the loan to be paid off by democratic governments), in 2000 (De la Rua, neoliberal, after a crisis caused by Menem, neoliberal), and in 2017 (Macri, neoliberal).

IMF loans are a part of a strategy of neoliberal governments to legitimise austerity measures. They come with sets of demands, like repealing worker's rights, lowering wages, slashing basic services, etc, and they give them a convenient excuse to do so, by saying 'well, the IMF said we have to do it', and the funds help them with cutting said programs and propping up the currency while they do so. Other governments don't take them out.

Did you not say in your previous posts that Argentina has not done well since before the 1930s ? Now you are saying under Peronist goverments that Argentines lived very well and standards of living went up dramatically .

 

[ventanilla]

Did you not say in your previous posts that Argentina has not done well since before the 1930s ? Now you are saying under Peronist goverments that Argentines lived very well and standards of living went up dramatically .

1st: noting that the historical thesis that Argentina was some sort of exceptionally rich and prosperous country in the 1930s is wrong is different from saying that Argentina did well in 2003-2015
2nd: I'm not saying it, the objective measures are saying it.

 

[MatameBA]

In 2015, Argentines voted for Macri to get Cristina out of power.

In 2019, Argentines voted for Cristina to get Macri out of power.

Argentine logic at its very best.

 

[Joglide]

Living here for now 18 years I have noticed that the tolerance for corruption and mismanagement of government coiffers is the highest in the western world . Growing up in a stable country Australia if inflatiion hit over 5 percent per year there would be a massive outcry and people would actively work together to bring this down . Here in Argentina the quiet acceptance of massive inflation and massive devaluations is shocking and saddening . Both are a huge cancer on this society and stop people from achieving their goals and protecting their families .

I lived in Oz for a while in the 1980s while some of the Kerry Packer billionaires were running things and corruption was not at all uncommon, though people were scandalised enough to sack politicians caught taking money. There is naked corruption and then there is commonplace abuse of enormous wealth. In Europe right now the debate is how to make the maga corporations such as Google, Amazon pay at least a fraction of the taxes that most companies pay: and it is extremely difficult to get them to pay anuthing with the threat they will simply shift HQ from one tax haven to another. Now that is not corruption in the narrow sense but it is what used tobe called the unacceptable face of capitalism. Ditto gangster capitalism in Russia. Yes Argentina has big problems but the root is in the relative weakness of the polity/state in the face of enormous wealth and the oligarchs that run Argentina's economy and society. People here sound off about the dangers of Venezuela socialism and simply endorse the most grotesque abuse of economic wealth and power without so much as a scruple. Argentina's problems in my opinion are a variant on global issues - unless governments act together to solve issues such as climate castastrophe then the free market is hardly likely to resolve them.