Why are Argentinians so accepting of corruption ?

[expat0tree]

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?

What a great point, i'm so tired hearing people blaming an international lending service consisting of 189 countries working to foster global monetary cooperation. Nobody ever forced Argentina to borrow money from IMF, in fact the whole idea of lending is to promote economic growth so that borrowing would be justified in the first place. But instead, Argentina always chooses to smoke the money so that they can shift the blame onto the lender, how conveniently irresponsible!

 

[Joglide]

I think few argue that the economy wasn't good for the majority of the time under the K rule. The question is why was it good? Did it have to do with specific policies that now when they are reimplemented with again lead to growth? Was it because of the global economic conditions of the time?

If you run a regression analysis of Argentina GDP vs the price of soy over the last 20 years you are going to get a highly significant r2.

Primary product prices do favour Argentina and other countries periodically though it is fair to note that construction and other sectors played a significant role in the Kirchner recover after the disastrous default they inherited. If you incline to even mildly Keynesian economics then restoring domestic purchasing power was a substantial help in the recovery. The cost of default was high though it may be argued that accepting the IMF disciplines has proven as painful for countries such as Greece which were so anxious to remain within the rules. There are fundamental structural problems in Argentina which neither democratic nor dictatorship regimes have been able to resolve, though several sectors (such as wine production and tourism) are very successful. With US bond holders already pushing for their overdue interest payments to be delivered (held up by Macri controls), the signs are pretty bleak for any administration. I would suggest that economic overhaul requires a new kind of social and corporatist contract that delivers incentives for the middle classes and protects the poorest, as well as reforming antiquated state regulations and institutionalised sclerosis. That implies more effective policies of redistribution to erode the gross inequalities that pervade in LAtin America and produce the periodic civil commotion and resistance that remains a backdrop to politics.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I think few argue that the economy wasn't good for the majority of the time under the K rule. The question is why was it good? Did it have to do with specific policies that now when they are reimplemented with again lead to growth? Was it because of the global economic conditions of the time?

If you run a regression analysis of Argentina GDP vs the price of soy over the last 20 years you are going to get a highly significant r2.

Well, that’s easy. She focused in developing the internal market and paying debt while MM was destroying the internal market and taking debt with no limit. This extra surplus of usd keept the price low destroying the competitive of the exports.

 

[Weyland]

MM was destroying the internal market and taking debt with no limit. This extra surplus of usd keept the price low destroying the competitive of the exports.

That's a small part of it. My question is why were these policies so successful in 04, 05,06, 07 and not effective in 12,13,14,15 ? From 12 on the reserves have fallen, budget deficits, weak growth.

 

[perry]

I think few argue that the economy wasn't good for the majority of the time under the K rule. The question is why was it good? Did it have to do with specific policies that now when they are reimplemented with again lead to growth? Was it because of the global economic conditions of the time?

If you run a regression analysis of Argentina GDP vs the price of soy over the last 20 years you are going to get a highly significant r2.

At that time small businesses were a viable option and costs to run them were much lower. Inflation was 25% per year but wages always kept up with that keeping families above water . There was 10 times as much consumption than today just look at real estate transactions they are down close to 80% since that period . Real estate is a huge driver of a economy and can account for up 20% of its economic power . Imagine how many escribanos, tradespeople, renovators, home appliance stores etc etc are directly affected by a 80 percent downturn .

Economic growth comes from a internal engine . If there is no internal consumption everything falls apart and this is what happened under Macri in the last years .

Will Alberto Fernandez turn this around . I am not positive as the damage has been done and it would take a miracle to get us out of this hole .

 

[Weyland]

If soy rises to historical levels again, he will get Arg out of this hole. If not, no. Just compare the roaring years of Ks to the insipid ending of their rule. There was one main change in variables. Commodity prices. Agriculture is 60% of Argentina's exports, where they get their dollars.

What fuels internal consumption? Government spending - the famous multiplier effect. If commodity prices surge again, which most likely they won't until 2023 or so, then Alberto F will be flush with cash and be able to spend and reactivate the economy.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

That's a small part of it. My question is why were these policies so successful in 04, 05,06, 07 and not effective in 12,13,14,15 ? From 12 on the reserves have fallen, budget deficits, weak growth.

Well, hellooooo, the was a major international crisis on 2009...

 

[Weyland]

What does that have to do with poor growth, dwindling reserves and budget deficits from 12 - 15? Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Peru all performed well during that period.

The commodity super cycle ended in 2011. Just so happens Argentina's reserves have been declining ever since, budget deficits ever since, anemic growth. Hmmm...

 

[TWB103]

Well, hellooooo, the was a major international crisis on 2009...

What does that have to do with poor growth, dwindling reserves and budget deficits from 12 - 15? Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Peru all performed well during that period.

The commodity super cycle ended in 2011. Just so happens Argentina's reserves have been declining ever since, budget deficits ever since, anemic growth. Hmmm...

And I guess the 'Decada Ganada' didn't leave as solid a foundation as one would have thought.

 

[Joglide]

What does that have to do with poor growth, dwindling reserves and budget deficits from 12 - 15? Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Peru all performed well during that period.

The commodity super cycle ended in 2011. Just so happens Argentina's reserves have been declining ever since, budget deficits ever since, anemic growth. Hmmm...

In the short to near-medium term then product cycles will help but Word Economic Forum and other respected sources rightly see Argentina as sharing (not exceptionalist) Latin American dilemma of poor productivity growth and using high labour inputs (ie rising population) to fuel output growth. With the expected decline in ferility rates then that will diminish and Argentina as well As LatAm will have to address the central problem of poor productivity through education, investment, contract reforms, incentives and efficient effort bargaining. Externalities and macro factors continue to figure but Argentina IMO has rich potential of literate and highly articulate population esp in urban areas. But of course they wont want to accept reduced labour protection, pension reforms etc without at least the clear possibility of rising real wages. Argentina is not hostile to new technologies at a personal level, quite the reverse, but of course institutional sclerosis remains. So product prices may ease the situation in the short term and give us back real purchasing power and a moment of 'ahhhh that is better' but real reform awaits. Secondly, may I widen the discussion a little? The past year has seen the beginnings of a real paradigm shift or mid-set change in the thinking of even conservative economic authorities (leave Trump to one side for a moment) where a veritable Green Industrial Revolution is energy usage must take place in the next two decades. Buenos Aires was targeted specifically as a black spot in global pollution and the proposal made that public transport infrastructure needs transforming and private cars restricted. So the future debate will not be simply or even principally about raw gdp growth but about green-driven growth or even limited growth and better environmental yields. Argentina could be well placed if bio-fuels and non-polluting sources are wanted, though there is also quite likely to be a global shift from meat and dairy diets to vegetable based diets over time and that means the most famous beef industry in the world needs to give ground to the most successful soya production sector.