Thread: Video: How Globalisation Destroyed Argentine Economy

Sorry if I got that wrong, I was under that impression from the video, althou I certainly could be wrong on that point. I didn't bother to look that up from an independant source.

Joe, You can "think" the moon is made of green cheese, far all I care. I choose to believe differently.

Of course, the blogger made the connections he wanted to make. Does this make them invalid, or untrue?

If so, the "cherry picking of data", (your choice of words,) must surely be a factor in the Global warming debate, eg the University of East Anglia controversy; but that doesn't seem to be the case, does it?

Peonage definitely was a factor in the early economic success Argentina enjoyed. Read the article, when "full suffrage" was attained, and the radical "progressives" began doling out the promises made in the election, then they went down hill. Had the folks in charge "done the right thing", there would have been no need for the Radicals. That is the danger we face now, in the USA, IMHO, the 'neocons' as you call them screwed the pooch, but the Democrat plan is to continue screwing it, but three times more. As an independent, socially liberal, and fiscally conservative, I feel my vote for 'his excellency' was wasted.

The could have taken the position of Nelson Mandela (who really had a beef) and attempted REAL reconciliation. But we got Pelosi's wish list.

I give you credit, however, for pointing out the overt socialist slant of the Video.

The occupation of the factories seems to me, to be right up there with the seizure of foreclosed property by ACORN stormtroopers.

http://insidecharmcity.com/2009/02/2...ed-upon-homes/

Maybe you think, like ACORN does, that this is an act of "civil disobedience"

"First they came ..." is a popular poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. Although the precise origin of the poem is not known, Niemöller stated[citation needed] he prefers the version as:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Paraphrasing this Pastor:
First they came for the Wall street bankers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Wall street bankers;

Then they came for the "tea baggers" and "birthers", and I did not speak out—because I was not a "tea bagger" or "birther", ;

Then they came for the registered republicans, and I did not speak out—because I was not a registered republican;

Then they came for me. And I made 'em bleed!

Originally Posted by thruthefence

Joe, You can "think" the moon is made of green cheese, far all I care. I choose to believe differently.

Well for conversation sake lets do try to stick to the topic at hand (while I agree with you more then you may know) which is "How Globalisation/Free Trade Screwed the Poche in Argentina". Because you brought up some really good points but they well all be thrown to the way side if we let this denegrate into an arguement over idiology.

(But yes we share some of the same sentiment towards Pelosi - less I degress)

It would take more research then I'm willing to embark on right now but why do you think the IMF/ World Banking ran to Argentina's rescue when obviously they were in such financial termoil.

Secondly - during the Coup Government the President of the Central Bank, Domingo Cavallo started a little known program of loan gaurantees to the manufactures to help them with the US payments because of inflation had crushed the peso. When it was found out, he was sacked but his successor continued the program to the tune of US$15 billion to the national debt.

Sounds almost like the Government provided CDOs

Mind you this all takes place in the offices of international monitary policy makers, the likes of which you and me will never shake hands with

Originally Posted by bryan_machine

The last post illustrates something important - you cannot actually have a fully independent from the rest of the world modern economy. At least not with the political boundries that exist today.

So, you decide to consume ONLY products manufactured in the US and Canada, say.

That's great, until, say, China says "no more rare Earth exports to you, period" and Arabia gets together and says "no more oil" and so on.
Oh, and all those people who used to work importing and distributing, they are now unemployed, and I suppose holding sit-ins in warehouses..

But we, and our nation, and our economy, have to exist in the real world....

We (or any other country) will never buy/consume ONLY our own stuff. Some of us will always buy foreign stuff. No country could be fully independent from the rest of the world, EVEN IF THEY TRIED! China will therefore not need to try to strong-arm us or anyone else. Your point is moot.

Jeff

Originally Posted by thruthefence

Peonage definitely was a factor in the early economic success Argentina enjoyed. Read the article, when "full suffrage" was attained, and the radical "progressives" began doling out the promises made in the election, then they went down hill. Had the folks in charge "done the right thing", there would have been no need for the Radicals.

Funny how this could be describing the USA- "full suffrage" for non-whites, non-landowners, and finally women actually happened at similar,if not later, times than in Argentina- many southern states still successfully kept blacks from voting into the 1950's.

And at the same time the "radicals" enjoyed electoral success in Argentina, Populists got elected in California, Anarchists were a powerful political force in Chicago, Socialists were running Milwaukee, Wobblies (Workers of the World) were staging general strikes in Seattle, and the Farmer Labor Party was very powerful in Minnesota (still is, to some degree, after it merged with the democrats).

In other words, in the teens left wing, workers parties were probably just as successful and powerful in the USA as they were in Argentina.
Single Payer Health care was a big campaign issue right around the time of World War 1- in the USA.

In both Argentina, and the USA, however, the corporate/industrial state came out on top after WW2- just they maintained their middle class more than we did, for longer, on purpose.

Anyway- "peons" are landless peasants who worked, often for barter, on land owned by aristocrats- this happened in Europe in the middle ages, and in parts of south america in the 1700's- but it was not a factor in 19th century Argentina. The Argentine melting pot of 1900 was almost exactly like the melting pot of New York or Boston at the same time- just a slightly different mix of immigrants. So, I guess, if you think Rhode Island or Philadelphia had "peons" in 1900, then so did Argentina- but I would argue neither did.

Argentine politics was very sophisticated, probably more so than NYC or Boston at that time, and was not based on "peons". The Radicals were directly influenced by the French Revolution, Marx and Lenin, Anarchist and Union movements in the USA, and other world trends- and the impact of that 1916 election today is about as meaningful as the 1916 election of a socialist mayor in Milwaukee is today to Wisconsin politics...

Thru,

You make everything political, don't you?

"As an independent, socially liberal, and fiscally conservative, I feel my vote for 'his excellency' was wasted."

I don't believe a word of THAT statement. I hear so many of you on my local Rep radio station where everybody says they are "Libertarians", though they all espouse nothing but Rep propaganda.

Polls have shown that more than 60% of the registered "Independents" are from the Rep party. They have left for some reason, maybe in shame, and when there IS an election, they come out and vote Rep, regardless.

"I'm an Independent" sounds good. You don't offend clients with that statement.

I've read articles that said the banks were the ruin of any "Socialist" pension programs in SA. They made "private" programs losers, when we were trying to push Bush's "privatization" program. Oh, and the investment houses, too. Too MUCH money to be made there to allow the SA Govs. run the program for the beneficiaries benefit. HAVE to get some part of that, preferably the majority of it.

The world is run by bankers, and probably 99% of them are Rep.

Rebut THAT.

Cheers,

George

As for "Acorn Stormtroopers"- first, actual Stormtroopers are soldiers of a real government- which does not describe a few people who occupied a house and then were kicked out.
No amount of googling will find me any Acorn occupiers still in possession of any houses, even a few days after the Feb 20 right wing blogs you can find. The Acorn occupations were largely symbolic, and seemed to have failed- so I would not fear for American Democracy quite yet over that one.

The workers in Argentina could only "occupy" these factories after getting lengthy court hearings and court approval- not exactly "stormtroopers"- much more similar to what a bankruptcy court does here in the USA. In the movie, it takes over a year of court battles to get approval for the forge workers to start up again, and required a business plan, letters from suppliers and customers, and much more- hardly a rabble rousing riot.

Several of the co-ops were kicked out, legally by the courts, after years of running the businesses. Again, a good example that the rule of law was working, in Argentina.

There have been a few examples, all perfectly legal, of similar actions here in the USA- of workers buying businesses out of bankruptcy.

The most successful example in Argentina is the tile company Zanon-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaSinPat


So- which is more "capitalist"?
An owner stiffing employees, creditors, banks and suppliers and walking off, or workers taking over, making the company profitable, and paying off the debts?
Of course, the workers pay full price for utilities, the "capitalist" got discounts. The workers have added jobs, made a profit, and grown the company.

Originally Posted by gmatov

Polls have shown that more than 60% of the registered "Independents" are from the Rep party.

What's wrong with being a Republican?

Ries,

"Anyway- "peons" are landless peasants who worked, often for barter, on land owned by aristocrats- this happened in Europe in the middle ages, and in parts of south america in the 1700's"

You know quite well, at least I hope you do, that we have had "peasants" in the US of A as well. "Tenant Farmers", non-landowners.

We still have peasants, though we call them "subsistence farmers". It is not a word that we allow in the US vocabulary. That was SO "Old Country". "Sharecroppers" is another word widely used, but we make that to be something GOOD. People who can't buy the land they farm, but give half their earnings to the landlord.

The US has a peasantry, also. That none admit to belonging to it does not mean it does not exist.

I would submit that if you earn JUST enough to make your mortgage, buy your food, pay your bills, NOTHING to put away, you ARE a peasant. Maybe not called that but a rose by any other name is a rose.

Cheers,

George

I am dubious, George.
Where, exactly, are there still sharecroppers in the USA?

Considering that most farmers run $200,000 to $1,000,000 lines of credit around here, and that a decent diesel tractor alone can run well over a hundred grand, I sure dont see any sharecroppers where I live- and I live in fertile ag country.

Only a tiny percentage of the US population farms anymore, so even if there were still sharecroppers in the USA, there are probably far fewer of them left than there are machinists...

A peon has a specific meaning- and its not the same as a United States Citizen, however poor. No "droit de seigneur" around here, at least not lately. Aside from that little oversight with anybody who wasnt white, the US constitution actually bans most of the practices that allowed real peasants and peons to make so much money for their royal landowners. Starting, of course, with the eradication of royalty and aristocracy.

Naturally, it has to be dp who asks "What's wrong with being a Republican? "

Well, we have 60 Dems, WITH 2 Indies, Lieberman who is a Rep in Dems clothes, and Sanders who actually DOES vote his conscience. We also have 40 true blue Reps who have sworn that even IF somebody actually attacked the United States of America, they would, as a bloc, vote against ANYTHING that our present Dem President proposed or our present 60 member Senate majority, minus a probable 2.

Could there possibly be ANYTHING that a Dem regime could offer that a Rep clique would support? Nah.

dp, you really LIKE that there can be NOTHING passed in this next 3 years, JUST because you want to be obstructionist?

Under Bush, the Reps threatened "The Nuclear Option", "We don't NEED 60 votes", and they made that stick. Everything Bush wanted, Bush got.

I am really pissed that the Dems are sticking to principles and trying to get a true majority, though they INSIST on busting a Fillibuster before they will vote on anything.

My party is a bunch of pussies.

Cheers,

George

Originally Posted by Ries

So- which is more "capitalist"?
An owner stiffing employees, creditors, banks and suppliers and walking off, or workers taking over, making the company profitable, and paying off the debts?
Of course, the workers pay full price for utilities, the "capitalist" got discounts. The workers have added jobs, made a profit, and grown the company.

What are you talking about?!?!?
We all know that workers are never of any benefit to anything! All they do is extract value!
(sarcasm)

Jeff

Originally Posted by Ries

I am dubious, George.
Where, exactly, are there still sharecroppers in the USA?
.

I don't think he meant so much NOW, as in the past. That would be down in hillbilly land. Apologies to Metlmunchr, who happens to live down that way, but is obviously NOT, of that mindset.

Jeff

Originally Posted by dp

What's wrong with being a Republican?

Oh, I don't know...A lot?

Jeff

The government Halted the average citizens from the banks while the wealthy elite transfered their money out of the country

5 presidents in 3 weeks - the people didn't just reject 1 political party or another they rejected the WHOLE thing

At the same time Enron declared bankruptcy, the largest soviergn country (Argentina) became insolvent

---------------------------

How anyone sees this as partisan politics is simply amazing to me.

I could see how most Americans missed what happened in Argentina, we (the media) were too occupied with the collapse of Enron.

But then after Big Banking Tanks the US economy (2008) we fail to see what is so obvious for the Argentinians

Originally Posted by gmatov

.........
You make everything political, don't you?...........

George,

To the contrary, YOU sir, make everything political. It is only acceptable to you IF the political diatribe coincides with your belief system.
I actually found this thread very interesting and enlightening as I like to know about history as to not repeat it. I thought this was going to be a quality debate, but when the argument/debate fails, I guess it is okay to turn to name-calling.
Lastly, the issues being discussed here have information and facts to back them up. You asked for a rebuttal to a statistic you could never know or prove.......Bankers are 90% Rep. ......where in the world do you come up with this horse$hit!

--To the others posting, I inted to watch the video even though it sounds like it slants Socialist. I fear that the direction of our country is fatally going down the road of disaster, and at a rapid rate.

Grant

Ries,

No, no "dreut di signour", no right to screw the bride of the wedding just held..

That you think that all in the US are treated equally is wrong.

This and other Forums alone are proof of that. What can I say are the descriptions of all them who do not make as much money as you?

Leeches? Losers?

This is not directed at Ries.

YOU are the ELITE. YOU make money no matter what the economic conditions are, SO, you are REAL business people.

How many have said they laid somebody off and fought to deny UC bennies? Nickles do count when things are tight, but you want them you let go to suffer so you don't have to sell the Porsche.

There is not one man here, nor has there ever been, who has begun an operation of one or two or a thousand who did not want to make more than all the rest of them. Not a goddamned one of you who think that you should make the same as the best mechanic in your organization.

That is not the nature of man. Greed is the great motivator, and none of you can dispute that, I don't care if you DO say you pay WAY over scale. YOU are the ones saying what "scale" is.

MG has people who can install and line up drive trains. Should they quit, does he just go look for replacements? There ain't too many of them people out there, anymore.

Do we have asses who think everything is copasetic because YOU are in good shape? I don't think so.

Cheers,

George

Reis, You are of course correct in your strict definition of "peonage" I used the word after finding it in a Britannica article, which also referred to the "large peasant population" in play at the time of the early 20th century presidential election. This seems in in contrast to your statement of "no peasants in 500 years". I suppose more research is in order, but why cry over old news?

In one of those rare agreements with George, I believe the author's intent was to describe the demographic of a group like he described, eg the working poor; black & white, that the poll tax (and other policys) disenfranchised in less enlightened times.

Your remarks on our focus in the late 90's is probably accurate. Do you want to know WHO was watching Argentina in those days?

(Caution: gratuitous political view follows......................)

George Soros, the darling and bagman of the left!


Misery & disarray in the financial markets? There you will find George Soros. Doing what so many whine about in these threads. Speculating.

a couple of non-political trading links for my pal George: (gmatov, not Soros, he's way ahead of the curve, already)

http://www.nowandfutures.com/us_argentina.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1089...gentina-s-path

stock up on canned goods & shotgun shells, folks

And George (our George) I agree with part of your assessment of Man's motivation, eg GREED; there is another, FEAR.....fear that you will lose it all. fear that you will be back down on the killin' floor with those troglodytes that you clawed your way up from, by education, by guile, by good luck, by honest hard work; by raw triumph of the will.

Fear, george. that's what drives us.

That fear that you will die alone in a miserable medicare warehouse nursing home, Drooling into your dirty bib, pissing yourself, toothlessly gumming the cold oatmeal they spoon out, because someone lost your dentures, minimum wage 'aides' stealing your personal items & punching you in the kidneys, because they have to punch 'somebody'.

Fear, George, the great equalizer.

"but why cry over old news?"

I am not the one who brought up elections in 1916 as somehow being relevant today- I would say the same thing to you.

As for the two links- they are both attempts to describe how the sky is falling in the USA, using Argentina as a comparison.

As I mentioned at length above, there are so many factors that are so different between the US and Argentina, that these comparisons are just not real- they are paranoid talking points, no more.

Just a few major differences-

Argentina-

Universal Health Care
Extreme High Rates of Unionization
NO mortages for home purchases
Very High Tariffs on almost all imports
Strong domestic auto industry
Large percentage of tariff protected local products
Lower standard of living, with much lower average salaries

USA-

Almost none of the above-
but instead, we have a much more transparent and accountable government, less corruption, lots more money and investment and assets, a currency that is the world standard, and we are a superpower, militarily, economically, and politically.

So to say that what happened in Argentina will happen here- sorry, to me thats just silly, and probably being used to sell books, or tv appearances, or gold or something.

Am I the only person in this discussion who has actually been to Argentina?

Originally Posted by gmatov

dp, you really LIKE that there can be NOTHING passed in this next 3 years, JUST because you want to be obstructionist?

You didn't answer the question. Does that mean you don't have an answer? And why is it that opposition is being obstructionist? Isn't that just freedom at work? When Bush was getting his way and you were battling it tooth and nail, was that just being obstructionist or was it you expressing your political choice?

Does it bother you that without Republicans you'd be living in a socialist country now? Nobody else is pushing back on that. Or perhaps you don't see that as a problem?