top
Americas
Americas
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Crying With Argentina

by Jon
Esteemed trade economic Paul Krugman on the Argentinian Crises
Although images of the riots in Argentina have flickered across our television screens, hardly anyone in the U.S. cares. It's just another disaster in a small, faraway country of which we know nothing — a country as remote and unlikely to affect our lives as, say, Afghanistan.

I don't make that comparison lightly. Most people here may think that this is just another run-of-the-mill Latin American crisis — hey, those people have them all the time, don't they? — but in the eyes of much of the world, Argentina's economic policies had "made in Washington" stamped all over them. The catastrophic failure of those policies is first and foremost a disaster for Argentines, but it is also a disaster for U.S. foreign policy.

Here's how the story looks to Latin Americans: Argentina, more than any other developing country, bought into the promises of U.S.-promoted "neoliberalism" (that's liberal as in free markets, not as in Ted Kennedy). Tariffs were slashed, state enterprises were privatized, multinational corporations were welcomed, and the peso was pegged to the dollar. Wall Street cheered, and money poured in; for a while, free-market economics seemed vindicated, and its advocates weren't shy about claiming credit.

Then things began to fall apart. It wasn't surprising that the 1997 Asian financial crisis had repercussions in Latin America, and at first Argentina seemed less affected than its neighbors. But while Brazil bounced back, Argentina's recession just went on and on.

I could explain at length the causes of Argentina's slump: it had more to do with monetary policy than with free markets. But Argentines, understandably, can't be bothered with such fine distinctions — especially because Wall Street and Washington told them that free markets and hard money were inseparable.

Moreover, when the economy went sour, the International Monetary Fund — which much of the world, with considerable justification, views as a branch of the U.S. Treasury Department — was utterly unhelpful. I.M.F. staffers have known for months, perhaps years, that the one-peso-one-dollar policy could not be sustained. And the I.M.F. could have offered Argentina guidance on how to escape from its monetary trap, as well as political cover for Argentina's leaders as they did what had to be done. Instead, however, I.M.F. officials — like medieval doctors who insisted on bleeding their patients, and repeated the procedure when the bleeding made them sicker — prescribed austerity and still more austerity, right to the end.

Now Argentina is in utter chaos — some observers are even likening it to the Weimar Republic. And Latin Americans do not regard the United States as an innocent bystander.

I'm not sure how many Americans, even among the policy elite, understand this. The people who encouraged Argentina in its disastrous policy course are now busily rewriting history, blaming the victims. Anyway, we are notoriously bad at seeing ourselves as others see us. A recent Pew survey of "opinion leaders" found that 52 percent of the Americans think that our country is liked because it "does a lot of good"; only 21 percent of foreigners, and 12 percent of Latin Americans, agreed.

What happens next? The best hope for an Argentine turnaround was an orderly devaluation, in which the government reduced the dollar value of the peso and at the same time converted many dollar debts into pesos. But that now seems a remote prospect.

Instead, Argentina's new government — once it has one — will probably turn back the clock. It will impose exchange controls and import quotas, turning its back on world markets; don't be surprised if it also returns to old-fashioned anti-American rhetoric.

And let me make a prediction: these retrograde policies will work, in the sense that they will produce a temporary improvement in the economic situation — just as similar policies did back in the 1930's. Turning your back on the world market is bad for long-run growth; Argentina's own history is the best proof. But as John Maynard Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead.

Back in April, George W. Bush touted the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas as a major foreign policy goal, one that would "build an age of prosperity in a hemisphere of liberty." If that goal really was important, we have just suffered a major setback. Don't cry for Argentina; cry with it.
by anarchist
Jon, are you coming around? Even your "esteemed" Paul Krugman can't spin his way out of this one. IMF-backed neoliberalism has failed in a big, big way in Argentina. A major way, that ignorant americans cannot even begin to understand.

Unless, of course, they are part of the movement to bring an end to neoliberalism. In which case we (the worldwide movement) has had no small part in giving Argentine's the courage and international support needed to overthrow a US/IMF-backed government. Of course, they have done the hard work and they have suffered the repeated indignities of austerity and so all credit must go to them, with the acknowledgement that what is happening in Argentina is not an isolated vacuum, but part of a global trend which threatens the entire order of centralized banks and neoliberal agendas.

Krugman's comparison of Argentina to Weimar and his forecast of protectionism likens the IMF opposition to 1930 German Fascism ... which, as we all clearly know, the IMF looks more like that than any group of young idealistic Argentines. This is because Krugman is completely alienated from anything that is going on, besides attending numerous "dinners" and "open forums" in academic circles. Perhaps intentionally, he fails to make the connections between Genoa and Seattle and Argentina and ... well, you get the picture. Indymedia participants get the picture.

Wouldnt all the economists just shit themselves if Argentina went the way of anarchism, like Chiapas has mostly done, and which they have so far successfully used to keep the IMF and international capitalists out of their home.

Viva la revolucion!!


by aaron
Market zealots, many of whom pointed to Argentina several years ago as vindication of the free-market gospel, are now tying their tongues in knots claiming that what failed wasn't their religion -- free market capitalism -- but instead Argentine monetary policy or deficit spending or insufficient privatization of the economy or.... The point of this line of arguement is to re-write history and divert attention from capital's crisis.
by Marselo
it's funny how the International MONETARY Fund did not bother to tell the Argentines about MONETARY issues, especially if they wanted their loans paid back.

i'm sorry for those who think monetary issues had more to do with the economic downfall than neo-liberal policies, there is just no significant proof to this. one thing is definitely for sure about the monetary issue in Argentina, the rich, the Peronistas, and the corporations DID NOT RUN OUT OF CASH. joblessness had nothing to do with atm's not giving ou cash either. i will agree that monetary economics of dollarizing the peso DID contribute to the economic downfall, but at most it only influenced in which way the downfall occurred.

this monetary argument is scapegoat used by all American/European neo-liberal and monetary economists like Mr. Krugman, but i definitely don't see any neoliberal or monetary Latin American, even less Argentine, economist making such a claim (not even the Peronistas).

WHAT IS THIS GARBAGE?:
"the I.M.F. could have offered Argentina guidance on how to escape from its monetary trap, as well as political cover for Argentina's leaders as they did what had to be done."

wow, i should be dumbfounded, but this is expectable from any pathetic economist or institution lacking any decency or ethics. just WHAT "had to be done" anyways??? just WHAT more corrupt political cover could the IMF advise them on than what the corrupt Menem regime already was doing? He had judges bribed by telephone companies so that they wouldn't have to pay more taxes and could monopolize, for GOD'S sake!!!

i'm sorry, but economists like Krugman are either absolute morons about anything beyond a supply and demand chart, or are just plain out racist manifest-destiniy mofo's. <period

Resistencia, Liberacion, Viva el Pueblo, Viva Argentina!!



by indymedia volunteer
Marselo, your comments on here are great! You should come out to one of the Indymedia meetings if you are in SF.

On Paul Krugman, he dissents enough from mainstream economists to separate himself from that herd of religious fanatics. But thats what makes him so good at doing spin work for neoliberalism.

Unfortunately, as all the neoliberal economists around the world flip their position on Argentina (it was the case study for why neoliberalism is great, now it has nothing to do with neoliberalism, hahahaha), their complicity in maintain a world run by thugs and butchers is all the more clear.

We'll remember this when we're beheading the rich.

§.
by Jon
there is little if any mainstream economic analysis on this site.

by posting Krugman, a prominent economist who is within the bounds of the norm but oftentimes a vocal critic, i hoped to show that not every critique of free trade or IMF policies is as black and white as "smash the bank! or down with the IMF!"

believe it or not there is a huge spectrum b/w those protesters who would like to see the IMF/WB gutted and those who think that they are angels incarnate. krugman exemplifies one of those middle-ground thinkers.

aaron: yes, monetary policy could very well have explained why argentina is its current mess. the recession itself is probably the result of the asian financial crises which hurt many economies. however, the economic crises in argentina now is probably a result from strict monetary policy that prevents argentina from devaluing. i forgot the exact number, however a large percentage of argentina's trade is with brazil. Brazil can devalue, argentina cannot. this severely screws over argentina in terms of competitiveness.

marselo: then actually EXPLAIN how these monetary issues weren't at fault and free-trade in general is.

and, "what had to be done" is a devaluation, at least according to krugman. however, the politicians refused to do so b/c it would mean abandoning the currency board and the general fact that devaluations are never popular in the short-term.

as for what the actual cause is i have no idea. there's mountains of evidence for a multitude of explanations, and i have yet to have the time to pore over them yet. what i find truly distrubing is that the supposedly free and critical thinkers of the left are immediately branding this a failure of capitalism rather then studying the subject and trying to figure out the real cause.

marselo is an excellent example of this. when faced with one explanation as to what caused the crises (monetary) he instead blames it on another WITHOUT presenting any actual evidence whatsoever.

critical thinking does not mean only questionning evidence from sources you don't like. that's just being a sheep. by definition critical thinking means questionning the beliefs that you find comfortable.

by aaron
jon:
i'll give you credit for being critical-minded with a clause attached. you aren't sure what the exact reason is for the Argentine debacle. so you're going to look into it. but because you have an idealized notion of capitalism -- embodied by your belief in markets that "decouple" the political from the economic spheres, offer meritocracy etc etc -- your search will uncover (and here i'm being nice) a few nuggets of insight but will be otherwise pretty useless. because you see capitalism as, by definition, a good thing and accept its "natural laws" you will become mired in details, thinking that monetary policy can be understood as discrete from neo-liberalism which can be seen as discrete from the dictatorial political class that ushers it in which can be seen as discrete from the "asian financial crisis" which can be seen as discrete from statist corruption ta da ta da ta da.

those of us who say that neo-liberalism is bankrupt don't support the rich administering capitalism differently. we are just gloating right now because your side has been going around triumphantly claiming that "free markets" -- an ideological construct of there ever was one -- were the panacea; your side very recently claimed that Argentina was vindication of its views.

Your side has been proven wrong.
by anarchist
"and i have yet to have the time to pore over them yet. what i find truly distrubing is that the supposedly free and critical thinkers of the left are immediately branding this a failure of capitalism rather then studying the subject and trying to figure out the real cause."

Jon, are you kidding?!

Has it ever occurred to you that there are people in the world who *already* have "looked into" the IMF/WB? On this site are independent journalists, lifelong activists, people who have worked on campaigns around this. Do you think Argentina is a surprise? Anyone who reads Argentina IMC can figure out what has been going on there.

The fact is people here have already been following this for years, and they *have* an opinion. It is "middle-grounders" like yourself who naively stumble around arguing with people without really knowing ... pull your head out of your ass and realize what the US and international capitalists have been doing in South America, Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Ecuador ... people here know what has been happening while Imperialist apologists like yourself are only beginning to realize.
by anarchist
"and i have yet to have the time to pore over them yet. what i find truly distrubing is that the supposedly free and critical thinkers of the left are immediately branding this a failure of capitalism rather then studying the subject and trying to figure out the real cause."

Jon, are you kidding?!

Has it ever occurred to you that there are people in the world who *already* have "looked into" the IMF/WB? On this site are independent journalists, lifelong activists, people who have worked on campaigns around this. Do you think Argentina is a surprise? Anyone who reads Argentina IMC can figure out what has been going on there.

The fact is people here have already been following this for years, and they *have* an opinion. It is "middle-grounders" like yourself who naively stumble around arguing with people without really knowing ... pull your head out of your ass and realize what the US and international capitalists have been doing in South America, Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Ecuador ... people here know what has been happening while Imperialist apologists like yourself are only beginning to realize.
by kn
And here it is (you ain't gonna like it.... oh, and btw I'm a trained -- though currently not practising -- conservative political economist):

a That Argentinian elites did indeed squander loads of cash

b That these same elites borrowed good money to pay for the money they pissed away ("chasing bad money with good")

c That the people of Argentina got a raw deal simply because this fiscal malpractice was hidden from them

d That there is no fuckin' way the IMF or any large corporate financial conglomerate is going to loan more money to Argentina unless a more fiscally responsible government gets the economy stabilized, regardless of the impact on the average Argentine citizen

e The ultimate losers in this mess are BOTH the working people and business

f Once the economic elites realize they are losing money big-time because of this, change will come rapidly by doing at LEAST the following:

- devaluing the currency
- starting to make good-faith, symbolic payments on a renegotiated debt

This is going to REALLY hurt the average Joe over the next couple of years, but as long as the government holds, it'll be good in the long run for the standard of living. However (as evidenced by events of the past couple of days), there's always a chance that the 4th Estate / Mob will clamor for immediate relief of all monetary obligations, and the country will be thrown into a long trauma, which the international community will be unwilling to step in to relieve (and rightfully so, IMHO, but that's another matter).

I'd be happy to clarify and defend these points, if there is any logical dissent.

However, I'm going to decline to respond to any rebuttals on the basis of a Neo-trotskyite/Anarchist point of view, because these types of rebuttals are based on a world view that does not correspond in any way with global macroeconomic reality. If you believe in this normative world-view, that's fine, but any argument for or against would be on the basis of political philosophy over political economy.
by Love people not money
Jon's defense of the loan-shark usurer IMFis strictly par for the course from his feeble-minded moneytarian viewpoint. I used to get frustrated by hearing such backwards sentiments expressed - after all, it is obviously impossible for a thinking, CARING person to support capitalism, but I've come to the realization that to debate such mentally challenged persons is an exercise in futility.

It is far more useful to truly understand where the greed-supporting perspective comes from. It is an anti-social and self-loathing philosophy in which its adherents are equally anti-social and self-loathing - Jon being a perfect example. In other words, individuals such as Jon exist in a state of bleak self-induced misery defined by their hatred of humanity. Ultimately, their only options are: to (a) , develop a true humanistic CONSCIENCE to recognize the moral, social, and economic bankrupcy of their positions and change their pespective accordingly (very rarely happens, and in Jon's case, I'm afraid, highly unlikely), or (b) to inflict policies of destruction against humanity and the environment alike from positions of power - corporate and political, which the miserable fanatics of greed all too easily attain and maintain.

But, in the spirit of true compassion (not the oxymoronic "corporate compassion" espoused by the current autocrat-in-chief), I offer Jon, and all other like-minded simpletons another option to peacefully deliver them from their wretched existence, as well as benefitting all others in the process. Jon (and all others of his ilk), please visit this URL:

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/resources/howtodie.html

and follow its instructions. Your suffering will end, painlessly, and spare the rest of us from the hellish grief you impose upon us. You will not be missed.
by the burningman
How can "kn" argue that we can only approach the Argentine situation through the lens of reality? Of course. And of course it is the current realities of global "macro-economic" planning that has destroyed Argentina.

It is the same methodology and power arrangement that has devestated the former Soviet Union and actually made many millions of Eastern Europeans nostaligic for the bad old days of Soviet rule. Imagine that!

No, the reality is that central planning a la the IMF and friends is made not to improve the standard of living in the short or long run, but rather to maximize profits at the center. And that it has done; witness the recent Clinton years and their miracle boom. By destroying an economy and making its currency worthless or fully convertable with the dollar, buying power externally becomes disproportionately higher allowing the entire economic base of a nation to be bought out at bargain basement prices while the people starve.

And saying that a nation rising up to turn out the traitors in government is just a mob confuses the fact that capitalists are the mafia. Debating the efficiency of imperialism has the same logic as asking a Soviet planner to think outside the box. Your totalitarian logic doesn't allow it.

All corporations should just be nationalized, period. Let the capitalists get jobs like the rest of us and let us have some democratic oversight of the economy rather than letting shadowy groups of financiers promise us the pain will be good for us in the long run. Please.
by smoker
I inhaled helum once. It made me talk like donald duck.
by chp
I remember being really annoyed by Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman of the NYTimes when they kept blasting at protesters at the IMF/WB/WTO meetings. Krugman is a bit difficult to figure out. His op-ed pieces since Bush was elected have frequently been right on. He and Steve Forbes are criticizing the IMF for raising taxes and austerity measures in countries such as Argentina, but what exactly do they think that protesters were expressing? Steve Forbes probably is holding that anything other than strict laissez fair capitalism, which has never been actually tried before, is 'unpure', and he probably would also say that any other economic problem arises from these impurities of having any government or popular influence.
Here is Thomas Friedman's op-ed from the NYTimes today. He is acting as though this has been his long term position and priority, even though he and other Times reporters scoffed at Ralph nader's positive position on alternative energy. Al Gore would not have done much good with regards to oil or middle east policy
I agree with Friedman here, although it's ridiculous that he should expect the OPEC nations to voluntarily keep oil prices low to keep us happy. Oil prices have been quite low due to cut in demand with increasing recession, but that oil won't last forever so it's in the best interests of OPEC to raise prices - that's how capitalism works. The one wildcard is Russia which has recently started large scale production and has been overproducing. The recent low prices have hurt their economy, so I bet they will join with OPEC, and gas prices will go up by April or May. That is bad news for Bush when people wake up from the terrorism war and see the high unemployent etc.

January 2, 2002

Let's Roll

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
More Op-Ed Columns
Join a Discussion on Thomas L. Friedman's Columns

ll hail to President Bush for how he has conducted the war against Osama bin Laden. Mr. Bush has emerged a far better commander in chief than anyone predicted. In the war on terrorism he has shown steely resolve, imagination, leadership and creativity. Thank you, Mr. Bush.

And now, I wish Al Gore were president.

Why? Quite simply because instead of showing resolve, imagination, leadership and creativity on the domestic front, Mr. Bush has done just the opposite. He has tried to use the tremendous upsurge in patriotism, bipartisanship and volunteerism triggered by the tragedy of Sept. 11 to drive a narrow, right-wing agenda from Sept. 10 into a Sept. 12 world. It's wrong. It won't work. It sells the country short and it will ultimately sell the Bush presidency short.

I have no problem with nation- building in Afghanistan, but what I'm really interested in is nation- building in America — using the power of Sept. 11 to make our country stronger, safer and a better global citizen in the world of Sept. 12, beginning with how we use energy.

But so far, all that's happening is that we've made the world safer for Saudi Arabia and OPEC to raise oil prices again. In case you missed it, last Friday the Saudi-led cartel cut production by 6.5 percent to boost oil prices, while the world is struggling to get out of a recession induced in part by the terrorism of Osama bin Laden and 15 Saudi hijackers.

Frankly, the thought that U.S. taxpayers, who have had to bail out the airline industry (which was devastated by Sept. 11 and by higher gas prices) and to finance the $1 billion-a- month war against bin Laden, will now have to pay more for oil because the Middle East regimes we're protecting want to hike the price, is an outrage.

You'd think maybe the king of Saudi Arabia would say: "America, we're as upset as you that Osama bin Laden and 15 Saudi youth were involved in the terrible attack on your shores. So we want to help America — the engine of the global economy — recover, as well as the developing world. As such, we're going to keep oil prices extremely low for the next six months, then we'll slowly lift them back to the $24-$28 range. It will cost us, but that's our tax cut for the world."

Is that too much to ask? Well, it seems so — which leads me back to President Bush.

The most obvious bold national project that Mr. Bush could launch now — his version of the race to the moon — would be a program for energy independence, based on developing renewable resources, domestic production and energy efficiency. Not only would every school kid in America be excited by such a project, but it also would be Mr. Bush's equivalent of Richard Nixon going to China — the Texas oilman weaning America off of its dependence on Middle East oil. That would be a political coup!

It would also be Mr. Bush's best response to foreigners who are enraged by America's refusal to join the Kyoto treaty to stop global warming. Mr. Bush could say that by weaning America away from oil gluttony he would be doing more for the environment than Kyoto ever would, which would greatly improve America's standing as a global good citizen.

There are lots of ways Mr. Bush could go. "Today one out of every seven barrels of oil produced in the world is consumed on American highways," says the respected oil consultant Philip Verleger. "We could cut that by a third in five years if Washington were to offer tax incentives for manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles and for consumers to buy them. Such tax cuts could be paid for with a higher gas tax, gradually phased in. Then we could replace all those American flag bumper stickers with ones that read: `I cut my oil use by a third, how about you?' "

I don't want to be dependent on Mideast oil anymore. Countries in that region haven't had a good century in 700 years — and they're not going to soon. Oil is their curse, as well as ours. It's corrupted their rulers, enabled them to keep their women backward and out of the work force, and prevented them from developing innovative economies that make things instead of just take things from the ground. They have a lot of homework to do before they will be stable allies.

We will all benefit if they succeed, but for now we have to look after ourselves. So, Mr. Bush, "Let's roll." Ultimately, presidential greatness is measured by what you do at home. If this war on terrorism ends with nation-building only in Afghanistan and not in America, it will be no victory at all. 


§.
by Jon
aaron: i have a sincere distrust of simple monocausal explanations to complex economic and political processes.

thus, the fact that people instantly blamed the IMF and free trade for the failure or argentina was something i just found plain ridiculous. i bet that if you polled half of the people on here about what could have caused the argentina crises, they would not be able to present more then a few paragraphs directly related to the subject. i doubt that few people would know what the currency board was, what argentina's growth patterns were for the past decade, or the external economic conditions present before the crises began. rather, you'll hear the same cookie-cutter arguments about the IMF this, the IMF that blah blah blah.

and again, the concept of international trade does not get proven wrong b/c of one crises. capitalism has suffered through far worse crises in its history, yet time and time again has proven itself the best of all alternative policies.

at the risk of sounding like a broken record: argentina followed a series of economic practices that worked great for the realities of the early 1990's, yet were unsustainable b/c of the realities of the late 90's. the fact that free trade and the currency board gave argentina incredible growth only a few years ago is undeniable. so, the real question here is who's to blame for argentina sticking to outdated policies no longer relevant to contemporary realities. entrenched bureacracies? poor IMF advice? simple bad luck?

==================
anarchist: here is a simple undeniable fact of the world today. those states that in the 1950's and 1960's decided to stick with the free-trade growth model have all far outperformed those states that sought national self-sufficiency. it is as simple as that.


and yes, there are people here in the IMC, as well as among mainstream economists, who have rightfully criticized IMF and WB practices.

however, the problem again is that there are people who instantly blame complex world events on single cookie-cutter causes, and that then is the real problem

====================
kn: it seems as if you don't prescribe much role for the US or western europe in helping argentina get out of this mess. if so i must strongly disagree. other third world states are looking at the argentinian crises and beginning to think of inward looking economic policies as an alternative. the worst thing that could happen for the average third world joe (or jose) would be if their gov'ts decided to drop a trade oriented development strategy with one of economic autarky and self-sufficiency. we would end up repeating the failures of the 1930's and of the dependenistas, rather then learning from the past. to that end, it is critical for the US to publicly and whole-heartedly support the argentinas as they crawl themselves out of this disaster.
======================

Love: <<<it is obviously impossible for a thinking, CARING person to support capitalism>>>

when adam smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776 he did it out of a profound sense of comraderie and compassion for the irish peasant, and out of a strong desire to wrestle political clout from the aristocracy. when freidreich hayek wrote "The Road To Serfdom" he did so out of a profound fear that humanity would one day descend into authoritarian dictatorships on par with the Soviet Union. noted economist Jeffrey Sachs and multi-billionaire Bill Gates are proposing to use a market based approach in order to solve the scourge of malaria, an attempt that will most likely succeed where other previous attempts have failed. to say that compassion and capitalism are somehow inherently incompatible is profoundly ignorant.

chp: friedman isn't saying that oil prices should be low just to keep us happy. i think that its also implied that doing so is inherently in OPEC's advantage. a global recession means a global slump in oil demand as well. like much in this economically integrated world, when one country does well so do others. if the US and western europe have strong economies, then OPEC's states will also have a strong economy as well.

raising oil prices in the midst of a global recession is like shooting oneself in the foot. in the short-term they'll realize nice profits. however, the long-term results of them exacerbating the recession will only hurt them

by anarchist
"those states that in the 1950's and 1960's decided to stick with the free-trade growth model have all far outperformed those states that sought national self-sufficiency. it is as simple as that"

Define "outperform" ... and explain to me how the extortion and manipulation of these nations by capitalists and communists has impacted this.

Here is a real undeniable fact: the US Government attacked almost any government which decided to separate away from liberalisation or colonialism.

"so, the real question here is who's to blame for argentina sticking to outdated policies no longer relevant to contemporary realities. entrenched bureacracies? poor IMF advice? simple bad luck?"

The critique is not just against the IMF, obviously. I think this is what you're missing here. The critique is against free market capitalism, especially as it is enforced by the barrel of a gun in South America by the United States and other wealthy gangs. The point is not *who* fucked up ... the point is that once again, capitalism has collapsed under the weight of its own injustice. Draping it in neoliberal economist jargon doesnt change that.

"however, the problem again is that there are people who instantly blame complex world events on single cookie-cutter causes, and that then is the real problem "

I really dont think the sophisticated and widely-developed philosophies of socialism and its variants can be described as "cookie-cutter". More likely, you do not understand this critique and so you reduce it to "IMF BAD! IMF CAUSE RIOTS"

by kn
I'm not saying that the U.S. & Western Europe don't have a role to play in rebuilding Argentina. In fact, I think that we have a *duty and obligation* to help them, as long as they want to be helped.

As I see it, right now there is a classic Dickensian revolution going on in the streets. Under these conditions, I doubt that any amount of monetary or political arm-twisting to benefit Argentina would do much good.

However, if the new leadership can achieve a modicum of stability (both economic and political), the US and EU will make the first steps to re-engage. I think, though, that this particular administration is savvy enough to understand that one of the major causes of the crisis was fraudulent officials coupled with a shabby judicial branch. Until Duhlde does something to strengthen tort law and enforcement, any money we throw at Argentina now is bound to eventually go down the crapper later.
by Marselo
(if anyone's still reading this page)
Jon...

#1 i NEVER stated monetary issues weren't at all at fault for the current economic crisis. #2 i NEVER stated "free-trade" was at fault. #3 if you bring out your Critical Thinking 101 book to get all analytical/logical, CHECK YOURSELF and read what i actually said so that you #4 DO NOT make an ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL "example" about anyone in here.

if i may actually try to respond (though your argument was highly dysfunctional)... to better learn what has been the problem to the recession in Argentina, READ up on what the labor unions' struggles against neo-liberal (IMF-blessed) peronista gov't policies have been like throughout the 1990's. it's filled with CORRUPTION/REPRESSION THAT HAS BENEFITTED THE RICH'S NEO-LIBERAL POLICIES WHICH THE IMF SO DEARLY PROMOTED. Argentina is highly privatized because of these policies, and that was at fault for the loss of jobs, and thus the crippling of the social sector, waaay earlier than Dec '01.

one EXAMPLE for proof: Mexico. it did not do the monetary mistake that argentina made, as it actually devalued its peso and today enjoys one of the world's strongest currencies (certainly in Latin America). however, 32% of the population lives in what's called "total misery" poverty levels (yey kapitalism, KOREA anybody?). the two countries have implemented neo-liberal policies, Argentina more than the other. so there is your monetary argument thrown out the window, and why i haven't found any credible Latin American economist and/or politician in favor of your argument.

btw Jon, there is plenty of economic analysis in here, what you define as "mainstream", unfortunately, is limited to the SF Chronicle's Krugman and the NY Times and the rest of those Euro/American-centric foolish extremely capitalist economists. learn another language, preferably castellano, and read up what OTHER (non-capitalist/neo-liberal) economists around the world are saying before claiming to know what "analysis" and "mainstream" is in economics. oh, btw, i am actually a proponent of free-trade (fortunately i know how to separate it from neo-liberalism). =]

kn: are you with the IMF by any chance?

CORRECTION on OPEC: Venezuela is actually leading the reduction of oil for the cartel. they had been doing this for quite some time now, it is nothing new, and they OFFICIALLY (read: Presidente Chavez) do it because 1) they do not want the developed world dictating them how much to produce, 2) they recognize the oil supply and demand IN THE WORLD is NOT the same as the U.S. and Europe (read macroeconomics 101 and see how this screws up world economics) and 3) they do not want their own countries' oil workers, as well as their own revenue, to go down... all as a result of a world market dictated by the few (i.e., europe and the u.s.).

Resistencia!!
§.
by Jon
marselo: i'm responding to about 4 other people in addition to you, so believe it or not everything i type isnt directly aimed at you

and if i want to know what's causing argentina's problems i should about labor struggles against the IMF? umm, no.

again, and this isn't a hard concept to understand, the IMF is a lender of LAST resort. it ONLY lends when countries cannot secure any other sourcs of loans. argentina was rolling over massive sums of debt even before the IMF came into the scene, and it is these pre-IMF loans that are biting argentina in the ass

and no, poor monetary policy does not explain all financial collapses. where did i ever say that? it explains argentina to a great extent, but may not explain other situations. as for mexico, as i've posted in a previous thread, it is posting impressive gains. the fact that problems still exist does not imply that progress isn't being made.

and if by latin american economists you mean cranks from the dependista school, no thanks. if you mean free-traders who support strong social safety nets, then fine. however, i'd wager that even they would say that argentina's current economic crises can not be sustained with the currently huge public sector.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$330.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network