Argentina: The Superpower that Never Was (& Why the US Ascended)
11–20 of 26 posts
Re: Argentina: The Superpower that Never Was (& Why the US Ascended)
#12Dictatorships exterminate thinkers, the fuel of progress, and turn great workers into mindless servants.
A ten year dictatorship can turn the clock backwards a hundred years, or more.
Cleptocracy, the modern dictatorship with a democratic facade, are far worse, they look completely legit, approved by the people, but they are just a maffia whose only purpose is to use and abuse the country's resources for their own benefit while manipulating the law to perpetuate themselves in power.
Just take a look at every single latin american country touched by a leftist wave of "socialism" changing their constitutions at will just to allow continuous reelections to stay in power forever.
May God save the US from a cleptocracy.
todo: s/God/science/
Re: Argentina: The Superpower that Never Was (& Why the US Ascended)
#13Re: Argentina: The Superpower that Never Was (& Why the US Ascended)
#14The frightening thing is that the U.S. is now pursuing Argentine-style fiscal policy with massive new borrowing and spending, and the specter of protectionism is emerging here with all of the new subsidies and bailouts for domestic automakers, banks, and insurers.
You give the impression that you only started paying attention to what your government does in the last few months. These things have gone on for decades (at the very least).
Re: Argentina: The Superpower that Never Was (& Why the US Ascended)
#15Re: Argentina: The Superpower that Never Was (& Why the US Ascended)
#16But to be realistic Argentina is infinite far from US. US has the opportunity to heal itself while Argentina future is very dark.
Re: Argentina: The Superpower that Never Was (& Why the US Ascended)
#17As an Argentinian I see a core point missing: evolving Corruption In this crisis US can't differentiate between free market and corruption. Why S&P and other rating agencies gave AAA to AIG? it was really a miscalculation? But to be realistic Argentina is infinite far from US. US has the opportunity to heal itself while Argentina future is very dark.
I think part of the argument here is that concentrating property rights into the hands of the few rather than the many, especially if the few control the government, makes corruption much more likely. International comparisons (mentioned in other comments in this thread) tend to show that countries with lots of private ownership of the means of production and minimal role of central government in operating the economy tend to have less corruption.
Re: Argentina: The Superpower that Never Was (& Why the US Ascended)
#18The frightening thing is that the U.S. is now pursuing Argentine-style fiscal policy with massive new borrowing and spending, and the specter of protectionism is emerging here with all of the new subsidies and bailouts for domestic automakers, banks, and insurers.
"the spectre of protectionism is emerging "? " new borrowing and spending"? " new subsidies and bailouts"? You give the impression that you only started paying attention to what your government does in the last few months. These things have gone on for decades (at the very least).
Re: Argentina: The Superpower that Never Was (& Why the US Ascended)
#19As an Argentinian I see a core point missing: evolving Corruption In this crisis US can't differentiate between free market and corruption. Why S&P and other rating agencies gave AAA to AIG? it was really a miscalculation? But to be realistic Argentina is infinite far from US. US has the opportunity to heal itself while Argentina future is very dark.
Self referential systems are not only prone to failure, but are doomed on the long-run due to missing independent guiding points.
"Any community with only one dominant power is always a dangerous one and provokes reactions." (Jacques Chirac, 2003)
Re: Argentina: The Superpower that Never Was (& Why the US Ascended)
#20It's hard to be a superpower with 37 million people, but in 1900 Argentina didn't yet have 5 million. And in 1950 it hadn't reached 20. Uruguay was vrey rich in the 1950s, yet it had no influence in the world because it only had 2 million inhabitants.
And Great Britain seemed to do acceptably well with fewer than 40-50 million people during its empire period.
Besides, during the defining interval, 1800-1920 or so, Argentina could have made up the difference by being a better place to immigrate, which is in part what the article covers.