What happened to Argentina? • Hacker News Board

Re: What happened to Argentina?

#21

Post by petewarden » Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 7:31 PM UTC

confusedcitizen wrote: post #17

petewarden wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What surprised me about the article was that I didn't see much 'capitalist drum-beating'. His argument is that the performance of Argentina versus the US can be entirely explained by education levels. Schools are typically provided by the government, and the idea of universal education was initially regarded as a radical one, often associated with early socialists. I'm not sure if I agree with the hypothesis, but I'd…

In fact, he does mention Peron's protectionism being a root cause (along with depression and wars) for Argentina's financial woes today. He states that protectionism, regulation, large state enterprises (which are anti-capitalistic themes) have never been 'particularly good for growth'. I feel he does start of with the capitalistic premise. Only later is education hypothesized as a major culprit.

The key phrase is 'But why was Argentina's public sector so problematic?'. Other countries have thrived despite similar policies, what he argues is that lack of education led to poor implementations of them in Argentina.

I wouldn't disagree that he's starting from a standard narrative, but his argument doesn't require those causes as premises to explain Argentina's lack of growth.

Re: What happened to Argentina?

#22

Post by confusedcitizen » Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 7:33 PM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #16

confusedcitizen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...just ask India and China before they modernized and liberalized their economies." Well, modernization and liberalization of economies have increased the economic divide in India. It's not that liberal economic policies are wrong, just that their implementations are always skewed by greedy corporations. A government's responsibility is not only to cater to cash sinks but also the people they govern, which especial…

Note that "increased the economic divide" sounds bad, but there's no way from that statement alone to know whether people are better off or worse off, on the whole. If the "economic divide" was broadened merely by making some people better off faster than others, as is usually the case in a freer market, then there's no problem. It's only when people actually get poorer in terms of what they can do and have that "inc…

I agree to what you say, but by economic divide in India, I meant, the rich get richer, the poor, frankly cannot get any poorer there and are untouched, maybe even adversely affected by the economic boom.

For the sake of free-market policies and rampant industrialization, people are displaced without their consent. For example, dams alone have displaced more than 30 million people in India.

Successive governments like to publicize decreasing poverty figures, which are constantly rebutted by independent agencies.

A 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) found that 77% of Indians, or 836 million people, lived on less than 20 rupees per day (USD 0.50 nominal, USD 2.0 in PPP), with most working in "informal labour sector with no job or social security, living in abject poverty." [http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSDEL218894]

Re: What happened to Argentina?

#23

Post by Perceval » Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 7:37 PM UTC

alecco wrote: post #7

confusedcitizen wrote: post #4

This is another economist trying to beat the capitalistic drum. Apart from Peron's protectionist policies (which some call a drive toward self-sustenance), one shouldn't forget contributing factors like the 1948 exclusion of Argentina exports from the Marshall Plan by the Truman administration. Peron might have been mistaken on many counts, but so many things are ignored behind the veil of apparently protectionist po…

Extremely myopic, indeed. Peron was an authoritarian and a demagogue, but he improved most social indicators of the country. Sure, GDP diminished but that was part of the cost to make Argentina an industrialized nation. Also the infrastructure of the country improved significantly. IMHO, it's quite hard to understand a right-leaning socialist government from the point of view of a US citizen. There's no reference.

I don't think it's that difficult with proper reference to historical examples. The first socialist welfare programs in Europe were instituted by authoritarian, nationalist, militarist Prussian leadership shortly following the unification of Germany. It was part of Bismarck's strategy to undercut the republican reformist sentiment left over from 1848, and bind the common people to the state through conservative handouts.

Another interesting book looks at the welfare programs instituted in Nazi Germany as part of their corporatist 'third way' economic system (supposed to avoid reliance on free trade industrialism and inoculate against cosmopolitan bolshevist appeals): http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Beneficiaries-Plunder-Racial-W...

Right-leaning socialism was the original socialism in practice in Europe.

Re: What happened to Argentina?

#24

Post by sethg » Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 7:40 PM UTC

petewarden wrote: post #21

confusedcitizen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, he does mention Peron's protectionism being a root cause (along with depression and wars) for Argentina's financial woes today. He states that protectionism, regulation, large state enterprises (which are anti-capitalistic themes) have never been 'particularly good for growth'. I feel he does start of with the capitalistic premise. Only later is education hypothesized as a major culprit.

The key phrase is 'But why was Argentina's public sector so problematic?'. Other countries have thrived despite similar policies, what he argues is that lack of education led to poor implementations of them in Argentina. I wouldn't disagree that he's starting from a standard narrative, but his argument doesn't require those causes as premises to explain Argentina's lack of growth.

Perhaps education makes the difference because a literate population can more effectively hold its government to account. Consider the proliferation of rabble-rousing newspapers, associated with every political stripe, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centures in the US.

Re: What happened to Argentina?

#25

Post by ckinnan » Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 7:50 PM UTC

A better comparison than Chicago is Argentina's neighbor Chile, which is far less endowed than Argentina and has been poorer historically. Chile, however, has pursued market economics since the 1980s and now enjoys a living standard that is more than twice as high as Argentina.

Indeed, Argentina's per capita income today is just $6,500, despite the nation's amazing cultural and natural gifts. Argentina is, in fact, highly literate-- I don't think that explains why it has stumbled.

Re: What happened to Argentina?

#26

Post by philwelch » Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 7:51 PM UTC

alecco wrote: post #7

confusedcitizen wrote: post #4

This is another economist trying to beat the capitalistic drum. Apart from Peron's protectionist policies (which some call a drive toward self-sustenance), one shouldn't forget contributing factors like the 1948 exclusion of Argentina exports from the Marshall Plan by the Truman administration. Peron might have been mistaken on many counts, but so many things are ignored behind the veil of apparently protectionist po…

Extremely myopic, indeed. Peron was an authoritarian and a demagogue, but he improved most social indicators of the country. Sure, GDP diminished but that was part of the cost to make Argentina an industrialized nation. Also the infrastructure of the country improved significantly. IMHO, it's quite hard to understand a right-leaning socialist government from the point of view of a US citizen. There's no reference.

"Sure, GDP diminished but that was part of the cost to make Argentina an industrialized nation."

That sentence doesn't even make sense. The whole point of industrialization is to boost economic output. That's what it does almost by definition.

Re: What happened to Argentina?

#27

Post by randallsquared » Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 8:12 PM UTC

confusedcitizen wrote: post #22

randallsquared wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that "increased the economic divide" sounds bad, but there's no way from that statement alone to know whether people are better off or worse off, on the whole. If the "economic divide" was broadened merely by making some people better off faster than others, as is usually the case in a freer market, then there's no problem. It's only when people actually get poorer in terms of what they can do and have that "inc…

I agree to what you say, but by economic divide in India, I meant, the rich get richer, the poor, frankly cannot get any poorer there and are untouched, maybe even adversely affected by the economic boom. For the sake of free-market policies and rampant industrialization, people are displaced without their consent. For example, dams alone have displaced more than 30 million people in India. Successive governments lik…

For the sake of free-market policies and rampant industrialization, people are displaced without their consent.

If people are losing their land without their consent, then the market isn't free. I guess we're losing the original meaning of "free market", here, which is just the latest in a list of such redefinitions to suit whatever the politicians want to do, while saying nice things. The euphemism treadmill strikes again! :)

Re: What happened to Argentina?

#28

Post by diego_moita » Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 8:45 PM UTC

raphar wrote: post #13

In my opinion Argentina is cursed more for its lack of direction than a deficit in education. During the 20th century (and 21th) its has been a common practice to destroy or undo the previous administration efforts. Almost every group that had governed Argentina, gained power, rebuilt everything (laws, institutions, education...) until it got replaced or defeated. A century of this, has left the country walking in ci…

As a Brazilian I agree because I see it happening here.

But I believe that it is also related to education. Uneducated people are the ones that elect the most corrupt/incompetent politicians and are the ones that never understand discussions about policies.

Off-topic: hope you guys get to the Worl Cup ;-)

Re: What happened to Argentina?

#29

Post by berntb » Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 8:50 PM UTC

alecco wrote: post #9

jseliger wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apart from Peron's protectionist policies (which some call a drive toward self-sustenance)" Trade protection and autarky have long been defended by words like "self-sustenance," and the like, but such policies have never turned out well: just ask India and China before they modernized and liberalized their economies. "Peron might have been mistaken on many counts, but so many things are ignored behind the veil of ap…

Menem, a peronist president in the 90s, undid many things Peron did. His government was a poster child for deregulation and what's called neo-liberalism. They privatized almost everything in a ruthless manner. The crisis of 2001 was a consequence of all those policies. I am against publicly owned corporations and services but I'm against raw short-sighted capitalism, too. Some of the privatized public corporations ha…

It is not an argument against capitalism when corrupt politicians sell companies below value to crooks. It is an argument for good governance, which countries also need.

Re: What happened to Argentina?

#30

Post by foldr » Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 9:07 PM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #16

confusedcitizen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...just ask India and China before they modernized and liberalized their economies." Well, modernization and liberalization of economies have increased the economic divide in India. It's not that liberal economic policies are wrong, just that their implementations are always skewed by greedy corporations. A government's responsibility is not only to cater to cash sinks but also the people they govern, which especial…

Note that "increased the economic divide" sounds bad, but there's no way from that statement alone to know whether people are better off or worse off, on the whole. If the "economic divide" was broadened merely by making some people better off faster than others, as is usually the case in a freer market, then there's no problem. It's only when people actually get poorer in terms of what they can do and have that "inc…

> If the "economic divide" was broadened merely by making some people better off faster than others, as is usually the case in a freer market, then there's no problem.

This seems a little optimistic. Having a large gap between the rich and the poor does in fact cause problems (e.g. social unrest).