11–20 of 63 posts
I think Peron was quite positive, and the author forgets to note that before him Argentina was controlled by English companies who took the best part of the profits from the beef industry.
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 buy the article's explanations thus far; though it appears to be one of a series and I look forward to reading more.
But I also am not swayed but your assertion that progress in a socialist country is too alien for we crass capitalists to gauge.
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 circles, incapable of taking advantage of the oportunities that had appeared, and that might had improved its situation.
Nevertheless I don't lose my hope in my beloved country.
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…
i agree. there's a lot of issues in the history of argentina that are brushed by in an attempt to make this a simple economic policy debate. for example, they were quite politically unstable. there was a coup in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. the ruling military government died in the 80s after a brief war. a prosperous economy is difficult to foster without a stable governmental structure, regardless of what that…
(Anyone want to plot education-in-1900 vs. coups-in-20th-century?)
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…
I'm not sure if I agree with the hypothesis, but I'd rather hear a specific counter-argument. Your condemnation seems more suited to a rebuttal of the typical 'Argentina is poor because it's socialist' idea.
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…
"...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…
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…
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…
I feel he does start of with the capitalistic premise. Only later is education hypothesized as a major culprit.
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…
"...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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i agree. there's a lot of issues in the history of argentina that are brushed by in an attempt to make this a simple economic policy debate. for example, they were quite politically unstable. there was a coup in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. the ruling military government died in the 80s after a brief war. a prosperous economy is difficult to foster without a stable governmental structure, regardless of what that…
But might the political instability also be a symptom of the educational level? (Anyone want to plot education-in-1900 vs. coups-in-20th-century?)
Human Capital is seen as a risky asset due to its volatility. From a intellectual capital management perspective, my guess is that Argentina has not been successful into converting its Human Capital into Structural Capital.
Education is one of the tools of such conversion. With my limited knowledge, policy and society design are the high level effective tools for the job.