![argies].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wMh0J17.jpg "argies].jpg")
Why can Argentina not economy and democracy?
Even during their "prime" (1800-1914) they were causing economic crises and for a time they were changing military dictators every few months
They got nigger rich off of exports and failed to do anything with the money.
Then the fighting between the aristocracy and the commies proceeded to ruin them for the next century.
>>1418215
Because Latin Americans are not psychologically fit for democracy.
>>1418220
the main problem of Argentina is that it is a "special" society, a Latin American country that had 1.7 million inhabitants around 1860, and received 5 million European immigrants (mainly Spaniards and Italians, but a fifth were from the rest of Europe) from 1880 to World War 2.
It is neither a typical latin american country, nor a Canada-Australia style country, and you always end up with a society very divided, not on racial lines, but on political lines, mainly between those who like modern republican democracies like those of the first world, and those who like Peron style populism, which is a mixture of Italian fascism with latin american caudillismo (carismatic leaders).
It is hard to explain to foreigners, the closest thing in America to Peron would be the Union leader Jimmy Hoffa. Unions are very powerful in Argentina, they are Peronists, and it is pure corporatism.
All non peronist governments (if you exclude dictatorships) since the 30s were ousted from power before time.
If you look at the real gdp per capita Argentina and Canada graphic posted by OP, it is Peronism in the 40s what derailed Argentina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism
>>1418483
I think most of the political fighting was simply the standard shit that happens with Latin American countries.
Plantation agriculture results in wealthy elites, impoverished masses, and shit rule of law.
>>1418488
there is no plantation agriculture in Argentina
Argentina is a large agricultural exporter like Australia or the USA of soy bean, wheat, corn, and meat. Most of Argentina has temperate weather (it is very cold in Patagonia and subtropical in the provinces that border Paraguay and Brazil). and Agriculture is completely modern and mechanized. The most competitive sector of the economy.
The big problem of Argentina is that its most popular leader, Peron, the one who gave the welfare state to workers, was an authoritarian fascist who was expulsed from the country after a military coup in 1955.
His political party was banned, and there were elections in which blank vote was the most voted option because of that, all the presidents elected had no legitimacy because they only won because Peron wasnt allowed to return to the country.
When the Presidents tried to allow Peron to retun from his exile in Spain, there would be military coups to prevent that.
Peron finally returned in 1973, and there was a civil war between right wing and left wing peronists (middle class college kids who read Sartre, thought their parents who hated Peron were wrong and that Peron was the Argentine Mao or Castro)
After that came the dictatorship that destroyed the national economy, killed thousands and invaded the Falklands. And after that when democracy returned in the 80s we had hyperinflation.
that is pretty much the short History of why Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world from 1880 to 1940 and how it became poorer than Chile (it was a process that took decades)
>>1418509
>there is no plantation agriculture in Argentina
Don't they still have villa style economic systems with extremely concentrated ownership?
>>1418512
not at all, I dont think we ever had that except in colonial times, and only in the north west, if you mean stuff like the encomienda.
this is a demonstration of farmers from 2008, they were blocking the street complaining about higher export taxes.
>>1418531
The term I was looking for was Hacienda.
I really shouldn't have pissed away your time.
And according to wikipedia, the money based economy ruined the Argentinian hacienda system.
>>1418323
One word: Uruguay
>>1418509
this is all wrong
>Why can Argentina not economy
We were never economically developed, we were only rich once because we have huge amounts of fertile land and had barely any population (which results in huge gdp per capita). Peronism messed up a little with the economy, but as the graph shows we were still pretty well off until the early 70s. The last military dictatorship destroyed the argentinian economy and we never recovered (neoliberalism in the 90s and kircherism after didn't help either).
>and democracy
The military and the oligarchy are the only historically non democratic sections of the country, but they are enough to fuck everyone else. I'm disgusted at everyone that was cheering at the military parade the other day.
>>1418556
They had a junta from 73-85
>This thread is filled with half-truths
>>1418974
>We were never economically developed, we were only rich once because we have huge amounts of fertile land and had barely any population
This is the only thing that you got right in your post.
The military dictatorship was just the conclusion of the industrialization by substitution of imports. The highest investment per gdp in the argentine history was achieved during their rule.
The ISI started before Peron, as a consequence of the 29' crash. Peron only started the fact of giving state support. Frondizi and Illia kept up with ISI.
Menem wasn't a neoliberal. No neoliberal ever would tolerate a fixed exchange rate ever, nor taking debt.
The kirchnerist were incompetent, argentina grew despite them because of the favorable international context (mainly china and brazil). Argentina hasn't grown in 4 years.
>>1421510
Are you retarded?
>>1421578
based seamless tubes industry chipping in
>>1421578
>The military dictatorship was just the conclusion of the industrialization by substitution
:^)
The last military dictatorship is known in economic literature as the period as "modelo de valorizacion financiera". Not only did they completely destroy industrial production, but they did so on purpose. They believed in an agriculture based economy, and they saw the industry as the source of the class conflicts that we had. This is pretty obvious from the anti industrial laws passed in big urban centers (they didn't want high accumulation of industrial workers), liberalization laws, overvalued currency, etc. This huge fall in industrial production was partially offset by the increased production in heavy industry related to long term investment from long before, which was supposed to feed national industry, but ended up exporting its production due to the destruction of local industry.
For reference, read "La industria que supimos conseguir".
>The ISI started before Peron, as a consequence of the 29' crash. Peron only started the fact of giving state support. Frondizi and Illia kept(...)
Are you really trying to refute me by summarizing your high school history class? You're really not impressing me.
>Menem wasn't a neoliberal.
>>>>>>>>>
>No neoliberal ever would tolerate a fixed exchange rate ever, nor taking debt.
Retarded post, but i know you're just mindlessly repeating what modern argentine neoliberal/austrian apologists say. In a neoclassical world of flexible prices, using a fixed rate with a monetary policy tied to the entry/exit of foreign currency is the same as having a flexible exchange rate, since the entry/exit of foreign currency expands/contracts the monetary base and increases/decreases prices, therefore revaluating/devaluating the real exchange rate. In the real world, though, prices are not downwards flexible (as was well known by argentinian economists: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3466845), but that is a problem with neoliberal theory.
>>1421709
>Not only did they completely destroy industrial production
They mostly removed inefficient industries, that even after 20 years of state protection, they were still not even close to the technological level of the first world. If anything, they ended the stop and go recurrent crises.
I'm not defending the military, but they started with big investments in large sectors, a la Hirschman.
>This huge fall in industrial production was partially offset by the increased production in heavy industry related to long term investment from long before
No, no it didn't.
>Are you really trying to refute me by summarizing your high school history class? You're really not impressing me.
I don't know if you finished the CBC.
>>>>>>>>>
You just talked about a flaw in the theory, but you didn't adress the fact that a neoliberal will never take debt, because they believe in the ricardian equivalence.
>>1421794
>related to long term investment from long before
Btw, i was referring to this part. The heavy industry, like the petrochimical, paper and chemical, started with the military. So much of the heavy industry started there.
>>1421794
>They mostly removed inefficient industries, that even after 20 years of state protection
The only industries that are "naturally" competitive are the ones related to the agroindustry. So, if you mean to say that they destroyed everyting except those ones (and whatever else could survive by exporting), we agree.
>If anything, they ended the stop and go recurrent crises.
Lel, are you joking? When the hell did recurrent crises stop?
>I'm not defending the military, but they started with big investments in large sectors, a la Hirschman.
I'm referring specifically to the last dictatorship. If you are saying that that one was following development economics a la hirschman, you are out of your mind.
>You just talked about a flaw in the theory, but you didn't adress the fact that a neoliberal will never take debt, because they believe in the ricardian equivalence.
Ricardian equivalence is not a consensus, even among neoclassicals, mainly because it's too insane even for most of them.
>>1421860
>The only industries that are "naturally" competitive are the ones related to the agroindustry
I guess Techint is an agroindustry then.
>Lel, are you joking? When the hell did recurrent crises stop?
I said stop&go crises. They didn't know what the hell where they doing, but that is what it happened. They took debt and loosened the fx restraint. Now the crises where not because of the lack of USD but because of inflation.
>I'm referring specifically to the last dictatorship
I am too. They did development economics a la hisrchmann, at least the part that matters, the one that says about disequilbrium growth is good for growth. That's why they invested so much in upstream industries.
>Ricardian equivalence is not a consensus, even among neoclassicals, mainly because it's too insane even for most of them.
Well, that's the problem of classifying schools of economic thought. Not every economist agrees with all the postulates of a "school". But most neoliberals I've met believe in the ricardian equivalence.
I know it's simplistic but i think the Falkands are in some wayd to blame.
Whenever the people start to get pissy the leaders may just point atvthe islands and make the masses forget everything in favor of a few thousands sheep.
It didn't work for the junta, it works for the kircheners.
>>1421906
>I guess Techint is an agroindustry then.
I already mentioned heavy industry.
>Now the crises where not because of the lack of USD but because of inflation.
I understand what you mean, but we've had dollar shortages every decade since the military dictatorship.
>They did development economics a la hisrchmann
Give me some economic literature supporting your claim.
>>1421924
Have you ever heard the falklands used in an electoral debate? Have you ever met anyone that voted based on anything related to the falklands?
This is an internet myth.
>>1421943
If it's just an internet myth, why does the current president seem to care about it the most whenever people start getting unruly?
Or is that an error of observations?
>>1421952
Does that happen though? I only see them mentioned during UN/G20 meetings or specific dates.
Are you argentinian?
>>1421960
No, just at least used to follow much more media and then i got that impression.
Suppose i very well may be wrong though.
>>1421976
I think it's because we are an irrelevant country so you only hear about argentina in relation to relevant countries (in this case related to a conflict with the UK), which makes it seem like it's the only thing that happens here.
I mean, i may be wrong, but in my experience i read more about the falklands on the internet than i hear about them irl.
>>1421943
I don't think i've ever read it, but i've listened to one of my lecturers suggest so. I guess it makes a nice subject for a thesis.
![p8[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fQ7ENG3.jpg "p8[1].jpg")