Yes in normal countries. But Argentina has an official fixed rates that is unrelated to reality. This means there are two exchange rates, the official one and the real one. Thie measure just puts the official one closer to the real one. And as Argentina uses gov money to pay the official rate thus this reduces the gov expenses and in the long term it stabilises the currency. Yes, in the short term its a shock to the economy making some thins more expensive (for those that had access to the gov rate) but its just bc before the gov subsidised those things indirectly.
Most of the ideas of this president are actually good. Its just a shame that he has to insult and act to apply them. He’s just doing what the IMF has proposed for years and telling everyone it’s a revolution.
Pretty much. This is not just going to be an Argentinian thing… capitalists desperately funding politicians into power that makes no secret of their willingness to sabotage economies for the benefit of the rich is something we’re probably going to be seeing more and more of in the future.
In particular yes. And even if its usually a bad idea an equilibrium must be found between social services and Liberal policies. And Argentina is clearly in much need of some Liberal policies. This president might take it too far, making some irreparable mistakes like doralisation, but seeing the state of the Argentinian economy its provably an overall positive. But again, its. Abit sad that he feels like insulting is the way to do it.
Also, the IMF usually gives good advice to counties, most of its bad reputation comes from them trying to impose unpopular measures to counties on the border of collapse and it usually fails. But that’s like blaming Hospitals for not beeing able to save all patients. They usually ask for a but too much (as you said they are liberals after all) but its a good idea to listen to them
Bc it isnt that. It usually is: stop giving money to people if you’re in debt, and keep your word to guive stability to you economy to attract investors. Obviously sometimes they give bad advice but its usually a good idea to listen to the IMF
No. It is. Do you need me to paste links to the actual small-print of those (so-called) “trade agreements” the US manipulates 3rd world countries into signing?
You know… the ones where the US dictates that it’s criminally insane and mentally diseased “free market” ideology should take precedence over the needs of the people living inside those countries? So here… let me fix your little statement for you:
nd keep your word to guive stability to you economy to attract investorscapitalist looters and pillagers.
Is this starting to gel or do I have to draw you a picture?
Changing the language doesn’t change the output. You can call it whatever you want. But its a fact that a modern economy needs to participate in the global markets. Ite either that or self reliance (which means no oil, no smartphones, no imports generally). I am supposing that you dont want the second one.
From this the only conclusion is that a country needs to produce something and be competitive, and the easiest way to do that is with investment.
All those things are facts. Now, are there alternatives? Obviously, for example, France’s economy is in big part goverment run with success. But for that you need to maintain a competent government which in Argentinas I think we can agree that it is not the case.
So, you either establish a more or less free market with a bit of stability, or you have a competent gov. The IMF thinks the first is easier, and so it recomends it.
With that said, obviously some government intervention is needed and social policies are usually good, but to maintain those you need money, and sadly, you cant just print it (Again, Argentina is a great example for that).
You are perfectly correct - no matter how you dress it up, neliberal capitalism will deliver the exact same results neoliberal capitalism has always delivered.
and be competitive,
Competitive at what? Impoverishing their own people to make billionaire parasites richer?
But for that you need to maintain a competent government which in Argentinas I think we can agree that it is not the case.
I don’t know about that… how long ago was France ruled by a CIA-approved fascist dictator?
So, you either establish a more or less free market with a bit of stability,that is inherently unstable
FTFY.
The IMF thinks the first is easierbetter for US neocolonialism
FTFY again. Good thing for you I don’t charge you for editing, eh?
and sadly, you cant just print it
Nobody bothers just printing money these days… it’s literally just data. And yes… it’s simply exists as that. An invention that can be made and unmade.
Ok, you cant print it indefenetly (saying the opposite is just ignorant). Also, it can be better for neocolonialism and for the country, its not mutually exclusive.
And, can I as you how do you expect a country to buy oil, chips, planes, etc? A genuine question. If you dont export anything how do you convince other countries to guive you stuff?
When I say globally competitive I mean having something that other countries pay you to make, thats it. And why? So that you can then pay them to guive you stuff.
It was the corruption, not the socialism, what little of that there actually was anyway. At no point did the workers own any of the production. You are pretending the definition of socialism is subsidies. It isn’t.
and neither did Argentina. What was your point supposed to be?
I’m a capitalist and I’ll prove it, just send me cash and I’ll provide you access to proof with a receipt, (access for verified accounts available for the duration of your subscription. Not available in all areas.).
Sure, but the fact that no one knows what socialism is doesn’t mean that the definition of socialism changes. Argentina is an example of socialdemocracy with too much interventionist, nothing to do with socialism.
But again, even if the new guy has good ideas nobody should support him insulting to make a campaign, this just makes discussion counterproductive, and its the base of a democratic society
Yes in normal countries. But Argentina has an official fixed rates that is unrelated to reality. This means there are two exchange rates, the official one and the real one. Thie measure just puts the official one closer to the real one. And as Argentina uses gov money to pay the official rate thus this reduces the gov expenses and in the long term it stabilises the currency. Yes, in the short term its a shock to the economy making some thins more expensive (for those that had access to the gov rate) but its just bc before the gov subsidised those things indirectly.
Most of the ideas of this president are actually good. Its just a shame that he has to insult and act to apply them. He’s just doing what the IMF has proposed for years and telling everyone it’s a revolution.
Correct. Usually when governments devalue currency, it’s a move to find equilibrium slightly above the black market value of that currency.
I read that the official rate was 380 to the dollar and is now 800, while black market rate was 1000.
So this devaluation is still 20% higher than the black market rate.
So he’s just throwing Argentina to the neoliberal wolves?
Isn’t that like his whole thing to do unregulated capitalism?
Pretty much. This is not just going to be an Argentinian thing… capitalists desperately funding politicians into power that makes no secret of their willingness to sabotage economies for the benefit of the rich is something we’re probably going to be seeing more and more of in the future.
In particular yes. And even if its usually a bad idea an equilibrium must be found between social services and Liberal policies. And Argentina is clearly in much need of some Liberal policies. This president might take it too far, making some irreparable mistakes like doralisation, but seeing the state of the Argentinian economy its provably an overall positive. But again, its. Abit sad that he feels like insulting is the way to do it.
Also, the IMF usually gives good advice to counties, most of its bad reputation comes from them trying to impose unpopular measures to counties on the border of collapse and it usually fails. But that’s like blaming Hospitals for not beeing able to save all patients. They usually ask for a but too much (as you said they are liberals after all) but its a good idea to listen to them
Oh… is “destroy your infrastructure for the benefit of US corporations” (somehow) “good advice” now?
Bc it isnt that. It usually is: stop giving money to people if you’re in debt, and keep your word to guive stability to you economy to attract investors. Obviously sometimes they give bad advice but its usually a good idea to listen to the IMF
No. It is. Do you need me to paste links to the actual small-print of those (so-called) “trade agreements” the US manipulates 3rd world countries into signing?
You know… the ones where the US dictates that it’s criminally insane and mentally diseased “free market” ideology should take precedence over the needs of the people living inside those countries? So here… let me fix your little statement for you:
Is this starting to gel or do I have to draw you a picture?
Changing the language doesn’t change the output. You can call it whatever you want. But its a fact that a modern economy needs to participate in the global markets. Ite either that or self reliance (which means no oil, no smartphones, no imports generally). I am supposing that you dont want the second one.
From this the only conclusion is that a country needs to produce something and be competitive, and the easiest way to do that is with investment.
All those things are facts. Now, are there alternatives? Obviously, for example, France’s economy is in big part goverment run with success. But for that you need to maintain a competent government which in Argentinas I think we can agree that it is not the case.
So, you either establish a more or less free market with a bit of stability, or you have a competent gov. The IMF thinks the first is easier, and so it recomends it.
With that said, obviously some government intervention is needed and social policies are usually good, but to maintain those you need money, and sadly, you cant just print it (Again, Argentina is a great example for that).
You are perfectly correct - no matter how you dress it up, neliberal capitalism will deliver the exact same results neoliberal capitalism has always delivered.
Competitive at what? Impoverishing their own people to make billionaire parasites richer?
I don’t know about that… how long ago was France ruled by a CIA-approved fascist dictator?
FTFY.
FTFY again. Good thing for you I don’t charge you for editing, eh?
Nobody bothers just printing money these days… it’s literally just data. And yes… it’s simply exists as that. An invention that can be made and unmade.
Ok, you cant print it indefenetly (saying the opposite is just ignorant). Also, it can be better for neocolonialism and for the country, its not mutually exclusive.
And, can I as you how do you expect a country to buy oil, chips, planes, etc? A genuine question. If you dont export anything how do you convince other countries to guive you stuff?
When I say globally competitive I mean having something that other countries pay you to make, thats it. And why? So that you can then pay them to guive you stuff.
Because after a decade of socialist assholes, it is.
It was the corruption, not the socialism, what little of that there actually was anyway. At no point did the workers own any of the production. You are pretending the definition of socialism is subsidies. It isn’t.
They call themselves socialist.
They promote socialism.
They were praised as being fine examples of socialism and progress when things were going well
Get out of the cope copter.
Outside of having socialist as an adjective, none of that is true.
You’ll be shocked to discover the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is a dictatorship and neither democratic nor a republic.
Oh, and the insurrectionists that attacked the Capital who call themselves Patriots, aren’t that either.
Words have definitions. When you ignore the definitions it shows you’ve no idea what you are talking about.
N Korea doesn’t have real elections.
Argentina did actually seize the means of the means of production, (oil fields).
This is yet another case of passing the buck on socialist unsustainability.
Oh, look… the Capitalist Bootlicker Brigade is pretending to know what socialism is again.
Yawn.
and neither did Argentina. What was your point supposed to be?
I’m a capitalist and I’ll prove it, just send me cash and I’ll provide you access to proof with a receipt, (access for verified accounts available for the duration of your subscription. Not available in all areas.).
Sure, but the fact that no one knows what socialism is doesn’t mean that the definition of socialism changes. Argentina is an example of socialdemocracy with too much interventionist, nothing to do with socialism.
But again, even if the new guy has good ideas nobody should support him insulting to make a campaign, this just makes discussion counterproductive, and its the base of a democratic society
So… which part of Argentina’s production was owned by the workers?