DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**AdvertisingPo** · 11-01-2007, 03:25 PM

Your comments regarding Argentina are not only wrong - they are exactly the opposite of the truth. At the beginning of the 20th century, when Argentina had free markets and was an "evil" capitalist nation, it was one of the ten wealthiest nations in the world. Under the left-wing dictatorships that began with the Perons, the economy collapsed. It has never fully recovered. The attempts to re-introduce some free market policies have been partly successful, but they have not reversed the decline.

If you are going to promote an anti-capitalist agenda and defend leftist dictators, you have to at least attempt to use facts and data to support your views.

How woefully misinformed.

The IMF recommended policies drove Argentina nearly to the brink of economic ruin. In 2001 Argentina defaulted on it's debt payments. The IMF, for years, as Camille said, urged Argentina to privatize privatize privatize, and cut cut cut. This plunged many Argentinos into poverty, and is the reason that they have a gini index of .52.

What Camille doesn't know, or forgot to mention, is that the IMF also convinced Argentina to peg it's Peso to the US Dollar. To KEEP it there, Argentina had to borrow billions of dollars FROM the IMF. This only increased their foreign debt. Argentina was forced to roll over it's debt.

In 2003, Argentina cut a hard deal with the IMF. Using a nice big gift of oil money from Chavez, Argentina payed off the debt it owed to the IMF. It is still mired in debt to the Paris Club, and owes Chavez a favour, but they are by no means in such dire straits as they were in 2001 under Menem.

Kirchner claims that the rapidly increasing economy (one of the best south of the Rio Grande) is due to ignoring, or even directly contradicting IMF recommendations, and all evidence points to this being true.

Another thing that is important to remember. Not all leftists in Latin America are the same. On one side, you have the the extremist, close minded, radical leftists: Chavez, Morales. On the other you have progressive, open minded, future-oriented leftists: Kirchner, Lula Da Silva. Somewhere in the middle sit Correa, and, despite his past, Ortega.

Kirchner =/= Chavez.

11-01-2007, 03:25 PM	#37
AdvertisingPo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 477 Senior Member	Your comments regarding Argentina are not only wrong - they are exactly the opposite of the truth. At the beginning of the 20th century, when Argentina had free markets and was an "evil" capitalist nation, it was one of the ten wealthiest nations in the world. Under the left-wing dictatorships that began with the Perons, the economy collapsed. It has never fully recovered. The attempts to re-introduce some free market policies have been partly successful, but they have not reversed the decline. If you are going to promote an anti-capitalist agenda and defend leftist dictators, you have to at least attempt to use facts and data to support your views. How woefully misinformed. The IMF recommended policies drove Argentina nearly to the brink of economic ruin. In 2001 Argentina defaulted on it's debt payments. The IMF, for years, as Camille said, urged Argentina to privatize privatize privatize, and cut cut cut. This plunged many Argentinos into poverty, and is the reason that they have a gini index of .52. What Camille doesn't know, or forgot to mention, is that the IMF also convinced Argentina to peg it's Peso to the US Dollar. To KEEP it there, Argentina had to borrow billions of dollars FROM the IMF. This only increased their foreign debt. Argentina was forced to roll over it's debt. In 2003, Argentina cut a hard deal with the IMF. Using a nice big gift of oil money from Chavez, Argentina payed off the debt it owed to the IMF. It is still mired in debt to the Paris Club, and owes Chavez a favour, but they are by no means in such dire straits as they were in 2001 under Menem. Kirchner claims that the rapidly increasing economy (one of the best south of the Rio Grande) is due to ignoring, or even directly contradicting IMF recommendations, and all evidence points to this being true. Another thing that is important to remember. Not all leftists in Latin America are the same. On one side, you have the the extremist, close minded, radical leftists: Chavez, Morales. On the other you have progressive, open minded, future-oriented leftists: Kirchner, Lula Da Silva. Somewhere in the middle sit Correa, and, despite his past, Ortega. Kirchner =/= Chavez.
	Quote