|
GimmickMan posted:If nothing else it'll be funny to see Cristina bite her tongue at the senate when she calls for people to make their arguments without the ability to reply back at them. GimmickMan posted:Like don't get me wrong, Peronism is still at best the lesser evil in this country's perpetual Peronist-Antiperonist cycle The hypothetical Fernandez-Fernandez government will, at best, be the same as the current administration. Kicking all problems down the road while continuing the historic trend of hollowing out the state.
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 12:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
Is the issue really Peronism or simply the county lurching between disaster liberalism and populism? It seems any time another crisis in Argentina happens, Peron’s name comes up when it is clearly some crap policy being run out of central-western DC. How did you think lifting capital controls was going to go? Argentina was going to ride on the magic carpet of foreign investment?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 13:16
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:How did you think lifting capital controls was going to go? Argentina was going to ride on the magic carpet of foreign investment? Ardennes posted:It seems any time another crisis in Argentina happens, Peron’s name comes up when it is clearly some crap policy being run out of central-western DC. Ardennes posted:Is the issue really Peronism or simply the county lurching between disaster liberalism and populism? I don't mean to say that Peronism is the "original sin" of Argentine politics or that anti-peronists are automatically justified. They can be just as bad.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:I thought it was going to go really badly. It has gone really badly. There has been no actual concrete reform of anything from an economic policy point of view (and I say this in the most generic way possible, regardless of ideology, there has been effectively no policy reform whatsoever). If you have money and any sense, take it out of the country as there is no evidence that things will improve. If you're a company (domestic or foreign) you're going to move money out before the peso completely devalues. At present this phenomenon is being held up by IMF loans and terrible monetary policy regarding issuing things like LEBACs (short-term bonds essentially) in order to sustain a "good" exchange rate. What does a "good" reform look like? What are you hoping would happen with these reforms? If the answer is "foreign investment" than clearly there is something amiss here. quote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "central-western DC" (DC I assume is Washington DC). There has never been a crisis in Argentina in which the main driver towards total collapse has not been the mismanagement of the Argentine government/ruling political class (regardless of party association). Can external context make this better or worse? sure, but offloading our issues to the White House, NYSE, the IMF, the Club of Paris, etc etc. is foolish. The agreements that the Argentine government makes with these entities are symptoms, not cause. Precisely, policy from Foggy Bottom/Georgetown/West End etc, literally all of the organs of the American state (including the IMF) which are located within a few miles of each other, practically walking distance. You are talking about "mismanagement," but clearly they were following recommendations coming out of DC. Why do you think any time Argentina follows what DC is saying, that soon after everything subsequently explodes in a fiery wreck? quote:When you say "disaster liberalism vs populism" what administrations are you referring to? What definition of liberalism are we using? Simply put, Washington Consensus policy: that somehow austerity measures, "cutting bureaucracy", and releasing capital controls will fix a country's economy. Also, Menem ran as a Peronist and clearly moved toward Washington Consensus policy at very least by 1991. Also, De la Rúa, not a Peronist, completely bungled an already dire situation from 1999 to 2001. Kircherism developed from the fact that the Argentian political class, taking cues from DC, had completely run the country into the country. Then Macri tried to come back and finish the job.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 14:11
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:There is no Peronist-Antiperonist cycle in Argentine politics. Both Peronism and the vast majority of "Antiperonists" are reactionary conservatives. There is no aim to Peronism other than conservation of the means of power by whatever way they can get their hands on. Chasing personal short-term benefits, Peronists have driven the country repeatedly into the ground every single time they have been in power. There is absolutely no evidence they won't do so again. I mean, okay, yeah, calling it a cycle is a reductive oversimplification, but so is calling both PJ and Cambiemos the same thing. I think it's accurate to say both PJ and Cambiemos lean towards the conservative side economically as neither of them is interested in reform, but socially one is center-left while the other is center-right. Ghost of Mussolini posted:Alberto is a corrupt rent-seeking toady, he was all his life. You cannot be President if you don't have an actual power base, and he certainly lacks any sort of independent strong support. If Cristina is limited by anything, it is by her perception of her own image deteriorating. The hypothetical Fernandez-Fernandez government will, at best, be the same as the current administration. Kicking all problems down the road while continuing the historic trend of hollowing out the state. Alberto cannot be as bad as Macri because PJ at least makes a token effort at social justice and by pretending to care about the lower classes they end up attracting people who legitimately do care and keep things manageable despite the leadership's efforts. Bread and circuses suck but what's even worse is having a circus with no bread. PJ is corrupt and reactionary but Cambiemos is that and instead of promising equality for all they promise trickle-down economics, police brutality and catholic conservatism genuinely believing those to be good things. For every regressive PJ rear end in a top hat like Scioli you have like four or five from Cambiemos, because it attracts the full-on lunatics who have no shame saying Videla wasn't that bad. So no, if they win it won't be at best the same as the current administration, because PJ on a bad day is the same as Cambiemos on an average day. They're different degrees of terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
GimmickMan posted:I mean, okay, yeah, calling it a cycle is a reductive oversimplification, but so is calling both PJ and Cambiemos the same thing. I think it's accurate to say both PJ and Cambiemos lean towards the conservative side economically as neither of them is interested in reform, but socially one is center-left while the other is center-right. Trickle-down economics, police brutality, and social conservatism are staples of Peronist politics. I fully agree with you that Cambiemos shares these qualities, but the PJ does as well. The most powerful police force in the country is the Buenos Aires Provincial police, a de-facto Peronist organization. The provincial police of places like Formosa are glorified goon squads. Did the police suddenly start shooting because Pato Bullrich was put in charge? No, its been as ineffective and as brutal now as it was before. Handing out bread and circus does not dignify poverty, there is no dignity in poverty. Poverty is the building-block of the Peronist electoral system and it is imperative that people be trapped into poverty so they need handouts in order not to fall into extreme poverty. Does the Cambiemos government truly care about the poor? No, of course not. Neither has any PJ government beyond electoral purposes. Educational and healthcare investment has been mismanaged and under-delivered for decades, across the party spectrum. The Kirchners were in power for 12 years. They brought down poverty figures from the spike caused by 2001, but failed to lower it even below the levels of the 90s, and Macri has not fared any better. Barely half of kids in Bs. As. province graduate secondary school (counting extremely lax policies on days missed and test scores retaken). Schools that are only characterized as such because they're places that hold kids for a few hours a day. Ardennes posted:What does a "good" reform look like? What are you hoping would happen with these reforms? If the answer is "foreign investment" than clearly there is something amiss here. Ardennes posted:Precisely, policy from Foggy Bottom/Georgetown/West End etc, literally all of the organs of the American state (including the IMF) which are located within a few miles of each other, practically walking distance. You are talking about "mismanagement," but clearly they were following recommendations coming out of DC. The case is the same now, the USD-ARS rate has been turned into a sort of barometer for government stability, so monetary policy is twisted to turn this into a victory by sustaining the rate at a "good level" before the elections are finished. This isn't because someone in Washington decreed it, its because its electorally functional to the government and Legarde & co. are more than happy to subsidize it with the implicit future payoff that they can continue to extract hard currency from the country. The Argentine political class has run things poorly both independently and when taking cues from Washington. Does the "help" from Washington contribute positively? No. But it also is not the real reason why things go bad in this country (or in any other part of Latin America). Ardennes posted:
Ardennes posted:Simply put, Washington Consensus policy: that somehow austerity measures, "cutting bureaucracy", and releasing capital controls will fix a country's economy. Also, Menem ran as a Peronist and clearly moved toward Washington Consensus policy at very least by 1991. Also, De la Rúa, not a Peronist, completely bungled an already dire situation from 1999 to 2001. To say that Kirchnerism developed as a reaction to to the Argentine political class ran the country into the ground on orders from DC is a bit rich, considering that basically the entire Kirchnerist government (particularly Nestor's) was composed of people who fully accompanied the Menemist government of the 90s and were just as Peronist back then as they are now. Macri has failed to apply austerity measures or to cut bureaucracy. They're not spending less, they're just not spending more. They're not firing people, they're just not hiring more. The last president to truly implement austerity measures in this country was Duhalde, and the policies he implemented were carried out against the savings of the common person and small businesses, in no way negatively affected large enterprise or the banks. The Kirchners then took full advantage of Duhalde's hard work putting austerity in and rode the upswing of a country that had bottomed itself out and made itself re-competitive. When the money started to run out they did not hesitate to loot the state to fund electoral efforts (and to take more than a few pesos for themselves either). And if they needed to, they fudged the statistics to make the numbers work. When Macri needs money he looks to the IMF, when the Kirchners needed it they debased the currency, looted the pension system, and fixed prices. They're both awful, not only in terms of how they acquire their money, but because that money is then utilized to further electoral strategies, nobody is putting that money into clinics or schools.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Oh boy there is a lot to unpack here. Ghost of Mussolini posted:Trickle-down economics, police brutality, and social conservatism are staples of Peronist politics. I fully agree with you that Cambiemos shares these qualities, but the PJ does as well. The most powerful police force in the country is the Buenos Aires Provincial police, a de-facto Peronist organization. The provincial police of places like Formosa are glorified goon squads. Did the police suddenly start shooting because Pato Bullrich was put in charge? No, its been as ineffective and as brutal now as it was before. Okay who is the alternative? quote:Handing out bread and circus does not dignify poverty, there is no dignity in poverty. Poverty is the building-block of the Peronist electoral system and it is imperative that people be trapped into poverty so they need handouts in order not to fall into extreme poverty. Does the Cambiemos government truly care about the poor? No, of course not. Neither has any PJ government beyond electoral purposes. Educational and healthcare investment has been mismanaged and under-delivered for decades, across the party spectrum. The Kirchners were in power for 12 years. They brought down poverty figures from the spike caused by 2001, but failed to lower it even below the levels of the 90s, and Macri has not fared any better. Barely half of kids in Bs. As. province graduate secondary school (counting extremely lax policies on days missed and test scores retaken). Schools that are only characterized as such because they're places that hold kids for a few hours a day. And again, given the choice isn't it clear that at least Kicherism is the better alternative unless you outright support someone or something else? quote:I think its reductionist to think that people are just following recommendations coming out of DC. Convertibilidad is the shining example I suppose, and that was done because promising to fix inflation was the electoral winning move. Menem (and Cavallo, and Roque Fernandez) were criticized for following IMF recommendations, but also for not following them strictly enough. They adopted a plan for domestic purposes in order to secure electoral victories and access the power of the state. Convertibility was quite clearly supported by the US and IMF, and usually, most countries can't fully accept all IMF recommendations because they are usually just that terrible. quote:The Argentine political class has run things poorly both independently and when taking cues from Washington. Does the "help" from Washington contribute positively? No. But it also is not the real reason why things go bad in this country (or in any other part of Latin America). Eh bullshit, we have enough evidence nowadays to show otherwise, the US has been making GBS threads on Latin America for over a century. It isn't really something that is a "maybe." The US has been absolutely corrosive at every level, maybe it isn't responsible for literally everything but it is a hell of a lot. quote:Completely agree that De la Rua bottled it spectacularly. So did Menem, and he was elected as a Peronist and when he moved to the Washington Consensus he did so as a Peronist with the backing of the majority of the PJ machine and the governors (including the Kirchners). That doesn't logically follow when it is clear Kirchner followed a path that very clearly diverged from what the US wanted. If guys were in his cabinet or not, fine, but the core of his policy was clearly different. I get you to want to make some point that are the same, but the give and take of Argentian politics in recent years has shown this isn't the case. quote:Macri has failed to apply austerity measures or to cut bureaucracy. They're not spending less, they're just not spending more. They're not firing people, they're just not hiring more. The last president to truly implement austerity measures in this country was Duhalde, and the policies he implemented were carried out against the savings of the common person and small businesses, in no way negatively affected large enterprise or the banks. Considering the amount of inflation and escalating costs, that is still austerity btw. Hiring freezes are also austerity measures. quote:The Kirchners then took full advantage of Duhalde's hard work putting austerity in and rode the upswing of a country that had bottomed itself out and made itself re-competitive. When the money started to run out they did not hesitate to loot the state to fund electoral efforts (and to take more than a few pesos for themselves either). And if they needed to, they fudged the statistics to make the numbers work. When Macri needs money he looks to the IMF, when the Kirchners needed it they debased the currency, looted the pension system, and fixed prices. They're both awful, not only in terms of how they acquire their money, but because that money is then utilized to further electoral strategies, nobody is putting that money into clinics or schools. In the preceding sentence, you just talked about how Duhalde's austerity was built on the backs of the working people...and yet this is "hard work" that should be praised especially when we know definitively austerity doesn't solve anything. Also, you condemn both for not putting money in schools and clinics but I guess when Duhalde did it, it was fine? Which one is it? Also, the currency clearly didn't debase under the Kirchners as it did under Macri, Macri is also having to fix prices because of inflation, AND he is hock to the IMF. The Kirchners have their issues, but your 1000 word argument here isn't convincing. If you think Argentina should deserve better, fine but for whom? Maybe the Trotskyites?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
I can't speak for the rest of South America but personally, I think pointing fingers at the US as the sole/predominant reason as to the current state of Argentina sort of negates the agency of the Argentinian people and their elected representatives, in a reductionist way that makes it seem like the only important player is the US. The IMF and the US have been a blight on South America, it would be absurd to deny that, but even anti-US, anti-IMF governments like Cristina's (and Nestor's before her) weren't exactly paragons of statecraft. By the end of her second term, Argentina was sorta treading water. Again, they were in power for 12 years, I don't think "It's better than 2001" is exactly an achievement when you hold power (basically undisputed) for that long.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
Azran posted:I can't speak for the rest of South America but personally, I think pointing fingers at the US as the sole/predominant reason as to the current state of Argentina sort of negates the agency of the Argentinian people and their elected representatives, in a reductionist way that makes it seem like the only important player is the US. The IMF and the US have been a blight on South America, it would be absurd to deny that, but even anti-US, anti-IMF governments like Cristina's (and Nestor's before her) weren't exactly paragons of statecraft. By the end of her second term, Argentina was sorta treading water. Por que no los dos? US influence means that half of the loons and incompetents in the region have a big, everlasting source of funding, institutional support and international legitimacy to do their dumb/evil things. The people still have agency, but there's always a finger on the scale, and over time, it really adds up. The very real mistakes and crises of the progressive side get magnified and focused upon, either knocking their regimes down before they can smooth things out, or giving them excuses to just grab more power in order to fight the foreign interests/reward their cronies. Meanwhile the cruelty and corruption of the conservatives gets ignored or made relative because hey, selling out Social Security is worth breaking a few eggs, and those murdered activists were not -really- helping anyone. Also, even if they are so fuckwitted that they do fall, make sure that it's a compatible government that takes over, to pursue the same goals but 'more seriously', as is now the case in Brazil. Bolso is proving too lovely even for the vampire elite, so him not lasting three more months is openly discussed now. But don't you -dare- talk about removing his finance minister who is on tape promising a total fire sale of public assets, or his justice minister who stomps down on labour but whistles past weapons-grade embezzlers and militia members.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Oh boy there is a lot to unpack here. quote:Okay who is the alternative? quote:Convertibility was quite clearly supported by the US and IMF, and usually, most countries can't fully accept all IMF recommendations because they are usually just that terrible. quote:Eh bullshit, we have enough evidence nowadays to show otherwise, the US has been making GBS threads on Latin America for over a century. It isn't really something that is a "maybe." The US has been absolutely corrosive at every level, maybe it isn't responsible for literally everything but it is a hell of a lot. quote:That doesn't logically follow when it is clear Kirchner followed a path that very clearly diverged from what the US wanted. If guys were in his cabinet or not, fine, but the core of his policy was clearly different. I get you to want to make some point that are the same, but the give and take of Argentian politics in recent years has shown this isn't the case. quote:Considering the amount of inflation and escalating costs, that is still austerity btw. Hiring freezes are also austerity measures. quote:In the preceding sentence, you just talked about how Duhalde's austerity was built on the backs of the working people...and yet this is "hard work" that should be praised especially when we know definitively austerity doesn't solve anything. Also, you condemn both for not putting money in schools and clinics but I guess when Duhalde did it, it was fine? Which one is it? Also, the currency clearly didn't debase under the Kirchners as it did under Macri, Macri is also having to fix prices because of inflation, AND he is hock to the IMF. The Kirchners were never above negotiating with the debt holders or in paying out to speculators like Repsol. The largest reduction of debt by the Kirchners was in switching the debt away from the international market into the domestic market, by paying the international market with money from the reserves of the BCRA and the AFJP. These are not the actions of people who stand up to the moneylenders. quote:The Kirchners have their issues, but your 1000 word argument here isn't convincing. If you think Argentina should deserve better, fine but for whom? Maybe the Trotskyites?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
I'm usually the person who has to remind Peronists that they did and continue to do some pretty lovely things so this is a nice change of pace for me honestly. I don't necessarily disagree with most of your points and I'm less interested in changing your mind than in seeing what you think. Ghost, what do you think of the rebuilding and expansion of Conicet, the active effort to bring back STEM graduates to the country and the construction and launch of the ARSATs during the K era? Was it part of a ploy to gather cheap votes by hollowing out the state, the bare minimum they could do after the 90's but made out to be more important than it actually is, or something else entirely?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:I've not been rude and I don't see why you have to be. It was a pretty neutral statement. quote:Why is the onus on me to produce an alternative? I still fail to see how the Kirchnerist faction is "clearly" the "better alternative" when they are just as much a bunch of corrupt bungling kleptocracts as the other guys. Asking someone not to be blatantly corrupt should not be a high bar to clear, and yet Cristina fails it just as much as anyone else being touted as a serious candidate. That is the thing, it isn't clear, especially when there is a decision coming up over what to do about the Peso and the IMF package. quote:Of course it was supported by the US, and of course IMF recommendations are super harsh. The entire point is to exert that influence. However, the single most austere government post-1983 was not imposed by the US/IMF/etc, it was done by Duhalde and supported by the Kirchners. It was clear there was a change of direction once pesoification occurred and the situation stabilized. Btw, convertibility needed to be dropped at some point. quote:Argentina is not El Salvador, or Cuba, or Puerto Rico (or Panama, or Granada, etc. etc.). Of course the USA has been making GBS threads on Latin America for as long as they have been able to project power. However, the US government has never been the decisive factor in influencing events in Argentina. Argentina is a peripheral semi-developed economy in clear inferiority to the USA, but it is not a small Caribbean country that is almost entirely powerless to resist US aggression. Throwing the blame on the USA for these things is a cheap excuse when there are considerable domestic issues and a built-up political class with complex internal factions. It is like blaming all the dictatorships of the 60s and 70s on CIA involvement, as if these regimes did not organically develop across Latin America naturally. The fact that the US was often openly supporting those regimes is enough even if there weren't US Marines patrolling the streets. If anything the US prefers if locals "oppress themselves" since the US government doesn't have to get its hands dirty, it doesn't mean there is clear US influence involved. We usually find ready allies in the region who obviously will benefit. You're right on one point, nothing is going to really change unless the people themselves force the political class from unwinding themselves from US interests. quote:The core of Kirchnerist policy was different by necessity, nobody post-2001 was going to have policy similar to the 90s, regardless of affiliation (Macri's policies are not like those of the 90s either). Okay, so? You say it was only out of "necessity" but it was clear there shift here after the situation stabilized. It is why this seems like a really suspect argument. quote:State spending has increased and taxes have increased (but not to the point where they balance out expenditures). How is this austerity? There are budget cutbacks in certain areas, such as in implementing hiring freezes, but as much as the government keeps trying to say that they are balancing the books, they are not. Btw hiring freezes are austerity measures and it doesn't look like funding has increased with inflation. "Balancing the books" fundamentally doesn't work btw. quote:I have never praised Duhalde and if I ever do so I hope to be deposited at the nearest mental ward. I've never approved of the policies adopted under his administration and I am certainly not defending his austerity measures. Inflation in the post-2001 era took off under the Kirchners. The Kirchners pissed away an international context very positive to Argentina's trade balance and public finances on short-term electoral moves. If Macri was president at the height of the soy bonanza years he would have done the same thing, and he would have likely avoided having to go to the IMF too. You did...which is why you're argument is confusing.... if not confused, but moving on. Granted, there was also a large recession in there as well during that period, and if you want to say public spending was about "buying votes" it starts to sound very similar to stories you hear from any part of Latin America. Admittedly, Macri very possibly would also have gotten rid of capital controls and screwed over the country as well... I mean he recently doubled Argentina's international debt level. quote:The Kirchners were never above negotiating with the debt holders or in paying out to speculators like Repsol. The largest reduction of debt by the Kirchners was in switching the debt away from the international market into the domestic market, by paying the international market with money from the reserves of the BCRA and the AFJP. These are not the actions of people who stand up to the moneylenders. It was clear they did not pay all of the debt holders back. Also... would have Macri not paid back that debt or paid back some of it with reserves? I get your argument that more could have been done...but there was a difference. quote:And continued deflections that imply the Kirchners are worth it because they're the lesser evil are just as convincing then. I'm not a Trotskyst, but yes by all means go and vote for the Trotskyists. The Trotskysts in Argentina have never established a country-wide racketeering clientelist operation, systematically disinvested from the educational and healthcare systems, or sold out the government to the international finances market. The Peronists have done all three, yet somehow still count on you to come to their defense. Maybe they haven't and Peronists have but let's be clear so has the rest of the political establishment and certainly so has Macri. I do think there are actually some real choices to make for Argentina especially regarding what it is going to do economically. If in the PJ alliance just wants to continue Macri's policies, okay, you have a point but if they are going to a different direction than the Washington Consensus than that is a substantive difference. quote:I'm usually the person who has to remind Peronists that they did and continue to do some pretty lovely things so this is a nice change of pace for me honestly. I don't necessarily disagree with most of your points and I'm less interested in changing your mind than in seeing what you think. Granted, it seems like usual the worse that comes out of the Peronists (like Menem) is when they are following the recommendations of the US and/or the IMF. Personally, I wouldn't mind Argentina moving on from Peronism to a more sustainable left-wing direction. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, it seems like usual the worse that comes out of the Peronists (like Menem) is when they are following the recommendations of the US and/or the IMF. Personally, I wouldn't mind Argentina moving on from Peronism to a more sustainable left-wing direction. A month ago I would've told you that the PJ's lack of direction, its strongest subfaction being basically their own party (FPV) and the recent strings of losing elections basically everywhere meant we're seeing the beginning of the end for PJ and that soon enough they'd be just like the Radical party: A second rate party clutching to whatever remnants of power they still have while slowly dying out. That Fernandez-Fernandez is a thing has thrown me for a loop there, one is the FPV while the other can probably get the rest of PJ to follow them (albeit begrudgingly) so their power should consolidate once more. I would like to see Argentina moving on from Peronism as well but it doesn't look like it will happen any time soon, unless they screw up so bad in the next few months they can't even beat Macri in his worst moment.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That is the thing, it isn't clear, especially when there is a decision coming up over what to do about the Peso and the IMF package. Ardennes posted:It was clear there was a change of direction once pesoification occurred and the situation stabilized. Btw, convertibility needed to be dropped at some point. Ardennes posted:The fact that the US was often openly supporting those regimes is enough even if there weren't US Marines patrolling the streets. If anything the US prefers if locals "oppress themselves" since the US government doesn't have to get its hands dirty, it doesn't mean there is clear US influence involved. We usually find ready allies in the region who obviously will benefit. You're right on one point, nothing is going to really change unless the people themselves force the political class from unwinding themselves from US interests. Ardennes posted:Okay, so? You say it was only out of "necessity" but it was clear there shift here after the situation stabilized. It is why this seems like a really suspect argument. Ardennes posted:Btw hiring freezes are austerity measures and it doesn't look like funding has increased with inflation. "Balancing the books" fundamentally doesn't work btw. Ardennes posted:You did...which is why you're argument is confusing.... if not confused, but moving on. Granted, there was also a large recession in there as well during that period, and if you want to say public spending was about "buying votes" it starts to sound very similar to stories you hear from any part of Latin America. Admittedly, Macri very possibly would also have gotten rid of capital controls and screwed over the country as well... I mean he recently doubled Argentina's international debt level. Ardennes posted:It was clear they did not pay all of the debt holders back. Also... would have Macri not paid back that debt or paid back some of it with reserves? I get your argument that more could have been done...but there was a difference. Ardennes posted:Maybe they haven't and Peronists have but let's be clear so has the rest of the political establishment and certainly so has Macri. I do think there are actually some real choices to make for Argentina especially regarding what it is going to do economically. If in the PJ alliance just wants to continue Macri's policies, okay, you have a point but if they are going to a different direction than the Washington Consensus than that is a substantive difference. The Peronists have never been an alternative to elite rule, they have always perpetuated elite rule and any faction that has come to power within the PJ adheres to this policy. They may be pushing for a slightly different elite, with some individuals swapped out, but they have never proposed anything which can be described as real change. The raison d'etre of the PJ is securing the elements of the state for personal profiteering via supplanting state power with party power. It is delusional to look at Argentine history and think otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
GimmickMan posted:I'm usually the person who has to remind Peronists that they did and continue to do some pretty lovely things so this is a nice change of pace for me honestly. I don't necessarily disagree with most of your points and I'm less interested in changing your mind than in seeing what you think. I think the money put into the CONICET is overwhelmingly good. I am sure that there are some pointless or bogus projects but overall it seems to be quite well run. If I were to make any criticism is that (assuming the budget stays the same) the money may be too spread, and it should instead be concentrated. It seems that many projects have budget issues, or that people who rely on grants find them insufficient. The simple answer, of course, is to invest more in the education and science sector. ARSAT is good, but sadly we are playing catch-up. Argentina had independently developed good capacity through CNIE, which was largely thrown away in the 90s through the CONAE and the cutting of funding and abandonment of projects. It is also worth noting that the spending on science was still very low, as a proportion of the national budget. It never represented a strain on the budget of the administration. Its not a surprise that Cambiemos have kept Barañao around. I am not saying that the Peronists cannot implement policies that are good for people, obviously they have to implement at least some policies that are regarded as good for people otherwise they would not be in power. But the same can be said of any other administration in history. The last time that there was a serious effort to rework the transport infrastructure of Buenos Aires city was under military rule, for example. Is it a good idea to expand the totally collapsed infrastructure of Buenos Aires city? Of course. But it does not mean that this is an endorsement of the juntas.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Did you guys notice that Mexican scientists can’t leave the country without written authorization from the president?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:Did you guys notice that Mexican scientists can’t leave the country without written authorization from the president?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/timgill924/status/1135889443234050049
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Plot twist: the astrologer is Olavo de Carvalho
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
rgocs posted:They can leave. It's getting government funding that requires the signature. Not saying it's the right thing, but "they can't leave" makes it sound like they're been held hostage . There’s people on twitter saying they’re 100% funding their own trips and they’re not being let out Referring to government scientists Lots of details here in Spanish: https://www.animalpolitico.com/2019/05/amlo-autorizara-personalmente-viajes-al-extranjero-cientificos-cinvestav/
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:There’s people on twitter saying they’re 100% funding their own trips and they’re not being let out The article says this particular guy is paying for his own tickets, and a Chicago research center (?) pays for his hotel, but further on it also says he got permission from the Center for Advanced Studies to use his yearly budget allotment of 20K pesos for the trip. The new austerity law requires approval, I guess, due to the use of the latter. The concern seems to be that it's micromanagement/overreach for the President to personally have to approve it, that it's not a lot of money, and the criteria that will be applied are unknown. On the other hand, Obrador ran on an anti-corruption platform, and it's one way to limit abuse of government funds. On the other other hand, it sounds like it gives the Obrador administration the power to make these decisions at their whim (i.e. arbitrarily) instead of through some kind of well-known process. They're not being held back physically. It's about funding and how it's decided who gets it. Edit: Also worth noting is that it says that unlike universities, the research centers are not independent entities and as such are on the federal government's payroll. RIP Syndrome fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jun 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
Yeah it’s not weird at all to require the president’s signature to allow a scientist to leave the country, depending on whether he feels like it or not
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:Yeah it’s not weird at all to require the president’s signature to allow a scientist to leave the country, depending on whether he feels like it or not is this actually happening or are you doing the right wing media twist and shout
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 11:26
|
|
|
limiting funds this way is de facto limiting academics' ability to move this looks more like an anti-brain drain measure than an anti-corruption measure to me - keep academics in the country unless there's a big benefit so they don't all get job offers and move to france or something this is not in line with the baseline liberalism tha we're used to have apply to groups like scientists, but poorer countries have a really hard time building decent academics institutions, in part because a lot of the best candidates get snapped up by foreigners. there is no good way to limit this de-facto subsidy of richer countries, so measures like this are taken V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jun 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:limiting funds this way is de facto limiting academics' ability to move Making it so academic funding can't be used for travel without authorization is going to have a minute or non-existent impact on scientific brain drain, at least not on the upper levels. At the PhD student level, if you really want then many conferences sponsor X number of students with travel grants, while at more senior levels, you frequently get paid for by the conference. At middle levels then yeah you normally do have to pay and getting funding is harder if you can't get it from your regular academic funding. As far as job interviews go, anything beyond the postdoc level will pay to fly you out there, and if they really want you at the postdoc level, labs also frequently pay for part or all of the travel for on-the-spot interviews. Like yeah it makes networking somewhat harder, but if anything it's going to make the research worse in the country if they can't go to international conferences easily and is IMO more likely to drive people to want to leave the country and thus facilitate brain drain. But, that's just a guess; I imagine we'll have to wait a few more years to get some data points. OTOH I know in some fields/workplaces, then travel is a byword for corruption. The UN is an atrocious example of this, as it pays its employees fixed per diems rather than reimbursement of costs. For instance the UN pays something like $500/day for someone going to Switzerland for work, or $350/day for Nairobi, etc. Your hotel and food have to come out of this, and you're supposed to stay in specific hotels with security clearances (i.e. expensive ones), but you can easily keep a lot of that money. This creates perverse incentives everywhere, but especially for field offices in poorer countries where the base salary is low. Like if you're in Egypt, your base UN salary might be $1500/month -- a quite solid salary that lets you live a comfortable middle class lifestyle to Western standards -- but if you're willing to travel all the time you can easily double that. I've never heard of this in science though. Saladman fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Jun 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
lots of countries(well, i only know this for sure for kenya and ethiopia but i'm sure it can be generalised) frequently have systematic poaching of their expensively trained graduates by higher-cost countries by the time you're a professor or something you likely have family and social commitments keeping you where you are - obviously not perfect, but making travel harder for phd and post.docs does imo make sense from a brain drain perspective whether it's morally right is of course another issue. my problem with seeing this as an anti-corruption thing is that this sort of vaguely justified informal control is exactly the kind of situation that brings opportunities for corruption - AMLO might be clean, but uhhh
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 13:41
|
|
|
The law applies to all "public functionaries" (federal employees?). Part of the complaint is that this was supposed to limit travel expenses for bureaucrats, and it's felt that it's unfair that scientists got caught in the same net.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
RIP Syndrome posted:The law applies to all "public functionaries" (federal employees?). Part of the complaint is that this was supposed to limit travel expenses for bureaucrats, and it's felt that it's unfair that scientists got caught in the same net. Ahh, that explanation makes way more sense, compared to it being a targeted anti-poaching mechanism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
Curious how we went from "Mexican scientists aren't being allowed to leave the country without written authorization from AMLO!" to "As an austerity/anti-corruption measure, federal employees are now required presidential approval in order to use public funds to cover foreign travel expenses. This includes academics operating on a government payroll."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
Saladman posted:I've never heard of this in science though. Having the president himself sign off on funding for traveling is going overboard; but having an educated third party, outside your institute, validate your reasons, materials, etc, for going sounds like it would do good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
dirty lousy tramp posted:is this actually happening or are you doing the right wing media twist and shout I don’t know, I’m catching up on the news and checking on CIDE/Conacyt researchers in twitter directly and they confirmed the same, nobody who works for the government is leaving for reasons unknown, and they would require a signature directly from the president (!) to do so. Nobody is explaining if this is a cost cutting measure or what. This whole thing was last week Few days ago: https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/ciencia-y-salud/amlo-no-autoriza-viajar-al-extranjero-dos-cientificas https://aristeguinoticias.com/0406/mexico/recortes-a-ciencia-y-tecnologia-dejan-a-mexico-fuera-de-la-jugada-internacional-cossio/ https://www.jornada.com.mx/2019/06/06/opinion/019a1pol Yesterday, Conacyt boss says it’s not true, nothing is happening https://aristeguinoticias.com/0506/...alvarez-buylla/ I don’t believe her, on Twitter academics are calling her out for lying and posting documents How would this stop brain drain I don’t know, two people I know are saying they’re leaving for Japan asap, good researchers can find work in the private sector. I loving hate getting into online politics, it just makes me waste time researching stupid poo poo I have no control over to try and convince people who don’t give a gently caress, masturbation is literally more productive
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
yeah if it's everyone in government it seems like a bog-standard anti-waste measure that's gone a bit too far
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:I don’t know, I’m catching up on the news and checking on CIDE/Conacyt researchers in twitter directly and they confirmed the same, nobody who works for the government is leaving for reasons unknown, and they would require a signature directly from the president (!) to do so. Nobody is explaining if this is a cost cutting measure or what. This whole thing was last week AMLO posted:“Si hace falta viajar al extranjero y se puede resolver con el teléfono, con las teleconferencias, hacerlo y ahorrar. Yo les decía, se pone la medida que se autorizan ahora los viajes al extranjero y apenas en una semana 120 solicitudes, en una semana, para viajar a todo el mundo. ¿Cuántas se autorizaron? Veinte”, dijo el mandatario. "If there's a need to go abroad, and you can resolve your needs with a phone call, or a videoconference, do that instead and save the money. I was saying, we put the measure to require authorization in place, and in a week we had 120 requests for travelling all over the world. How many were authorized? Twenty."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:How would this stop brain drain I don’t know, two people I know are saying they’re leaving for Japan asap, good researchers can find work in the private sector. how are they leaving for japan if scientists can't leave without written approval from the president Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:I loving hate getting into online politics, it just makes me waste time researching stupid poo poo I have no control over to try and convince people who don’t give a gently caress, masturbation is literally more productive oh man I'm sorry next time I'll just reply with "wow terrible!" or a sad emoji
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with brain drain, they still have their passports, it is that ALMO has been on a targetted austerity spree. I kind of doubt it is going to have that much of an effect on the overall budget in the end. In comparison, "refuseniks" in the USSR was absolutely about brain drain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Curious how we went from Half these alarmist news articles are reposts from r/Mexico and that place has a whole lot of online fash that operate very similarly to 4chan's /pol/. They are all into playing dumb and spreading fake news.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
For once I'd like to find a South American subreddit without a majority right-wing userbase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Azran posted:For once I'd like to find a South American subreddit without a majority right-wing userbase. https://www.reddit.com/r/brasil/
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
So is AMLO doing good?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So is AMLO doing good? Not yet https://www.facebook.com/pg/Pagina-que-te-avisa-si-AMLO-ya-hizo-algo-bien-2281297305472865/posts/
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 23:53
|
|