|
fishmech posted:I mean, Venezuela forgot the key part of being a petrostate - never let your oil selling/transfer infrastructure get ruined. I have talked about in the Venezuela thread, but the PSUV really made all the wrong choices especially after 2004. They depleted their main source of exports through under-investment, instituted completely unworkable price controls on daily goods and became deeply reliant on imports because of it, and allowed the currency to inflate then hyper-inflate. I think a big part of it is that simply Chavez and his inter-circle really didn't know what they were doing and sort of tried to create a cargo-cult version of the Soviet Union without knowing the history or interworking of the Soviet economy. (Admittedly, only a handful of people actually know how it worked in reality.) If the left in Latin America takes Venezuela as an actual model, then yes, there is room to worry but it sounded like the election in Chile was between the right and a rather milquetoast social democrat...so any comparison with the PSUV is just a smear.
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
ronya posted:"but what if... neoliberalism is bad" is certainly an odd way to read it; neoliberalism is almost totally orthogonal to the tired tussle between ISI and ELI and middle-income traps Yeah, I would say neoliberalism almost certainly has an impact on the "tussle" between ISI and ELI. El Chingon posted:He is the most popular presidential candidate, but it is due to the total incompetence of the last 3 administrations than anything else. The debate has been diluted to "we want to try something else even if it turns out to be worse" as people are really frustrated. I pretty skeptical about AMLO, but again the rise of populism (be it left or right) happens because working people are simply not seeing any real benefits from the current system. This is particularly striking in Mexico, where it is pretty obvious that either the PRI or PAN really has the slightest interest in changing the course of the country. Arguably, in the end, AMLO may actually do relatively nothing as well, but the population, as is in many countries is desperate and populism is the only choice left to them. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Mar 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
SexyBlindfold posted:So in the end PPK pardoned a monster in exchange for a grand total of three more months as an universally reviled, politically impotent president. Hope they were worth it! So what happened to the base of support that got Humala elected? The Broad Front still exists but it seems like the left pretty much dissolved in Peru.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Humala ran against mines and then immediately started approving more mines so people turned on him pretty quick. I could see him personally taking it hit, but there seems to be a collapse of the left at large in Peru. You have effectively a PPK (a center-right party) and the Fujimorities (hard right...maybe far-right) at each other's throats with the left kind of just sequestered in the corner.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:The origin of the gated community boom in Argentina was essentially middle-class white-flight during the late 90’s and 00’s. At first the price was fairly accessible since they were relatively far away. In all honesty, it sounds like Florida (without currency devaluation I guess). So here is a question, is the middle class/lower middle class in Argentina okay with the Peso dropping through the floor again? Did most of them already cash out into USD at this point? It honestly, looks like the cycle is simply repeating itself. (The general LA cycle seems some variation of: 1. Currency controls lifted (sometimes with a peg to the dollar) 2. Assets flow out of the country through a sieve 3. IMF is called in and it works it's "magic" 4. A large-scale social crisis occurs 5. Left Populist gets elected, currency-controls reinstated 6. Left Populist gets thrown out due to corruption/cyclical downturn/hassle over currency controls/incompetence 7. Cycle resets under another Washington Consensus-aligned government) Also, it has to be said, that the capital and currency controls of the 00s don't look as "insane" as they once did all things considered. I mean I know a goon had a hard time importing a German board game and everything. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Jul 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 10:04
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Saving money in Argentina right now is like running on a treadmill. It's bad. I mean the Peso hasn't hit a full devaluation cycle yet, but it seems like there is little way (or arguably reason) to save in Pesos considering the amount of inflation/devaluation that is happening. If the middle class really doesn't have any savings to fall back on in foreign currency, I could see the situation falling apart pretty rapidly since there is basically nothing to destabilize consumer spending (and credit is pretty much impossible considering current interest rates).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 12:25
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:You are under the very mistaken impression that open talk of violence and hate against enemies turns people off. It does not. It was out of style for a brief oasis of human history, the post WW2 accord, but as that consensus breaks, it's back in force. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if the opposition in Congress is minimal even if the situation goes really sour economically. The political infrastructure is already there to remove rivals at will, he can simply remake Congress into a more "desired form" from the get-go. Yeah, I don't think it is beyond Bolsonaro, the military or the police to openly used violence against the "suspect" portions of the population, if anything he practically campaigned on it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Oh indeed, but it will follow the current framework of the Temer government for a bit; cracks down on investigating the hell out of your enemies while letting your pals go free. Granted, I do think Bolsonaro does want to keep up the appearance of normalcy since it gives him greater leeway. That said, I think it is going to have to get pretty bad for Congress to turn on him after he purges it (which is my bet). Moreover, at the end of the day, the military is going to back him and the US is willing to tolerate plenty from a country that is willing to buy tons of arms. That said, some gripping from Congress would probably be accepted unless they actually impede him. It is going to be something to watch for sure. I think of missed my chance to visit a democratic Brazil.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Generally, bad karma has been a prerequisite for being a great power rather than an obstacle I think the issue is less bad karma and more coming economic, social, and ecological catastrophe.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
This is a thread about Latin America politics, there are other places for bottom tier discussions of the Weimar Republic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 12:34
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Oh poo poo, when did Ardennes become a mod? Very recently, but yeah, I am going to mostly hands off. The Weimar derail was obviously just going nowhere in a thread where there is much bigger fish to fry.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I think it’s fair enough at least in terms of post WWII “historically.” After 1958, Venezuela did not have a dictatorship. The only other Latin American country that didn’t is Costa Rica. All the others had coups and dictatorships at some point (sometimes multiple points) during that period. It didn't have a military dictatorship after 1958, but it obviously did experience periods of significant instability especially during the 1980s and 1990s. One boon for Venezuela during the 1970s to the mid-1980s was high oil prices in was able to fuel consistent growth which largely stabilized in the situation. (The same could be said for Chavez from 2000 to 2012.) Also, Mexico is both a part of North America and Latin America
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Btw anyone have any firm info on Brazil's pension reforms? At least in the English language press, it has been extremely vague (literally no details). The type of "savings' they are talking about sounds like it is going to be something as significant as Chile's reforms (which were obviously brutal for the majority of the population).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I think the big issue is the big ideological shift that will happen ie will capital and some price controls are restored or not. What will be done with the IMF or the US/China? Admittedly, Macri may be a bit lucky because the damage of his administration will likely last for years.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Picking sides between USA/China is something that hopefully won't happen because both are good business partners and horrible otherwise Arguably China may not care, but the US certainly does, especially when it comes to geopolitical questions. quote:Capital and price controls...is gonna be interesting, cause the way the investors reacted to Fernandez winning, I don't expect them to try to get close to us any time soon. Hopefully this forces our own industrial complex to be revitalized? But that's probably a pipedream, tbqh. Granted, it seems a unwinnable situation, since in order to gain foreign investment it requires a unsustainable currency policy. It is basically why much of why Latin America may always be screwed. In addition, a much cheaper peso will make exports less expensive, the government is going to be under a lot of pressure from creditors. That said, investors have already sent their message.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:He inherited that from a left-wing leader, though, and hosed it all up in a way that is largely indistinguishable from how a right-wing robber-baron would dismantle a welfare state through austerity. George Osborne followed a very similar playbook, if less ambitiously, in the U.K.. I would say the intention was different even if there was glaring incompetence. Also, to be honest, Chavez deserves plenty of the blame since the system just flawed ( how the currency functioned and price controls). It is just that how the UK handled fell apart is pretty transparent but Venezuela is more debatable in its details.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
I wonder if the Bolivian military can really control the country on its own at this point as well. The Bolivian military is around 35,000, many of them not in combat roles. The heaviest equipment the Bolivian ground force has is 54 cold-war vintage light tanks, many of them probably not working. In that context, the current standoff in La Paz makes sense. The military and the coup plotters make be able to hold strategic points but may struggle to do much else unless they want a civil war. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Nov 15, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
Yeah, I would say, a military taken over to a install self-proclaimed president against the will of the population shows more “authoritarian tendencies” than working around term limits.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Everyone going "OK this coup is bad but Maduro still deserves to be couped" is on the exact same level as Wobbuffet here Venezuela is more complex simply because public support is obviously far more split. I wouldn't say the 2019 Venezuelan coup had that much public support either. Btw, I do think there were some honest economic gently caress-ups in Venezuela, but it takes some work to actually get at what happened with the Venezuelan economy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Basically, it seems that Luis Parra and at least some non-PSUV deputies switched sides, and had enough of a quorum to elect him the president of the assembly. However, it is unclear how this was illegitimate besides the fact Parra and others switched sides. Btw, any news from Chile or Haiti?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
Only 5% of Bolivian's population is white and 43% of the population speaks an indigenous language.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:I'm a bit skeptical of the explanation because America wasn't an uber powerful regional hegemon until this past century, and losing a war against Mexico was a real concern if the later had ever stabilized. Geography and the economy of the elites being focused on things that promoted rapid industrialization as opposed to being dominated by sociopathic cattle ranchers or plantation owners probably had more to do with it. The US solidly gained economic momentum across the 19th century in a way that the rest of the Americas couldn't for structural reasons. By 1898, the US was arguably already a "great power" and the first and second world wars wiped the floor with most of the competition until the US dominated the world. A lack of competition in North America helped a lot as well. It isn't to say Latin America had its own growing powers, such as Argentina, but Argentina despite its accelerating wealth during the 19th/early 20th century wasn't able to harness it into industrial like the US was able to (probably a relative lack of coal/iron reserves was a contributing factor). Under Peron there was still development, but once the military got in and then various neo-liberal governments there wasn't anywhere to go. Basically, from the late 1960s to the early 2000s, Argentina didn't really go anywhere. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Oct 31, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2020 04:48
|
|