In the case of Argentina it is the Argentine government that has conduct of the economic policies of that country. They accepted IMF funding, essentially US money, so what did they do with it and for whose benefit?
There wasn´t really a need for such money then. In fact, when the military dictatorship ended, Argentina was poorer, with higher unemployment than before the dictatorship. There was a pressure then from the US (as is now for the ALCA) for Argentina (I think to other countries too) to open their markets to foreign products. And the money was the way to buy them.
Following many disagreements with the IMF (that is only a comercial bank, nothing that would help a developing country I think) Argentina and Brazil have retired from the IMF.
Don't forget that Peron tried to cut out foreign imports by the use of import substitution, that great economic policy tried by the fascists (and others) in the 1930's and that the junta followed on with those policies. Argentina's markets needed to be opened up, but the politician's didn't have to take US or IMF money.
Incidently the IMF was originally set up as a vehicle for international financial settlements and not as a bank. Unfortuanately it became a bank beacuase after WW2 when it was set up the US had most of the World's money.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
that great economic policy tried by the fascists (and others) in the 1930's and that the junta followed on with those policies.
Hi RF:
The junta didn´t try that policy. on the contrary its policy was one of primary product export and industrial product import, leading to an unindustrialization of the country. All this in accordance to the international distribution of labour.
If you use Gross Domestic Product as a measure I think you will find Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina are in front of Taiwan.
Monaco is miniscule, its GDP is less than that of my home town, Wolverhampton.
Taiwan aids Latin American countries with financial asistance, no the other way around. And Monaco have a much greater income than Central America put together.
Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill
Taiwan largely lives off the USA in much the same way as Israel. Wealth is not necessarily measured in terms of ''aid'' or ''financial assistance'' and Taiwan has little in the way of natural resources and still only a small population by Asian comparison.
Compare this with the four countries I mention. Venezuela is one of the world's largest oil producers, has one of the world's largest open cast iron ore mines (at Cuidad Bolivar), Mexico is also a substantial oil producer and supplier of labour to the USA. Brazil, Venezeula both produce more steel than the UK, Brazil has substantial mineral wealth (as has Chile) and Argentina has substantial agricultural and manufacturing capability.
The fact that Latin American countries have and still are beset by financial and economic mismanagement, inappropriate state budgeting, massive inequalities in income and wealth, corruption, excessive military expenditure and inadequate education/literacy has held Latin America back and has been the fault of the rulers of those countries.
Since the 1980's there have been more moves towards co-operation and trade, particulary the development of free trade agreements, which will benefit these countries.
Monaco is teritorially tiny. The principality derives most of its income from casino's, Formula 1 motor racing, tourism and postage stamps and in no way compares to Latin America.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Maybe Venezuela or Mexico produce oil and they sell a lot to the USA and other countries (Costa Rica being one of them). But that doesn´t add to the fact that they "own" that money and that they "produce wealth" as you, Europeans knew. In Europe a country makes money and the people, more or less, are benefited by that fact. In Latin America the corruption and ideological stupidity are so great that a country like your examples: Venezuela or Mexico, make money and the people are more miserable instead.
Taiwan, granted, need the USA, but they had an enormous economy based in the manufacture of electronics, fabrics and other items.
And you cannot compare the size of a country with the size of it´s economy: look at Netherland, so little but so rich... or Switzerland. If you look for misery in Brazil just step out of the airplane and you´ll find it.
Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill
There are a couple of books, maybe translated to English, written by Mario Vargas Llosa and some colaborators of his called:
"Guía del Perfecto Idiota Latinoamericano" (Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot)
and
"Creadores de Miseria"(Misery Creators)
in both of them these guys explain clear what happened with our countries, which is sad because they are beautifull countries. Of course, the leftist pseudo intelectual idiots here regard those books as "reactionary" and "facist", which they are not, obviously.
I always say this: every nation and race have their chance to shine in history: the asirians had their time, and the ancient chinese, and the babilonians, the egiptians, the greeks, the romans, the barbarians, the visigods, even the "church" in the middle ages, the french, the mongols, the spanish, the english, the russians, the germans, the japanese, the United States, etc. etc. Now the Chinese would have their new chance.
But Latin America: nope, we will never had our chance in history to make some diference: too much "bailadera", too much "fiesta", too much " hard feelings against the anglo saxons", too much "leftist stupid intelectuals" that spent some time selling "obelix and asterix" T-shirts at the feet of the Eifel Tower.
And don´t mistake this: I love my country and would like to see it among the powerfull ones, but our people have another choice: that of spending the whole life in front of a aging TV set watching mediocre soccer matches.
Best regards
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill
I am not an economist. Wealth can be created. But not natural resources. Suppose the following scenario: the US has what, 250 millions cars? What would happened if the Chinese, and the Indians, and the African people, all would have the same proportion of cars per habitant. Is it just possible to have oil for all of them? This is a clear case in which is better that your neighbours are poorer than you.
Another case. The agricultural subsides. The US government gives money to the local farmers, whose production would not be economic if not. That lowers the price of those commodities in the international market, which are the primary export of the poorers countries. Is this not a case of the US having responsability in the underdevelopment of those countries?
I don´t say that the US government should be blamed for the poverty of Latin America, but certainly has a quota of responsability on that.
How did this end up in relation to the HMA Cornwall?
Ag subs are a very complex balancing act. US farmers being paid NOT to grow certain crops and that sounds preposterous on the surface. Europe, Canada, Australia also have enormous ag subs and so do Argentina and Brazil. On top of it, the US, for example, apparently pays for some ag subs in Argentina. The system has been in place for so long (100+ years) that is impossible to abolish........ If ag subs would be abolished, European agriculture would fold, and US/Canadian/South American farmers would control much of the world food supply even more than they do now. Industrial and agricultural governmental (read: tax-payers) subsidies are important economic tools.
The same sort of system keeps ship yards occupied during peacetime, unless I don't have my facts straight.
