Argentina neoliberal ?? Gross mismanagement more like. They were once one of the richest countries in the world, eighty years ago or so. But they suffered from an extended resource curse, not moving away from agriculture which had served them so well as the world industrialised and modernised. They’ve had their share of military dictatorships, one of which invaded the Falklands. But it’s democratic governments that have done the most damage.tufty wrote:But. But. But. Surely Argentina is *the* textbook testbed of Neoliberal economic policy, of which you are so much a fan? Shame that, for Argentin, it's gone as follows:pogo wrote:The government have to do something to deflect attention from their mismanagement of the economy. You can use their interest in Las Islas Malvinas as a barometer of the Argentine economy; it is especially high now as the economy is in deep trouble, after their effective default last year.
Privatisation, Deregulation, Ummmm, Profit Bankruptcy.
Their current problems arise from a debt crisis a decade or more ago. They introduced a currency board, a form of currency peg to the US$. This generated growth and exports as Argentinians were able to borrow and trade more freely and cheaply. But it was not fully funded, it depended on government finances, and when those were called into question the currency board collapsed, triggering devaluation and defaults.
This was more sudden and worse because of the currency board, but was still manageable. E.g. Asia had been through something similar before when the Thai Baht and other currencies lost their (less formal) peg to the US$. They defaulted, devalued, and got on with rebuilding. Argentina though refused to do business with its creditors, blaming them for its troubles, and generally refused to act like a normal indebted country. They eventually tried to impose settlement on its creditors, but not everyone accepted, leading eventually to court cases (in New York as the bonds were covered by New York law) and default.
I don’t think it’s especially neoliberal. It’s more populist, with the state interfering far more than’s necessary in the economy and industrial policy, with nationalist and populist concerns trumping sound economic ones. The recent spat over the Falklands is a classic example. Are they going to stop firms exploring for oil there? No. But they might stop them using Argentine ports, hiring Argentine workers, buying Argentine equipment. Chile will happily take care of all their needs instead.
By your metric that makes him less suitable for high office than Milliband.
