Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Where Is Argentina Going?  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1988 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2693 times:

After several days of threats and screams today the Argentina's President announced the re-nationalization of YPF. This is only the last of a series of un-orthodoxe economical measures, which failed catastrophically along the recent history in several countries around the world.
All the experts ( including some World Bank and IMF authorities, EU authorities and Argentinian economists ) are saying that this last move over YPF is the nail in the coffin to any foreign investment, and that every investor in the world will avoid Argentina like the plague effective today. All of them are forecasting black days for the ( common ) people of Argentina.
This black days are confirmed, in the meantime, for several reports ( all credible and demonstrated ) of lack of medicines, cooking oil, auto parts.... even washing machines and irons are hard to find and the people is travelling to Chile or Uruguay to buy this products.

So, given that this forum have people from all around the world, I would like your opinion, what do you think ?

Where is this country going ?


G.

[Edited 2012-04-16 10:53:50]


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAeroflot001 From Argentina, joined Oct 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

It all seems up in the air now, for the years after the 2002 downfall it was being said that the economy was rising once more and tourism had gone up as well but now it seems that there is less of a sense of security and tourism may be diminishing. Some people I know have even mentioned saying that it would not be so bad going back to the "good old days" of the military state though that seems quite extreme...

User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1853 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2621 times:

According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_Plate

Argentina is moving westward with the rest of South America.

Sorry just had to say this. You can flame me now   

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10901 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

It seems that La Cretina is under strong Chavez influence.

I was in Buenos Aires during the campaign. I was even surprised she got reelected. I have serious doubt that she will do the whole term though. I hope not.

I visit Buenos Aires every year some times more than once a year depending on air fares. EZE makes for very good cheap mileage runs at times.

I hope the country will get back on its own two feet and I can keep my regular visits and many more can do the same.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3637 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

One thing is for sure, Madrid will not be happy with such a move regarding YPF.

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
All the experts [...] IMF authorities, EU authorities

I wouldn't really call them experts. I have yet to hear of a success story coming out of an IMF involvement and the EU authorities have problems within their turf to solve before offering their expertise to other countries. The EU is just afraid that some countries may lose ownership of Argentinean companies.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2472 times:

From afar, Argentina is seen as something of an economic and political basket case or laughing stock. It seems to lurch from economic crisis to crisis (from boom/slump cycles to inflation to govt intervention) while its neighbours (the very well run Chile and Brazil) go from strength to strength.Such a shameful fall from 100 years when Argentina had the world's highest standard of living.

In addition to the ongoing economic issues, Argentina is embarassing itself on the world stage by focusing diplomatically on the lost cause of trying to re-claim British territory (the Falklands). What a complete waste of time.

I don't see any hope for Argentina until its get its economic house in order. Argentines seem to spend their time living on the faded glories of past decades and generations. Such lost potential.

The future belongs to Chile and Brazil (and perhaps Uruguay), but not Argentina.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2444 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Where is this country going ?

Well it certainly couldn't go much further South. Sorry, I couldn't resist.   

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5):
From afar, Argentina is seen as something of an economic and political basket case or laughing stock.

Sadly, from an outsider's perspective, the country has been a political and economic soap opera not seen in many developed, Western countries. Eva Peron has been dead almost 60 years and she is still a rallying cry. Same with Che Guevara. It's hard to go a mile in Buenos Aires without seeing at least one reference to either of them, especially outside the wealthier areas. It makes for a very dynamic and passionate culture, and a great place to visit. But a stable one it does not. I foresee Argentine-owned bank accounts in Brickell getting larger and more numerous.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5):
I don't see any hope for Argentina until its get its economic house in order.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Argentina hasn't had a stable economy since the turn of the 20th century. Quite sad really.


User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4307 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2437 times:

Gonzalo is taking the opposition talking points slightly too literally in his OP. Remember many chileans come to Argentina for various treatments because they are priced out in their country. Sadly, for whatever reason, medicine is not universal to all citizens in the world,. Whether in rich or poor countries, medicine is either rationed to cover more people, or people are priced out to give more coverage to fewer ones.

Now to the topic.

I don't endorse any maneuver that involves the forceful transfer of assets from private to state. HOWEVER, I find it a bit hypocritical that all the countries denouncing the move, have nationalized companies: Codelco in Chile, Petrobras in Brazil, PEMEX in Mexico, and of course several in Europe. So unless Gonzalo is suggesting Codelco or Petrobras have failed catastrophically... I sense there is a bit of argie bashing foisted alongside genuine criticism, since we know Argentina is not the most liked of countries in Latin America and other parts of the world.

The problem currently is that capitalism in Argentina is directly associated with the 1990s, which means it is reviled, fairly or not. It was the conservatives that spoused the "opening" of the country. The problem was this was done way too quickly and it caused mass unemployment as factories, farms, and services modernized and become much more productive (20 to 30 years worth of productivity gains), in just 5 or 6 years with far fewer employees. The economy, even as it grew, had no way of creating jobs fast enough to compensate for the productivity induced lay-offs.

So it was the conservatives, free-market types who burned their own model, because they did not account for this effect when they should have all along. So the last decade has been populist dominated as a result, which is a natural reaction to what happened in the overly corporate 1990s.

You add to that the fact that Argentina is the only country in Latin America that for decades has been an "escape valve" for the poor of other countries (including Chile in the 1970s and early 80s when that country was trully struggling, later Uruguay and Peru, and now Bolivia and Paraguay), we have a few million people that require services, housing, medical care and education but don't pay enough in consumption tax or don't pay any income tax since they are illegal. That causes a big problem by straining resources. And the populist wing of politics uses these people, promising them housing or legalization in order to get votes.

To be honest, populism at this point is better than the alternative, which would be a far-right wing government that would likely begin mass deportations to all points in South America, and a rearming of the country (right now Argentina has been unilaterally disarmed by the Kirchner government, it spends less than 1% of gdp on defense while all our neighbors have a base of 3% and some 4 to 5% of gdp). Also remember Argentina uses a lot of budget on subsidies to prices, and even to Aerolineas. Those would also be diverted to the military, and who knows even a nuclear program restared (since many experts agree Argentina was very close to getting a nuke in the 80s, and a few books on nuclear black market claim Argentina actually has nukes).

The above would be the worse case scenario which is highly unlikely but not impossible at this point given some recent rhetoric from fringe parties: a far-right nationalist, anti non-white immigrant, militaristic government in response to the populism of today. I don't think the world would like to see that.

The most likely outcome is inflation eats away at wages and the government loses popularity with its working class base. Then they will just go towards either the socialists (which actually are better than the Peronists because they are a more European style of responsible socialism), or their vote would just faction (specially if the main labor union breaks up), and a center-right party like PRO would gain power.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6246 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2413 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Derico (Reply 7):
Codelco in Chile, Petrobras in Brazil, PEMEX in Mexico,

To be fair, Mexico has not denounced anything yet. PEMEX issued a very brief, discreet statement around 14:00 hrs local. Pretty restrained, if you consider that this seizing by Cristina impacts PEMEX roughly on 5% of its reserves, on 5% of its daily production and on about 3% of its revenues.

What the president has said, is his opinion at a world youth economic summit as a response posed to a question by a (British) student. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/841828.html

I don´t agree with what he said, and he should have shut up. However, being the lame duck he is these days, it does not carry much weight here, especially since these are election times in Mexico and campaigns are in full swing, with the left set to take the Executive and Legislative branches in July.

It´s the Spanish who´ve dragged us into this as Rajoy is coincidentally arriving here tomorrow on an official visit and have officialy asked Mexico to mediate, both as they assume we have some sort of "special friendship" with Argentina and more reasonably, as we have the rotating presidency of the G-20 group.

If any pronunciations are made, well, there probably won´t be much surprise on their content, as this is a far-right government, at least in the more visible (but much less powerful) Executive branch. It will probably be more words than action though. It´s just not our fight, to be honest, and frankly, there is only so much reasoning you can do with Cristina and her entourage.

Truth be told, if Chile had a drop of oil, it would belong to a Sate company. As is, their next best thing, Copper, as you rightly state has never been allowed to wander too far away from the State hands. Strange that fish meal, their other successful commodity has a lot more private involvement. Probably because it´s much less important and is only useful as chicken feed.


User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4307 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2405 times:

That's my point. Look, I'm not defending CFK, she has in the last three months pissed of pretty much the entire world, one leader at a time. Mexico is mad about the auto imports Argentina wants to curve.

So I didn't mean to say I was blaming Mexico or the other countries.

The problem here is Argentina's model of not taking in any debt has required both a fiscal and trade surplus, this is what has kept Argentina totally insulated from the world's economic crisis in terms of capital markets (not totally insulated in the macroeconomic sense of course), and thus from having to tap international markets.

Because Argentina's internal inflation rate and wage increases mean Argentina's nominal GDP has soared in the last 4 years, the country's buying power has increased a lot in dollar terms. That means imports become much cheaper and that erodes the trade surplus. That's where all these import-export schemes have their origin.

If there is one thing I do admire of the government it has been their staunch holding on to the "debt lowering" model. But that is no longer sustainable, it hasn't for a couple of years beause it now costs mor to keep the model intact than the benefits it provides. They did bring debt to GDP from 140% to 45% (and the default only accounted for half of that). It's time to change, but I don't think they will until it is out of their hands and reality forces them to abruptly make adjustments.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1239 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

Did anyone else notice how The Economist recently excluded their official economic statistics (done by INDEC) from their indicators? The official statistics from INDEC are substantially lower than estimates done by other financial institutions which probably indicated government intervention.
http://www.economist.com/node/21548242
http://www.economist.com/node/21548229

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5):
In addition to the ongoing economic issues, Argentina is embarassing itself on the world stage by focusing diplomatically on the lost cause of trying to re-claim British territory (the Falklands).

Speaking of which:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/04/201241517107911574.html



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

It seems like the Argentinian people do not have the maturity to run a modern economy. So maybe they will enjoy being peasants. They were once the richest country per capita in the world -- so, I'm not talking *down* to them. Just being critical.

User currently offlineCometII From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2236 times:

In the late 19th and early 20th century Argentina had a per capita that had surpassed Germany, France, Canada, and Australia. In a period it was the world's highest. The Argentine gold peso was one of the world's most trade and sought out currencies. The debate at the time was how an eventual confrontation between the "Provinces of the South America" and the United States of America for dominance of the Americas would play out.

I'm not as pessimistic however. I would remind people that at least the Argentines have shown to have such potential because they achieved it. So I don't see why with 20 years of solid growth and management they could once again be one of the richest nations in the world. Look at the miracles in Germany, Italy, France, Japan, South Korea, or even Spain. In fact look at Chile or Uruguay next door.

It's just a matter of long term policies being set in place. Argentina still has the resources, the skilled population (here in the USA Argentines are generally well-educated people, much more than the average immigrant), and the internal market. It has minerals, top-notch agriculture, and an industrial base. I don't see why they will not once again be one of the world's top countries if things are done mediumly right.


User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1855 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 7):
I don't endorse any maneuver that involves the forceful transfer of assets from private to state. HOWEVER, I find it a bit hypocritical that all the countries denouncing the move, have nationalized companies: Codelco in Chile, Petrobras in Brazil, PEMEX in Mexico, and of course several in Europe. So unless Gonzalo is suggesting Codelco or Petrobras have failed catastrophically... I sense there is a bit of argie bashing foisted alongside genuine criticism, since we know Argentina is not the most liked of countries in Latin America and other parts of the world.

When have Codelco, Petrobras or Pemex been privatized and then forcibly nationalized again?

If you want to draw parallels to some other South American country try Chavez's Venezuela.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2190 times:

Quoting CometII (Reply 12):
It's just a matter of long term policies being set in place.

Nationalizing oil companies is a long term policy. The policy is, don't do business in my country, and don't employ people.


User currently offline757gb From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5):
The future belongs to Chile and Brazil (and perhaps Uruguay)

I wish you were right, but I doubt it in the case of Uruguay... we're just too dependent and if Argentina goes down we go down. Nobody has made a serious effort to change that dependency (if at all possible).



God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7654 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2074 times:

Quoting Aeroflot001 (Reply 1):
Some people I know have even mentioned saying that it would not be so bad going back to the "good old days" of the military state though that seems quite extreme...

The last thing anybody in my country (USA) and my associate country (Japan) wanna see is another dictatorship. Given the Arab spring and the failure of US foreign policy of the 70s (of course, debatable,) it would do more harm than good.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 3):
It seems that La Cretina is under strong Chavez influence.

I seriously and honestly question what this guy's motives are. He seems to be against anything that the US does, even if it is positive, and seems to want a reciprocal value. I hope that he doesn't start doing anything too brash, because the last thing we need is (god hope not) a war or military conflict over something trivial.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6246 posts, RR: 31
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2072 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 16):
I hope that he doesn't start doing anything too brash, because the last thing we need is (god hope not) a war or military conflict over something trivial.

He´ll probably be gone and pushing daisies in less than six months. That will break up this ridiculous and populist "Bolivarian" axis he´s created, will probably put Venezuela in the road to be a country with the impressive achievements Colombia has reached and will isolate Cristina. I doubt she´ll last her term. The pots and pans are stirring.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13220 posts, RR: 77
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

This piece is mainly about that dispute Argentina has with the UK - not the subject of this thread I know, however it also expands on to the wider issues including economic and diplomatic with other nations, though it was written before this nationalisation of the oil company, including ;

There are plenty of other irritants.

Last year, when Argentina's trade surplus dropped by 11%, the government introduced a complicated system of import restrictions.

On Friday, 40 countries - including the US, the European Union nations and Japan - attacked Argentina angrily at the World Trade Organisation.

Like Bolivia and Venezuela, Argentina has now cut its links with US policy on drug control, forcing the American Drug Enforcement Administration to leave the country.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17576856


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1988 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

Ufff... sadly this Wall Street Journal article shows how a very significant part of the world think about Argentina today :



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1988 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Don't know why but the link was erased form the previous post.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1466077-d...-journal-sobre-el-modelo-argentino


G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4307 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 18):
Like Bolivia and Venezuela, Argentina has now cut its links with US policy on drug control, forcing the American Drug Enforcement Administration to leave the country.

Is this a bad thing? US drug control is an oxymoron. No disrespect, just facts.

As for the WTO thing, while I don't like the Argentina import/export quotas, how are they any different from the price-based protectionism those "40" countries engage in? Everyone knows the EU, USA, and Japan are the most protectionist nations in the world. The reason it is not evident in actual protectionist measures is because the policies these countries engage in destroy competition in emerging markets, so there is no need to pursue draconic protection when you simply drive your competitors out of business. Ask the Mexican corn growers.

[Edited 2012-04-18 16:48:03]


My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13220 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 21):
Is this a bad thing? US drug control is an oxymoron. No disrespect, just facts.

Maybe, but doing it along with Venezuela isn't going to win any friends. Columbia and Mexico have similar concerns - and you can see why with those two on that subject - but they are not just unilaterally pulling out.

It all smacks of gesture politics, for internal consumption.


User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6246 posts, RR: 31
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1836 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GDB (Reply 22):
Columbia and Mexico have similar concerns - and you can see why with those two on that subject - but they are not just unilaterally pulling out.

Wrong. The US will probably find itself isolated in this issue here. Sooner or later, and as long as our Executive branch becomes less and less influential in the country´s affairs, Mexico will embark on a serious exploration of changing the entire drug enforcement paradigm. From Colombia to Mexico, the deaths generated in drug trafficking enforcement policies are much more than the deaths on the US through drug consumption. So unless the US starts to seriously take steps to stop consumption, Latin America will soon take its own measures on the matter. Legalization being the most logical measure.

The way things are now, it´s likely we´ll follow in the steps of other nations in the region pretty soon.


User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4307 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1805 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 22):
Maybe, but doing it along with Venezuela isn't going to win any friends. Columbia and Mexico have similar concerns - and you can see why with those two on that subject - but they are not just unilaterally pulling out.

It all smacks of gesture politics, for internal consumption.

First of all why should Argentina or any country submit to any foreign agency? Americans would never accept that.

Second, Argentina has virtually nothing to do with the USA's drug problem. We don't produce drugs (even the USA produces much more both planted and synthetic), we are negligible as a geographic middle-man (the only issue here is some trade to Europe), and a lot of the drugs that come into Argentina are for internal consumption. We are a consuming nation as much if not more than a traffficking area.

The Americans, nor any nation in the history of the world since ancient times, have been able to ban consumption by criminalization. People confuse criminalizing behavior vs consumption. The former is far more doable, because behavior does not necessarily involve self-satisfaction, enjoyment, or of course addiction. So it is much easier to pass laws against behavior (do not steal, do not kill), and to see people abide by them. It is trully futile to do anything about the latter.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1988 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1822 times:

While I recognize that some of the Argentine media sources are extremely critic against the government ( like Clarin or La Nacion ) and they are not probably an impartial source for information, I have to say that the pro-government sources are a real shame. I had Argentine channels in my TV and after two days looking the News reports in several editions of this channels, NOT A WORD about YPF. Nothing, nada. It is like nothing has happened for them.
Apparently if we want an impartial opinion about this issue we need to find something in an Australian or Japanese paper...


Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4307 posts, RR: 11
Reply 26, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1803 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 25):
While I recognize that some of the Argentine media sources are extremely critic against the government ( like Clarin or La Nacion ) and they are not probably an impartial source for information, I have to say that the pro-government sources are a real shame. I had Argentine channels in my TV and after two days looking the News reports in several editions of this channels, NOT A WORD about YPF. Nothing, nada. It is like nothing has happened for them.
Apparently if we want an impartial opinion about this issue we need to find something in an Australian or Japanese paper...

Good luck finding an impartial news organization anywhere in the world. There just isn't any. Having learned a couple of languages I can tell you that even in countries we Latins consider less prone to "corruption", the newspapers and even the public newscasts are tendentious. What they are better at is in giving equal time to both sides (for example French or German tv which I watch shows this type of fairness), but the news itself and the selections of stories does have a bias, even if it is slight.

Certainly, to get a more neutral view on a controversial news story on any country (not just Argentina), I try to find foreign sources. But generally, I just read the local news from both sides of an argument and then bridge the two somewhere in the middle. It's not a hard and fast rule, but you'll be closer to the truth 3 out of 4 times with that approach.



[Edited 2012-04-19 09:55:13]


My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13220 posts, RR: 77
Reply 27, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 24):
First of all why should Argentina or any country submit to any foreign agency? Americans would never accept that.

I'm not unsympathetic to their views, or others in that region, on the 'front line' of these problems.
Neither in fact are many politicians in Europe, some in the US , certainly many senior Police Officers too, in the UK.
Problem is they cannot have a sensible debate on it, due to media pressure and political expediency.
But you are going to have to get those places on side, somehow, sometime, otherwise it's just a waste of time. Already a lot of trafficking has moved to go via West Africa.

But I'm taking this, with Argentina, in context with a range of other issues.
With the oil company, it seems perverse to piss off Spain, also just how good are the political classes there at running companies? Even a patriotic Argentine has to admit there is a long history of serious corruption there.


User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1855 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1761 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 27):
With the oil company, it seems perverse to piss off Spain, also just how good are the political classes there at running companies?

Looks like quite a desperate move to shift the Argentines attention away from their own problems. The price to pay might be a little too much, though. A month ago or so, the US withdrew Argentina from the GSP program over some dispute on US companies doing business over there.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...entina-trade-idUSBRE82P0QX20120326

So, they now have officially pissed off their top 2 foreign investors. China will pick up some of the slack for sure, but the Chinese don't make ideal investment partners, as some African countries have been discovering lately.

Well, at least they're not invading the Falklands this time.


User currently offlineviaggiare From Costa Rica, joined Jan 2007, 2126 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1752 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 3):
It seems that La Cretina is under strong Chavez influence

Can't blame it all on Chavez.. Argentina's long, proud history of screwing up its own economy started well before him.



Entre le fort et le faible c’est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui affranchit.
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1988 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

Another very hard piece of the Washington Post against CFK and her policies.
They even propose the expulsion of Argentina off the G-20 and suggest Chile deserves much more the position in that group.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...e/2012/04/19/gIQABtB9TT_story.html

Rgds.

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4307 posts, RR: 11
Reply 31, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1608 times:

Gonzalo,

So what is your involvement here? You are the OP, you asked for opinions, you keep providing news links, but what's in it for you? We'd be interested to know.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6246 posts, RR: 31
Reply 32, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1579 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 30):
Another very hard piece of the Washington Post against CFK and her policies.
They even propose the expulsion of Argentina off the G-20 and suggest Chile deserves much more the position in that group.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...e/2012/04/19/gIQABtB9TT_story.html
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 20):
Don't know why but the link was erased form the previous post.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1466077-d...-journal-sobre-el-modelo-argentino
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 19):
Ufff... sadly this Wall Street Journal article shows how a very significant part of the world think about Argentina today :


I don´t understand your agenda here, Gonzalo. You seem to want to bash Argentina in every thread you start. Latest example, this thread.

You don´t even adress Derico´s points on replies 7 and 9, which are really a fantastic explanation of why Cristina is doing what she is doing. And a very techical, academic explanation at that.

Argentina´s action has been received badly by the world, but, while initially the world´s economic entities like the IMF, World Bank, an the EU commision reacted pretty aggresively at the maneuver, they are now saying it is a "bilateral problem betwween two countires."

I think that the world´s reaction to what Argentina did this week has been pretty hysterical and not worthy of the stature of what those world organizations represent.

Whatever you are trying to attemp by quoting American newspapers who have really not much of an idea of what really goes on down south, really nullifies your point. And really makes you look like an ....

The G-20 is at a signifianct debate of wether or not to include Cristina´s decision on its coming meeting in our beautiful Caliornia. To be set up in June.

Most likely, it will not be a license to Argentina to go off scott free. But in other forums, for the time beign, Agentina is going to have a hard, hard time in regaining the world´s confidence.

The Spanish are not beyond guilt. When PEMEX wanted in August 2011 to increase their participation in Repsol up to 20% and a 2nd member in the council the Spanish refused. They said "It would mean the "De-espaniolazitation of our biggest private entity" To bad and good for us. We really did not end up in a mess.

Mexico is a friend of Argentina. But Economic policy that damages bilateral relations will not be accepted. Maybe you might grasp this concept.

Mexico will never go against an Argentine sovereign decision. The thrid largest colony of argentines in the world is here, in Mexico.

So either you start posting insights, answers or conclusions on Argentina, rather than implied, indirect, malicious points of view, from your high horse as always, or really just waste off into the night and shut up.

And, let´s nto go into wonderful´s Chile´s GINI index.

[Edited 2012-04-20 23:47:15]

User currently offlineCamiloA380 From Sweden, joined Feb 2008, 486 posts, RR: 25
Reply 33, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

Wont spend too much time typing here but ...

Quoting 757gb (Reply 15):
we're just too dependent and if Argentina goes down we go down

Exactly...

but....

Quoting 757gb (Reply 15):
Nobody has made a serious effort to change that dependency (if at all possible).

Simple, nobody has because:

1. It's impossible, or damn near impossible.
2. It would be a really bad idea. (from every point of view)

Quoting Derico (Reply 31):
So what is your involvement here? You are the OP, you asked for opinions, you keep providing news links, but what's in it for you? We'd be interested to know.

Exactly   

Quoting AR385 (Reply 32):
So either you start posting insights, answers or conclusions on Argentina, rather than implied, indirect, malicious points of view, from your high horse as always, or really just waste off into the night and shut up.


Agree!    



Flying4Ever!
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4307 posts, RR: 11
Reply 34, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1484 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 32):

I think that the world´s reaction to what Argentina did this week has been pretty hysterical and not worthy of the stature of what those world organizations represent.

I agree however this is partly because Cristina has benn goading most of the world recently (Mercosur, other Latin countries in trade measures), the USA with the refusal to conpensate two US companies from a default-era situation, the UK with the restricitons on the Falklands, China with import quotas.

So I think YPF was more of a case of "the drop that made the glass of water spill". It wasn't so much YPF, it was the cumulative effect.

Camilo, I think Uruguay is much better prepared today if something goes down in Argentina. Which again if it did it would be nothing like 2001 because in 2001 you had high-foreign debt, plus a currency board that left Argentina with no central bank independence, PLUS low-commodity prices meaning less revenue from exports. None of those are present today: the debt to GDP is 44%, the currency can free-float, and commodities are firm. The problems will be much more basic like inflation eating away at income, and the labor unrest that will bring.

I hope Gonzalo does stand up and explain what his position is and where is he coming from. I think it is only fair to ask that.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6246 posts, RR: 31
Reply 35, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1457 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Derico (Reply 34):
None of those are present today: the debt to GDP is 44%, the currency can free-float, and commodities are firm. The problems will be much more basic like inflation eating away at income, and the labor unrest that will bring.

Besides, you have all that Argentine money in foreign currency in your banks, which I am sure it has boosted the strength of your financial system and given Uruguay a lot of money for investment.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4024 posts, RR: 28
Reply 36, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1460 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 30):
They even propose the expulsion of Argentina off the G-20 and suggest Chile deserves much more the position in that group.

Chile should be in the G20 simply because they frequently are pioneers with economic reforms that eventually will need to be implemented by all "developed" economies sooner or later. Heck, just look at the private pension plans that were introduced in the early 80s that are still being progressively rolled out (the same ones Kirchner nationalized in 2008 to keep funding her government).

Maybe we should keep Argentina in the G20, though, just as a means of comparison - a small country that gets most things right (Chile) side by side with a large country that is (literally) a case study in getting pretty much all macro-economic decisions wrong (Argentina), so people could see what works and what doesn't.

Quoting Derico (Reply 34):
I hope Gonzalo does stand up and explain what his position is and where is he coming from. I think it is only fair to ask that.

Why should he? He is just pointing out what is obvious to everyone (including many Argentinean people I do business with), that Peronist populism has managed to destroy what was once one of the richest countries in the worlld.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 33):
Quoting 757gb (Reply 15):
we're just too dependent and if Argentina goes down we go down

Exactly...

That is your decision - Punta del Este is a lot nicer place (and much closer to Buenos Aires) than Miami. CFK's cash-sniffing dogs should be at the border in Rio de la Plata, not at EZE. You (and not Florida) could be the destination of choice for the steady stream of Argentinean exiles fleeing confiscation, but the Uruguayian government likes to keep their hands in a lot of areas of the economy as well, and so people will not trust Uruguay to be that safe haven (sure, UBS and other private banks rents whole villas in Punta del Este in January and February so Argentineans can talk to their bankers, but none of that money stays in Uruguay).



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1988 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1423 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 36):
He is just pointing out what is obvious to everyone (including many Argentinean people I do business with), that Peronist populism has managed to destroy what was once one of the richest countries in the worlld.

Pyrex, you already explained very well my reasons to open this thread. All I can add to your words is, I have not any "agenda", like some are saying here. I don't "hate" Argentina or the Argentinians either, like someone said when I opened a thread about the daily loss of 2 million dollars in AR . I'm just astonished and intrigued by the fact that, a very big percentage of a well educated population, selects repeatedly the WORST political leaders to run the country, is really a sociological phenomena to me, I fail to understand how a country full of resources, with ( again ) well educated people, can repeat the same mistake one time, and another, and another.... and nothing seem to change very much. I opened this thread to know the opinion of the fellow members around the world, and with the solely exception of a very few, mostly Argentinians, we all agree more or less with the opinion of Pyrex, the decisions of this government, can be, in the long term, disastrous for Argentina. The time will tell us if the big majority of the experts, economist and academics are right, or if Argentina is capable of the miracle of being success in the occidental world and within the economic community, applying policies that are completely against that same community and violating systematically the rules of the game every 5 or 10 years.

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1988 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1244 times:

For all of you that want to reach a better understanding of the whole YPF thing, I highly recommend to you to read this letter, sent by Senator Maria Eugenia Estenssoro to the President CFK. It explains very well the facts from the recent history, and ask the questions that this current government in Argentina refuse to answer to their own people and to the world.

It will be really great if some of our fellow Argentinian members like Derico show up here and tell us what they think about this letter and its implications...


The letter :

Dear President, dear Cristina:

I am writing with deep sorrow because the truth of the facts prevents me from accompanying a major initiative, strategic for the country, as is the recovery of YPF by Argentina. A cause I have been advocating, almost alone, for 13 years.

I want to thank, first, to have publicly praised the management of my father in YPF, recognizing in the Congress that in those years the company achieved record levels of production and exploration. When my father died in 1995, YPF had become a multinational in Argentina, with joint ventures, controlled by the national state, with deposits in Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, United States, Russia and Indonesia. It was the number 11 Oil company in the world ranking. My father understood that, facing the XXI century, Argentina needed a YPF with a global vision, to lead in our region.

Unfortunately, that dream died when the plane he was traveling crashed in Ecuador. Soon after, in 1999, President Menem sold the shares of the state and give control to the Spanish Repsol YPF for a handful of pesos. At the time, like today, much of the political leadership, media and the public also welcomed. I should point out that your husband, former President Nestor Kirchner, strongly accompanied this decision: instead of defending our sovereignty and energy, sold 4.3% of shares ( Santa Cruz province ) to Repsol YPF. In an interview I did with the newspaper Página 12 on May 16, 1999, said that this was "the last great act of corruption of the Menem administration."

Today I want to express to you and my countrymen, with all respect and deep regret that we can not address this serious act, this serious error, with another act of corruption. To approve the proposed expropriation of YPF that tomorrow will address the Senate without first thoroughly review the actions of their government officials, would validate and cover up their political, administrative and probably criminal responsibilities in the loss of our energy self-sufficiency and the emptying of YPF.

In 2003 former President Kirchner received the country as self-sufficient and "sovereign" in oil. But a misguided energy policy, carried out by the Minister Julio De Vido and Energy Secretary Daniel Cameron, lost in eight years the national self-sufficiency that we managed to win and consolidate ...in eight decades !!! True, it increased the pace of economic recovery, but domestic production collapsed and the government promoted the imports.

Blaming the management of Repsol YPF for the largest oil crisis in our history is a tricky simplification: YPF represents only 30% of the oil and gas production in the country, and also of the 14 companies leading the production in the country, nine (including Petrobras, Total, Chevron, Enap, Tecpetrol) had greater losses than YPF, or at least comparable with YPF's losses.

The loss of self-sufficiency is a direct result of management officials. This is clearly expressed in a letter sent by Daniel Cameron to eight former secretaries of Energy, who wrote concerned about the steady decline of our reserves and production. Cameron replied on June 11, 2011: "A first conclusion is that self-sufficiency is important, it generates security, but dependency of other markets is not very important, is the risk that inevitably have those countries that do not have oil among its natural resources or that have but have not cover all their needs. "

How can you be surprised because we lost self-sufficiency and imports escalate last year to 10,000 million dollars if the Secretary Cameron never thought it was risky or important?

Why has not asked to resign yet? Why did you awarded Mr. De Vido, his direct superior, with the intervention of YPF, if placed on their backs are the 51 deaths in a commuter train, the crisis of the railroads, the scandals of the area of ​​transport and energy, which is not only oil? Did you know that also involves the generation of electricity?

I'm glad you finally decided to punish those responsible for the emptying of YPF. But why expropriates the group Repsol and exempts Eskenazi, being that the withdrawal of special utilities ( 255% in 2008, and 140% in 2009 ) came to the Eskenazi family could afford the purchase of 25% of actions with the profits of the company itself ?? In addition, Sebastián Eskenazi is who ran the company in the recent years. The partnership agreement signed between Repsol and Eskenazi in February 2008 and the balance sheets of the company were approved and bear the signature of the director of the State in YPF, Santiago Carnero, current board member of the Central Bank (what a danger !), and the state controller in YPF, Silvana Rosa Lagrosa, current member of the Sigen (another danger!). Why didn't you had removed them from their positions and made available to the courts if they have breached their duties as public officials?

Dear President, we would be really turning the page of a very dark chapter of our oil history if policy makers, administrative responsible and this business model designers were punished and investigated all the same. Furthermore, Argentina needs a YPF Argentina and a national energy policy, sustainable and to long term. But no one has presented a plan for the country, a strategy or plan for the new company. We are asked to vote with a closed book and blindfolded. I believe in the role of the state, but in a serious state, a transparent one, which is respectful to the laws, which controls and allows to be controlled, and that when he's wrong and make mistakes, do not attack each other to cover up.

For these reasons and with all my heart, I deeply regret not being able to accompany the project who will address the Senate today. Respectfully ...
M.E. Estenssoro

In the case some of you want ro read the original version , in Spanish :

Estimada Presidenta, querida Cristina:

Me dirijo a usted con profundo dolor porque la verdad de los hechos me impide acompañar una iniciativa importante, estratégica para el país, como es la recuperación de YPF para los argentinos. Una causa por la que vengo abogando, casi en soledad, desde hace 13 años.

Quiero agradecerle, en primer lugar, el haber elogiado públicamente la gestión de mi padre en YPF, reconociendo frente al Congreso Nacional que en esos años la compañía alcanzó niveles récord de producción y exploración. Cuando mi padre murió en el año 1995, YPF se había transformado en una multinacional argentina, de capital mixto, controlada por el Estado nacional, con yacimientos en Brasil, Bolivia, Perú, Ecuador, Estados Unidos, Rusia e Indonesia. Era la petrolera número 11 del ranking mundial. Mi padre entendía que, de cara al siglo XXI, la Argentina necesitaba una YPF con una visión global, que liderara en nuestra región.

Lamentablemente, ese sueño murió cuando el avión en que viajaba se estrelló en Ecuador. Poco después, en 1999, el presidente Menem vendió las acciones del Estado y el control de YPF a la española Repsol por un puñado de pesos. En ese momento, como hoy, gran parte de la dirigencia política, los medios y la ciudadanía también aplaudió. Debo señalar que su marido, el ex presidente Néstor Kirchner, acompañó enérgicamente esta decisión: en lugar de defender nuestra soberanía energética vendió a Repsol el 4,3% de las acciones de YPF que tenía la provincia de Santa Cruz. En una entrevista que me hizo el diario Página 12 el 16 de mayo de 1999, dije que ése era "el último gran acto de corrupción de la gestión menemista".

Hoy quiero expresarles a usted y a mis compatriotas, con todo respeto y gran pesar, que no podemos subsanar ese grave ilícito, ese grave error, con otro acto de corrupción. Aprobar el proyecto de expropiación de YPF que mañana tratará el Senado sin antes revisar minuciosamente lo actuado por funcionarios de su propio gobierno implicaría convalidar y encubrir sus responsabilidades políticas, administrativas y probablemente penales en la pérdida del autoabastecimiento energético nacional y el vaciamiento de YPF.

En 2003 el ex presidente Kirchner recibió una Argentina autosuficiente y "soberana" en materia petrolera. Pero una política energética equivocada, llevada adelante por el ministro Julio De Vido y el secretario de Energía, Daniel Cameron, hizo que dilapidáramos en ocho años el autoabastecimiento nacional que supimos conseguir y consolidar en ¡ocho décadas! Es verdad, el consumo aumentó al ritmo de la recuperación económica, pero la producción nacional colapsó y su gobierno fomentó la importación.

Culpar a la gestión de Repsol en YPF por la mayor crisis petrolera de toda nuestra historia es una simplificación tramposa: YPF representa sólo el 30% de la producción de gas y petróleo del país; y además, de las 14 empresas que lideran la producción del país, nueve (entre ellas, Petrobras, Total, Chevron, Enap, Tecpetrol) tuvieron pérdidas superiores o comparables a las de YPF.

La pérdida del autoabastecimiento es el resultado directo de la gestión de sus funcionarios. Esto se expresa claramente en una carta enviada por Daniel Cameron a ocho ex secretarios de Energía, que le escribieron preocupados por la caída constante de nuestras reservas y producción. Cameron respondió el 11 de junio de 2011: "Una primera conclusión es que el autoabastecimiento es importante, genera seguridad, pero no es determinante ni extremadamente riesgosa la dependencia que inevitablemente tienen aquellos países que no lo disponen entre sus recursos naturales o si lo disponen no cubren la totalidad de sus necesidades".

¿Cómo se sorprende que perdiéramos el autoabastecimiento y que el año pasado las importaciones escalaran a 10.000 millones de dólares si el secretario Cameron nunca creyó que era riesgoso o importante?

¿Por qué no le ha pedido la renuncia todavía? ¿Por qué ha premiado a De Vido, su superior directo, con la intervención de YPF, si pesan sobre sus espaldas la tragedia de Once, la crisis de los ferrocarriles, los escándalos del área de transporte y el colapso energético, que no es sólo petrolero? ¿Sabe que involucra también la generación de electricidad?

Me alegra que haya decidido, por fin, sancionar a los responsables del vaciamiento de YPF. Pero ¿por qué expropia al grupo Repsol y exime a los Eskenazi, siendo que el retiro de utilidades extraordinario -255%, en 2008, y 140%, en 2009- se produjo para que la familia Eskenazi pudiera pagar la compra del 25% de las acciones con las ganancias de la propia compañía? Además, es Sebastián Eskenazi quien manejó la compañía en estos años. El acuerdo societario firmado entre Repsol y Eskenazi en febrero de 2008 y los balances de la compañía que dan cuenta del vaciamiento fueron aprobados y llevan la firma del director del Estado en YPF, Santiago Carnero, actual miembro del directorio del Banco Central (¡qué peligro!), y de la síndica del Estado en YPF, Silvana Rosa Lagrosa, actual miembro de la Sigen (¡otro peligro!). ¿Cómo no los ha separado de sus cargos y puesto a disposición de la Justicia si han incumplido sus obligaciones como funcionarios públicos?

Estimada Presidenta, realmente estaríamos dando vuelta la página de un capítulo muy oscuro de nuestra historia petrolera si los responsables políticos, administrativos y empresariales fueran sancionados e investigados todos por igual. Por otra parte, la Argentina necesita una YPF argentina y una política energética nacional, sustentable y de largo plazo. Pero nadie nos ha presentado ni un plan estratégico para el país ni un plan para la nueva empresa. Se nos pide que votemos a libro cerrado y con los ojos vendados. Yo creo en rol del Estado, pero en un Estado serio, transparente, ejemplar, que se sujeta a la ley, que controla y se deja controlar, y que cuando se equivoca y comete errores, no ataca a unos para encubrir a otros.

Por todo lo expuesto y de todo corazón, lamento profundamente no poder acompañar el proyecto oficial que tratará el Senado en el día de hoy. Respetuosamente...



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Nola - Where Is It Going? posted Sun Dec 4 2005 17:51:01 by ANCFlyer
Just How Sad Is This And Where Is This World Going posted Mon Oct 12 2009 12:39:07 by EMBQA
Where Is The EU Going (Pat Cox Ex-Parliament Pres) posted Fri Dec 3 2004 03:04:00 by Teahan
Where Is The Class Of 2003 Going To College? posted Wed Jul 30 2003 06:41:17 by 9V-SPJ
Where Is Our Economy Going? posted Wed Aug 8 2001 16:24:48 by 174thfwff
Where Are You Going This Summer? posted Sat Dec 25 2010 18:13:49 by jetblue777
Where Is The Outrage At Mr. Burris's Treatment? posted Tue Jan 6 2009 20:48:49 by DXing
Who Is This ABC Journalist? Where Is She Now? posted Fri Nov 21 2008 17:11:13 by United Airline
Where Is Alcs Game 6? posted Sat Oct 18 2008 17:11:05 by Boston92
Is Apple Going To Shut ITunes Store? posted Wed Oct 1 2008 11:36:27 by Cumulus