I have reason to be pessimistic about Macri's policies.
Compared to Kirchner's administration, Macri's waaaay better.
This is a sample of Kirchner's gov:
http://www.eltrecetv.com.ar/telenoche/impactante-video-el-hi...
You can see in the video, the son and the accountant of a major contractor from Kirchner's Administration. They're counting corruption money, and drinking a scotch to celebrate afterwards. Looks like a hollywood script. Reality surpasses fiction.
Alleged contractors corruption cases are a serious deal which should be investigated, no-one is denying that, but I don't think corruption alone is all that matters in a country. I'm more worried about disastrous policies. A perfectly honest politician can lead a country to ruin, and many of us don't think Macri is clean in any case.
Like the US, Argentina's decision to pay its debts will enable the country to borrow, which is useful if you want to invest in stuff which will improve your economy.
This isn't about regular creditors, but about vulture funds, sovereign debt, ruining countries, and the never-ending cycle of incurring even more debt to pay for existing debt.
Many were naturally for paying what was due to soldiers, and against paying off the speculators who were "preying" on the situation. By paying it all off, Alexander Hamilton demonstrated the (a) the US would make good on its debts and (b) US debts can be can be liquidated bought and sold freely without exception.
Both of these points make it easier for a country to obtain new finances on demand at lower cost. Point (a) means the lender can be assured the country will not disown the loan. Point (b) because debt which can be freely sold gives the lender much more flexibility.
[1] http://www.historycentral.com/NN/economic/Hamiltontorescue.h...
However, am I right in thinking that, along with incurring new debt, Hamilton also recommended additional policies, such as taxation and protection of the industry? These are points of criticism of Argentina's new government: relaxation of import restrictions, and decreasing taxation of businesses and of exports from the wealthy agricultural sector.
But yes, there are debits that are impossible to pay back. Argentina is too big to get one of those in 90 days, but you may be in that hole - it depends on the details.
Also I'll disagree. Corruption is the single most important issue on LATAM today. It's the root of nearly all of our problems.
> Brazil also surrendered to vulture funds at the 90's, and paid it back with things running very smoothly
What was the impact of those policies on the population, especially on the poor? Honest question, this isn't a trick question -- in fact, I'll be honest and say my assumption is that neoliberal policies in Latin America hurt the poor and create the ground for the rise of so-called populist governments. With Brasil this theory of mine is made less clear by the fact that, if I'm not mistaken, Lula's PT continued many of the policies of Cardoso... I remember being very confused about that!
I don't have much idea if the net result of renegotiating the external debit was positive or negative. It was mostly a non-event, it is hard to find any impact anywhere. I imagine the magnitude varies with the actual debit size, and at the end of the day, our wasn't that big - despite politicians focusing their discourse on it for a generation.
Anyway, to the extent that it has any meaning, "neoliberalism" also includes focusing on extractivist industries. We didn't practice that part.
Also, there was some effort into fighting corruption and institutionalizing policy. I'd classify it on the poverty reducing side of the balance, so that it murks a bit the effects of monetary stabilization. But then, poverty continued to reduce even late at Lula's government, so I must conclude that the stabilization was more important than this fighting (that wasn't as big as what is happening now).
About the raise of PT, it happened in a period of worldwide economical crisis, and our economy took a hit. The party got very lucky that the world economy recovered fast, and got into a big period of growth, that only ended in 2008.
Complainers are usually Kirchner "fans" that can't stand that people were fed up with her and kicked her out
It's their strategy
I assume you meant her party was kicked out. Since 49% of voters voted for this party, and Macri's (somewhat fragmented) coalition only won on ballotage, I'd say it was a pretty close call... and now the country is highly divided.
Regardless, the political left doesn't like either Kirchner or Macri, and their criticisms are valid.
If it's primarily the bond deal, I would be sympathetic to the argument that Macri is just being honest and having the country take responsibility for the debts racked up by his predecessors. Another good sign is how he's cleaned up the government statistics office that Fernandez was using to publish ginned up economic indicators to make herself look better (which wasn't fooling anybody outside the country; I don't know how widely they were believed domestically). These sorts of moves pay off in the long term by restoring the goodwill of the international community and giving the government more room to maneuver. The fact that he's making them now, when they make his job more difficult in the short term, suggests a profound professional integrity that inclines me to think of him as a statesman.
Am I misreading your objection here? If so, I'd like to know more about your take on things. (Or maybe you could point me to some sources I could read?)
Let's not forget kirchnerismo (the party ousted by Macri) arose from the ashes of De la Rua's government, which was fiscally conservative and "orthodox", and who few would accuse of being populist. His reign ended in the 2001 chaos, with economic upheaval, a collapse of the banking system, a few deaths and the goddamn president flying away in a helicopter! Kirchnerismo didn't even exist back then.
Does the same happen in South Africa?
The pattern is simular, unstable supply leads to private infrastructure. Demand increases when supply is available, leading to more instablilty. Quality goes down because private infrastructure is usually second rate.
In egypt water quality is way down because of private storage in water tanks.
It's caused by too many plants being poorly-maintained and breaking down and insufficient investment in new power plants caused by corruption and incompetence. In other words, not regular localised reductions or transfers of load, but the same wide scale forced blackouts as being discussed elsewhere in this thread.
There has, thankfully, been no load shedding over the past few months, but only because the economy has slowed down sufficiently that the country's electricity demand has dropped below its regular levels.
EDIT: thanks for the replies everyone. sadness.
No, it wouldn't help. This crisis is not caused by lack of resources. It is caused by corruption, cronyism, patronage and, above anything else, gigantic incompetence.
If "first world countries" give some help it will probably only benefit the corrupt officials.
So I think its wrong to say "above anything else, gigantic incompetence", its more like "above anything else, bad insentives".
Our problem is rampant corruption, populism and mismanagement derived from it.
Brazil is trying to get out. Argentina is out of it, lets hope is not too late. For Venezuela is already too late.
The causes for the problems in Latin America are complex, there is no single root cause that can be easily explained in an Internet forum, and keep in mind many of these countries -- well, I can at least speak for Argentina -- were historically owned and managed by decidedly non populist landowners which influenced the following generations of leaders (and some of these families still own portions of the country). So if populism was a reaction to conservatism and prior authoritarian governments, it cannot (alone) be the root cause of our problems.
Sure, corruption is a problem as well, but I think that alone it doesn't explain our problems either.
I think corruption and populism are more symptoms than causes.
In just three years, their inflation (the bolivar has lost 97% of its value) and economic contraction has taken their GDP per capita from ~$14,000 to ~$4,000. They've lost at least 70% of their economy, and it's not over yet.
Saudi Arabia's economic output is nearly five times greater per capita. Their median income and median household net wealth are both vastly higher than Venezuela. Saudi Arabia still has substantial capital reserves, while Venezuela has almost none.
Venezuela now has a $20 monthly minimum wage. [1] Most of the nation is struggling to afford food.
Saudi and Venezuela couldn't be any more different outside of being petro states.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-06/monthly-sa...
When isn't that true sadly.
> No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time
Churchill quoting one of his predecessors in his autobiography "Churchill by Himself".
[1] http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/149949/power-cuts-i...