Learning From Argentina: How Not To Deepen The Global Crisis
By Michael Casey
Argentines, who are visited by financial meltdown more or less every 10 years, have been joking lately about a new business opportunity: crisis survival classes for Americans.
Yet Argentina’s spiral into yet another home-grown crisis this week reminds us that the most important lesson it offers for confronting the bigger one in the rest of the world deals with how not to commit its errors. The prospects for a sustained U.S. and global recovery will be undermined if the socio-political malaise at the heart of this country’s repeated failures is allowed to take root.
Resource-blessed Argentina cannot blame misfortune for its slide from having ranked as the seventh-richest nation at the outset of the last century to 70th at the start of this one. Nor can it fault a particular policy bias – neither leftist nor conservative regimes have a monopoly on crises. Rather, Argentina’s curse stems from the lack of a basic covenant between its people and their government.
As a friend in Buenos Aires once explained, “We do not view the state in the way that Americans or Europeans do – as a moral representation of society – we see the state as a mafia from which we must protect ourselves.”
Ironically, this cynical view of the institution of government limits opposition leaders in their bid to rally the population against the current government’s suicidal plan to nationalize $30 billion in private pension funds. When Coalicion Civica leader Elisa Carrio calls President Cristina Fernandez’s move a “saqueo” – an act of looting or plunder – millions of people sincerely believe her. But the problem is that they don’t expect any less.
Many Argentines believe resistance is futile. Rightly or wrongly, this simply leaves the political class even more unaccountable and free to abuse its power, which in turn encourages more public contempt and a retreat from civic participation.
Argentines need a more institutionalized form of democracy in which government officials’ interests are aligned with the long-term common good. Instead, they suffer a volatile populist system where political survival depends as much on grandiose demonstrations designed to leave people in awe of power as on effective governance.
Fernandez’s pension fund announcement – which had all the hallmarks of a decision made on the fly – reflects this political model. It was political equivalent of pulling a rabbit out a hat, a magical solution to the government’s short-term fiscal challenges.
Even Argentines know that magic does not exist, that societies must pay a cost to sustain growth. But if no one believes the state will act in their interests, everyone will seek to monopolize the mechanism for parceling out that cost. Politics becomes a zero-sum struggle between interest groups. The result: wage-price spirals, strikes, public unrest, institutionalized tax dodging and investments with one- or two-year time horizons.
Argentina’s shell-shocked markets are capturing a bigger picture beyond each sector’s stake in political struggle, however. And what they see in the pension fund nationalization is a disaster: the departure of a key source of domestic liquidity and, ultimately, the death of Argentina’s capital markets. Last week, the large-cap Merval stock index dropped 27% – a jaw-dropping loss even by the history-making standards that have been set this month in many other countries.
What’s disturbing about all this for the rest of the world is that that the relentless turmoil in U.S., European and other developed markets points to a similar problem. There is evidence of an Argentine-like loss of confidence in government emerging. And I’m not talking about a run-of-the-mill disdain for politicians and taxes, but rather a more profound mistrust in the institution itself. That’s a big problem: The rules upon which our capitalist system become meaningless if economic agents have no faith in the legislative, executive and judicial arms of government. Without it, fear rules.
It is fear that is now ruling our dysfunctional markets, not just the jitters of Wall Street brokers but an insidious society-wide fear in which the thing that terrifies us most is our neighbor’s fear. Driven by
it, we try to beat each other into the safety of cash or gold but end up producing the worst outcome for all.
Only our government can halt this process, not because no other entity can raise the cash but because it is the only player in the game not facing a prisoner’s dilemma. In theory, the government should never have its interests aligned in such a way that it is tempted by an action other that which best serves the common interest.
But here’s the catch: a government cannot convince us to stop running for the exits if we don’t trust that its officers are motivated by our shared interest. This is how Argentines think. Disturbingly, it also seems to be how many Americans have assessed Washington’s relationship with Wall Street.
However much wealthy bankers should be blamed for the mess we’re in, it has been essential from the start that governments inject funds into financial institutions to avoid a global economic disaster. Yet the perception that Wall Street is benefiting at Main Street’s expense in these “bailouts” has been widespread. Even after the House reversed its rejection of the Treasury’s asset rescue plan, this mindset has made it hard for policymakers to convert their actions into the commodity that most needed if intervention is to properly work: confidence.
To generate it, our leaders must go beyond the minutiae of mark-to-market accounting or Federal Reserve collateral rules. They have to work on people’s perceptions, on how they feel.
Since there’s fairly broad agreement across the aisle that intervention in these failing markets is vital, what’s needed is a compelling way to make the average person appreciate why. As crass as it might sound to those who hold marketing executives in disregard, I’d say it calls for a better branding strategy. It’s not for nothing that the post-mortem on why the House first voted down the $700 billion bank rescue plan dwelt on how it was “marketed” to skeptical constituents – how it should have been called a “Main Street rescue package” instead of a “bailout” or presented by someone other than ex-Goldman Sachs executive Henry Paulson.
Far more profound improvements to the message are needed than these, however. Voters must associate with both the policies and the problems. They must come to understand how their lives are intimately connected with an otherwise baffling credit crunch in the unfathomable world of finance – not only how it hurts them but also how their emotion-driven actions feed into it. Only then can they sense ownership of the solution.
The significance of next week’s election is not merely that there’s a black man on one ticket and a woman on the other, but that it represents a critical opportunity to reassert our connection with government at a time when the very idea itself can make a huge difference. We should see our participation in this election as an affirmation of our belief in the institution of government and, more broadly, in the importance of pursuing the common good. The alternative is Argentina.
Of course, the candidates have a bigger responsibility than the rest of us. Quite apart from the usual spurious accusations, counter-accusations and muckraking we’ve seen, they have also counter-productively framed the financial problems in ways that leave voters feeling uninvolved in the efforts to fix them. John McCain’s move to suspend his campaign last month helped legitimize people’s mistrust in Washington and relegated the institution through which they can influence policymaking to a secondary status. Barack Obama’s Main Street-versus-Wall Street discourse, meanwhile, has stoked further cynicism and perpetuated the myth that regular folk are detached from the crisis.
Most important, whoever wins on Nov. 4, the U.S. President’s most pressing task will be to restore the idea that his office exists for all of us. After all, unlike the Argentine constitution, which opens with “We the representatives,” America’s is authored by “We the people.”
(Michael Casey is Dow Jones Newswires bureau chief in Buenos Aires and the author of Che’s Afterlife, a forthcoming book to be published by Vintage Books. This article is an extended, more detailed version of one originally published last week on Dow Jones Newswires.)
Popularity: 1% [?]
Argentina’s chronic crisis reflects a persistent look at the past, certainly the president had it within her playbook to loot the pension funds, no shocker at all. I wonder how Americans will ultimately perceive the bailout, its failure would almost certainly build an expectation that the US government shortchanges Main Street in favor of Wall Street. For a human race that lives in fear, and does not get that visions of the future can dictate who we are right now, a whole new world order could be in the making.
Taos (que transcribís el artículo de Casey): Si el Estado fuera la encarnación de los valores morales de un pueblo, entonces EEUU es el pueblo más inmoral que existe… La diferencia entre nosotros y ustedes (y los europeos) es que nosotros asumimos las cosas como son, sin ambages, y no somos indiferentes frente a ello. Nosotros por ejemplo, jamás consentiríamos que nuestro estado invada regiones remotas y cometa genocidios (como los más de 2 millones de vietnamitas que ustedes asesinaron en una guerra cuyas causas son aún incomprensibles) en nombre de la “libertad”, ni que emplee armas nucleares sobre población civil (récord que sólo ustedes ostentan), ni que expolie sistemáticamente las regiones del mundo que les plazca con tal de sacar réditos económicos, alegando razones disparatadas, perpetrándose auto-atentados (como el 11-s)… Ustedes han construído su poderío mediante la carrera armamentística, pero parecen reticentes a asumirlo de una buena vez, y pretenden que nadie se los haga notar. Por otro lado, ustedes le han hecho al mundo la guerra económica. Y han demonizado a quienes se les opusieron. Sus corporaciones, que son el verdadero gobierno de su país, tienen “esclavizadas” a millones de personas en paises como china, indonesia, bangladesh, ¡por salarios verdaderamente indignos!. Y las voces de denuncia frente a ello son escasas.
Por lo demás, el costo de su “éxito” económico y de su calidad de vida, lo debemos pagar todos: la depredación y la destrucción precipitada del planeta, que están llevando a cabo sobre todo sus industrias, vaya uno a saber en qué termina.
Su industria cultural, su música, idioma y películas, son verdaderamente invasivas. ¡Alguna vez te pusiste a pensar en la violencia que exportan a través de las películas y series televisivas!…
Si Estados Unidos es, después de todo, el país de la civilización (nadie duda que lo sea), es debido a sus excelentes universidades y notables científicos, muchos de los cuales han sido históricamente formados en otros contextos, principalmente en Europa. Pero no tiene nada que ver con los valores morales que propugnan, que no dejan de ser la elegante fachada para maquillar sus actos, que por lo general los contradicen cabalmente…
Si paises como Argentina u otros de la región han tenido a lo largo del siglo pasado enormes problemas de inestabilidad política, como señala Casey, es necesario preguntarse con franqueza quién estaba en la mayoría de los casos detrás de los mismos, orquestando desde las sombras los golpes de estado: por ejemplo, es vox populi que su otrora Secretario de Estado (¡y Premio Nobel de la Paz!) Henry Kissinger dio el visto bueno para realizar aquí en Argentina el golpe del ’76, o para derrocar en Chile a Salvador Allende…
Lo que llama soberanamente la atención de la población civil de su país es la ignorancia supina con respecto a estas cosas, o que ante la menor crítica de un extranjero lo motejen de “anti-americano”, como si esa falacia ad hominem fuese en sí un argumento válido, que los exonerara de demostrar que quién realiza una crítica está equivocado. Por lo demás, si se dispusieran a contra-argumentar de manera consistente, sería una necedad no retractarse. Yo, al menos, cambiaría mi opinión…
Hi Juan,
Many thanks for your comments here. You raise a lot of issues which, unfortunately, I just don’t have the free time to reply to carefully and in-depth. You raise some valid points and others that are entirely mistaken.
Hopefully, if I get some free time in the weeks ahead, I’ll be able to return to this and address your thoughts in a more comprehensive fashion. For now, however, I’ll just stick to the point of Michael’s piece, which is to say that one reason for Argentina’s trouble is the overwhelming lack of trust that seems to define the relationship between people and their government. Almost nobody here places their trust in the government, and I think Michael raises an important point about this, underscoring how hard this makes it for civil society to progress in a linear fashion, where progress builds on previous achievements instead of constantly tearing them down.
The question we ought to be asking ourselves is how do we build that trust. How do we foster it, and make it grow? Trust is the fundamental sine qua non for any kind of relationship, and without it no relationship – whether between a man and a woman or a society and its government – can be healthy and productive.
Take care,
Taos
Releo mi comentario anterior, y la verdad me arrepiento de la virulencia con la que lo escribí. Pero lo que ocurre es que me crispan los nervios los comentarios que hacen sobre el país todos estos gurúes de la economía, que siempre tienen una aparente receta y explicación a todos los males que nos aquejan…
Yo sólo quería insistir en ese punto, en la disociación o diferencia taxativa entre un pueblo y el estado que lo representa, como muchos sugirieron en tus anteriores 2 post acerca del anti-americanismo argentino. Es decir que el pueblo estadounidense no tiene nada que ver ni es responsable del rol de su “foreign policy”.
Con respecto al tema de la confianza, es cierto lo que escribís, que aquí nadie confía en el gobierno, pero explicar el origen y la gestación histórica de esa desconfianza sería algo muy complicado, al menos en unas pocas líneas. Pero yo no sabría decirte si esa es la causa de la mayoría de nuestras reiteradas frustraciones.
Saludos
Juan,
Thanks for your response to my article. You indeed raised a lot of points in need of a counter-response. (Although Taos’s eloquent summary of the central idea of trust goes a long way toward dealing with it.)
So here are some of the thoughts you generated:
Yes, the history of American foreign policy is a dark one, especially in Latin America. (The Mexican wars, the crimes of the United Fruit Company, the Guatemalan Coup, Operation Condor, the Iran-Contra scandal, the Cuban embargo, etc. etc.) One would have to be either callous or ignorant to deny the injustices committed in these and many other sad episodes of U.S. intervention in the region. (And unfortunately, many Americans are ignorant; then again, so are people everywhere.)
But what do you expect? The United States is an empire. As such, it gets away with bad behavior for the same reason that the Kirchners get away with ransacking the public purse: The international community has no mutually trusted and respected institution for making powerful states accountable for their actions. Lacking a higher law, the “world’s policeman” polices itself.
Such conflicts of interest never turn out well – but the fact is we’ve never been able to figure out how to avoid them. The Soviet Union, the European colonialists, the Spanish conquistadors, the Ottomans, the Aztecs, the Incas, and any other dominant tribe or ethnic group that has ever oppressed another – they all behave the same way. The U.S. empire might have had more money, technology and media coverage than all these predecessors. But no one can say it is any more immoral than they were (or than its successor will be.)
At all levels of social organization power will corrupt if it is left unchecked. Why? Because human beings are fundamentally flawed. We all contain within us the basic chemical makeup for two especially destructive instincts: greed and selfishness. Some folks are of course greedier and more selfish than others. But although the sins of some societies do seem to exceed those of others, these essential human flaws, these destructive traits, are no more prevalent in any one society over another. (Of course, it’s easier to believe otherwise, to think, for example, that the Third Reich came about because Germans are just more evil than the rest of us, or that Americans simply have no capacity for empathy and so will bomb Iraqi homes or napalm Vietnamese children without a second thought. But we know how dangerous such black-and-white explanations can be: just look at what George Bush’s good-versus-evil duality brought us in his War on Terror.)
Left on its own, these insidious forces of greed and self-interest will gravitate toward power, with the end result being the corruption of power. And the further we go out along the continuum of social organization – from schoolyard, to town, to city, state, nation and world – the higher its capacity for damage. That, put simply, is the role of government: it’s an institution we depend upon to protect us from ourselves, to free us from out instincts of greed and self-interest lest they get out of control.
Unfortunately, we do not sufficiently enjoy the protection of such institutions at the transnational level. The flaws in U.S. foreign policy have everything to do with the power vacuum in which it is exercised and nothing to do with the relative morality of the society behind it. Do you believe if Argentina were blessed with America’s riches, it would behave differently? By the same token, the flaws in Argentine domestic policy do not mean that Argentines are somehow “lesser” people.
Thankfully, however, – and we can hope that Tuesday’s historic election reaffirms this – the U.S. is more or less been blessed with such an institution inside its borders. Argentina is not.
(By the way, my family and I have been here for six very enjoyable years. We love Argentina and we love Argentines – their sense of family and friends, their live-life-to-the-fullest mindset, their creativity. I just wish to God they could apply the same vigor to a program of constitutional reforms and build themselves a real government, instead of the absurdist theater they suffer under their Menems and their Kirchners. If they knew they could trust their government, they’d pay their taxes. The system wouldn’t march inevitably toward implosion as it is now, police would intervene when a crime takes place before their eyes, and sidewalks would have less dog poop on them.)
I also want to set something straight: my article had nothing to do with any “recetas economicas” for Argentina? (If anything, it toyed a bit with a “receta politica” for the United States.) Whether a government is following the economic prescriptions of the IMF or Hugo Chavez is irrelevant to my central point that they need legitimacy among those it governs. And for that, the state – not necessarily the government – must be strong.
In Argentina, the order is reversed. Precisely because the state is weak, Argentines seek out politically strong governments. Always mindful of instability, they prioritize “gobernabilidad” over policy. It’s a Faustian bargain that seems baffling to outsiders. (It’s hard to imagine any other government getting re-elected in an ostensibly free and fair election after 10 months of telling voters that inflation was 9% when everyone knew it was 25%). But without the backing of strong, legitimate institutions, a once-strong government’s policies will eventually fail and their “gobernabilidad” will dry up.
I do accept that this problem has deep roots that deserve more than a brief column. But what I was really concerning myself with was the risk of the same arising in the U.S. (I just used the poor old Argentines as a prism with which to examine the issue.) And in that context, I think it is fair to say that the threat of a breakdown in government-voter relationships has been brought on by the actions of the Bush Administration and the lost legitimacy these have engendered. Let’s just hope that on Tuesday a win for Obama signals a move back in the other direction. And if it does, it will be worth noting that his campaign was initially built upon his strong opposition to the Iraq War.
So, rather than focusing on America’s sins, maybe on this one day at least we can celebrate something supremely positive about this imperialist monster. Obama’s success suggests that a majority Americans do care about the way their government conducts itself outside its borders and interacts with foreigners who are not subject to their laws and institutions, so much so that it can determine how they vote. And more importantly, they are blessed with an electoral instrument for converting these (occasional?) empathetic ideas into action.
So, yes, the United States has done some really bad things. And if it remains a superpower, it will probably continue to so. If some other country replaces it, that country’s foreign policy will be just as bad, or worse. Depressing, huh?
But whatever happens, I strongly believe it is counterproductive for Argentines to obsess about the evils of the United States instead of thinking about their own problems. Latin America’s fixation on the sins of its gun-toting northern neighbor during the 1970s era of dependency theory and of Galeano’s “Open Veins of Latin America” thesis prevented an entire continent from finding it own path toward development. Sure, Kissinger and his ilk didn’t help, but simply to blame Washington leaves you with no ownership of your problems and thus with no capacity to fix them.
Thankfully, this self-destructive mindset appears to be dissipating in places like Chile and Brazil. (Even better, it’s happening under the leadership of socialist-democrat governments.) Left-leaning Argentines with a social conscience could do no better than to try and follow their example. But they won’t be able to, Juan, if too many of them fall back on the “nosotros” versus “ustedes” analysis you laid out in your comment.
I look forward to whatever replies this may or may not generate – before or after the new era into which we enter in 24 hours time..
Michael Casey
Michael the title of your piece is just about all I agree with. Learning from Argentina. Cristina has the answer. Otherwise universities across the U.S. would not have invited her to speak at conferences.
Personally I agree, with every single part of Juan’s response to your post, this goes for you too Mr. overly diplomatic and politically correct pseudo-intellectual – Taos. What Juan was clearly trying to explain is that sure enough there is a disconnection between people and the state in Argentina as Mr. Casey has pointed out, however what Mr. Casey fails to adress (and Juan quite correctly and brilliantly does) is the root of the cause of such distrust in Argentine governments – think CIA etc, etc. I know it. Juan knows it. Mr. Casey knows it, but people who don’t know (I mean really know) of Argentina’s history are not aware of such attrocities behind the scenes. They simply assume it’s yet another combination of a corrupt Latin American government and a bunch of cynical anrchists for people.
(De paso Juan, no te arrepientes de nada, si el pueblo vota a una administracion en un pais “democratico” como lo es E.E.U.U. entonces el pueblo tambien es responsable. Siempre vienen con la misma. Si todo los Estodounidenses se quejan de “Anti-americanismo” cuando las criticas claramente se las dirigimos hacia su gobierno, entonces realmente les duele porque ellos saben muy bien que ese es el mismo gobierno que ellos han elegido y en cual tienen mucha fe.)
By the way Michael, were you serious when you compared the Incas Empire to ALL the post-industrialisation U.S. administrations?
Matias,
It would behoove you, if you ever have any real interest in changing people’s minds or making new friends, to learn how to engage people in a more respectful, not to mention more thoughtful, manner. You start of this comment here in a negative tone by insulting me personally. This does little to foster good will, respect or trust. In fact, it does just the opposite, and to what end? What do you accomplish with your insult? You’ve gained nothing from me while showing yourself to be petty, ill-mannered and insecure. People who are confident about their own worth and the value and wisdom of their ideas don’t feel the need to engage in ad hominem attacks on others.
I’ll block or delete any further comments from you that don’t elevate our dialog to a more substantive and respectful level. I’d like for this space to be a place where people can engage in a lively debate over ideas. It is not a place where you should feel free to insult others or question their motives.
Argentine politics and life are already far too full of these kind of petty personal attacks. They accomplish nothing positive and serve only to impede the kind of positive and healthy debate from which we can all learn.
Taos
Hace ya varios días que leí la respuesta de Michael Casey a mi comentario, pero recién hoy decidí responderle.
Michael,
Yo también paso a comentarte los pensamientos que me generaron tu respuesta. Vamos por partes:
Primero y principal, creo que evidentemente tenés una noción equivocada del estatuto político internacional de tu propio país. Que yo sepa, tu país NO ES un imperio, es una República o, mejor dicho, un conjunto de Estados confederados o unidos, en una suerte de macro estado, que acepta una carta magna o “Constitución” como máxima autoridad, pero que no rinde pleitesía a ningún rey, ni tiene soberanía en territorio alguno fuera de esos 50 o 51 estados; tampoco engrosan su erario público el resto de los países del mundo, ni le pagan tributo alguno. Así que -aunque parezca una tontera recordarlo-, tu país no es formalmente un imperio. Que haya “tomado la posta” en el rol de policía mundial tras la retirada de las familias reales de Europa -principalmente la británica- no quiere decir que sea un imperio. De otro modo vos estarías finalmente aceptando la legitimidad del famoso discurso latinoamericano y comunista sobre la perversidad del “imperialismo yankee”.
Por otro lado, es cierto -como vos señalás-, que elaborar un análisis en términos de una virtual oposición nosotros/ustedes, como hice en mi primer comentario, es un recurso un poco infantil y del todo inadecuado y simplista. Soy consciente de ello. Pero no encontré otro modo de explicar lo que quería. Cuando comencé a leer tu artículo me detuve en el siguiente pasaje: “As a friend in Buenos Aires once explained, ‘We do not view the state in the way that Americans or Europeans do – as a moral representation of society – we see the state as a mafia from which we must protect ourselves’”. Cuando leí eso pensé para mis adentros que en definitiva es más inocuo no confiar en un gobierno, y en consecuencia no pagar los impuestos, que pagar religiosamente los impuestos y confiar en un gobierno tan cuestionado como el suyo, cuyas tropelías son bien conocidas por todos.
Por lo demás, si en mi primer comentario yo elaboré mi argumento apelando a un recurso simplista y reduccionista como la disyunción nosotros/ustedes, vos en cambio vertebrás tu respuesta a mi comentario en base a un razonamiento lógicamente incorrecto. Preguntas como “Do you believe if Argentina were blessed with America’s riches, it would behave differently?” no tienen una respuesta lógicamente válida. Eso se llama razonar contrafácticamente, razonar contra los hechos. La estructura lógica de tu pregunta es incorrecta: “if Argentina… Then…”, pero como estás apelando a una caso que no es el real (porque no se da el caso de que Argentina “is blessed whit America’s riches”), no podés afirmar con certeza lógica que Argentina actuaría exactamente igual que EEUU. Sólo podés suponerlo. Por lo tanto, el tuyo es un razonamiento invalido. No sé si me explico bien, o si queda claro lo que quiero decir. Si te cabe alguna duda agarrá cualquier libro básico de Lógica y comprobalo por tu cuenta. Lo mismo puede decirse del siguiente pasaje de tu respuesta: “So, yes, the United States has done some really bad things. And if it remains a superpower, it will probably continue to so. If some other country replaces it, that country’s foreign policy will be just as bad, or worse. Depressing, huh?”. Repito, jamás podrías saberlo. Tal argumento es por lo tanto formalmente invalido.
Por otro lado, al leer tu comentario queda la sensación de que en definitiva de un modo muy sutil justificás o naturalizás “the corruption of power”, como una consecuencia de las flaquezas humanas. Yo creo que el hecho de apelar a una naturaleza humana intrínsecamente propensa a sojuzgar o a someter a los demás no te habilita a justificar con esa liviandad (casi como si fuese lo más normal del mundo) las atrocidades que puede llegar a cometer un determinado gobierno (sea el de EEUU, los conquistadores españoles, los Incas, o quien fuere). Por lo tanto tampoco coincido con vos en este caso.
Con respecto a esto: “It’s hard to imagine any other government getting re-elected in an ostensibly free and fair election after 10 months of telling voters that inflation was 9% when everyone knew it was 25%”, sólo puedo decirte que yo no voté la continuidad del proyecto de los Kirchner. Pero en todo caso me parecería mucho más difícil imaginar que un gobierno sea reelecto después de haber librado una guerra como la que libró el gobierno de Bush, que sin embargo fue reelecto. A mi particularmente los Kirchner (y los peronistas en general) no me generan ninguna simpatía, pero no sería justo dejar de aclarar que así como crece exponencialmente la inflación desde hace ya años (y desde el gobierno hacen todo lo posible para ocultarlo), así también viene creciendo la economía a tasas superiores al 8 y al 9 %, con lo cual es en cierta medida lógico que haya inflación…
Por otro lado, no sé qué impresiones tendrás después de haber vivido en este país durante más de seis años, pero creo que no es cierto que los argentinos vivamos obsesionados con “the evils of the United States”. En general creo que la predisposición de los argentinos hacia tu país es buena. Porque en definitiva tu país es desde hace ya tiempo la cabeza de la civilización occidental, y Argentina, pese a que su posición geográfica, geopolítica y económica es completamente marginal, es al fin y al cabo parte de occidente. Por lo tanto nuestra suerte está inexorablemente atada a la suya. Y sin lugar a dudas tenemos muchas más cosas en común con ustedes que con países como China o India, que se perfilan como futuras potencias mundiales. No obstante, con respecto a tu opinión acerca de que esa supuesta obsesión con EEUU obture la posibilidad de resolver nuestros problemas y de crecer y desarrollarnos como país, debo decirte que tampoco la comparto. Además, vos agregás que afortunadamente algunos países de la región, como Chile y Brasil, dejaron de culpar a Washington por sus problemas y comenzaron a crecer y a solucionar sus problemas. Bueno… dejame transmitirte mi opinión sobre esos dos países:
Chile es un país cuyo presente y futuro está atado al la extracción minera, en particular al mercado del cobre. Pero como todos sabemos los minerales son recursos que tarde o temprano se agotan. De modo que su bonanza económica tiene fecha de vencimiento. ¿Y después de eso qué? Chile no es un “resource-blessed country” como Argentina, Brasil o EEUU. Es un país pobre. Siempre lo fue. Por lo demás, hace ya tiempo que se convirtió en un país exclusivo para una élite; un país en el cual está todo privatizado: la educación, la salud… hasta tenés que pagar para usar los baños públicos. Eso sumado al hecho de que se trata de una sociedad hiper-controladora, en la cual si pasás un semáforo en rojo ya tenés a los “Carabineros” (la policía chilena) dándote garrotazos en la cabeza. Si ése es tu modelo de país, permitime decirte que yo me quedo con la decadente Argentina, que aún así ofrece mayores posibilidades de experimentar movilidad social.
Brasil, por su parte, está experimentando un crecimiento económico innegable. Pero eso se debe sobre todo a la primacía del número en este sistema de economía de mercado: los brasileños son más de 200 millones, nosotros apenas 40. Es lógico que el PBI global sea mucho mayor (como en unos años inevitablemente será mayor el de China y el de la India que el de EEUU, porque son muchísimos más y se están industrializando). Por lo demás, quizás ignores que en Brasil se dan la mayor cantidad de muertes violentas por año después de Irak, que como todos sabemos es un país que viene de una guerra y que de algún modo sigue en guerra. Es decir que vivir en una gran ciudad brasileña -como San Pablo o Río de Janeiro- es como vivir en un país en guerra. Las probabilidades de que te maten son las mismas (sólo que no morís en manos del glorioso “U.S Army”, sino asesinado por vulgares criminales). Pregunto nuevamente: ¿Ése es tu modelo de país? ¿Ése es tu horizonte? ¿Esos son los países que “comprendieron” cómo administrar correctamente las riquezas?
A pesar de estar aún saliendo de la peor crisis de su breve historia, Argentina sigue siendo el país con el PBI per cápita más alto de toda Latinoamérica; el de los salarios más altos, el de mayor índice de alfabetización, mayores expectativas de vida (o quizás únicamente superado por nuestros hermanos de Uruguay, que para mí junto con Canadá es el único país decente de las Américas). No estoy haciendo una defensa tonta o ingenua de mi país, que en muchos aspectos es indefendible. Pero, por favor, no intentes convencerme de que Chile o Brasil son un modelo a seguir, por no estar supuestamente obsesionados con “the evils of the United States” y concentrarse en resolver sus propios problemas, en vez de culpar a Washington por todo lo que les pasa.
Finalmente, con respecto a tus tiernas esperanzas de entrar en una nueva era porque ahora el presidente de tu país tiene otro color de piel (porque otra particularidad no le encuentro a Obama)… qué querés que te diga… con todo respeto, es una de las mayores ingenuidades que leí en mi vida… Por que me confirma que no sólo crees que tu pais es un imperio, sino que también pensás que el presidente tiene algún márgen de decisión, que no es un títere de las empresas transnacionales, de la Reserva Federal, y de las sociedades secretas que tanto poder tienen y tuvieron siempre en tu pais, como la Masonería. Qué querés que te diga… tu candidez me sorprende.
Pero por si acaso, tené fé, que ahora que el imperio está regenteado por un mulato y estamos a las puertas de una nueva era, quizás haya llegado el momento de ver el reino de Dios en la tierra. ¡Somos verdaderamente afortunados de vivir para poder verlo!.
“Eso sumado al hecho de que se trata de una sociedad hiper-controladora, en la cual si pasás un semáforo en rojo ya tenés a los “Carabineros” (la policía chilena) dándote garrotazos en la cabeza. Si ése es tu modelo de país, permitime decirte que yo me quedo con la decadente Argentina, que aún así ofrece mayores posibilidades de experimentar movilidad social.”
Sinceramente, este comentario suyo me parece bastante desafortunado. Prefiero una sociedad donde todo este mas controlado y no una donde reine la impunidad, como lamentablemente sucede en Argentina. Es mas, pienso que como argentinos tenemos mucho que aprender de esas sociedades a las que Ud califica tan despectivamente como “hiper-controladoras”. La verdad que no le veo nada de malo a que se hagan cumplir las leyes, al contrario, creo que deberia servirnos de ejemplo.
Por otra parte me parece por demas ironico que un argentino critique a otro pais por hacer respetar las normas, cuando precisamente uno de los problemas mas graves que tiene la Argentina es la falta de respeto a las mismas. Y pienso que aun mas ironico es que elija para su critica el ejemplo de la policia que hace cumplir las normas de transito con rigidez…… cuando justamente eso es lo que esta haciendo falta en nuestro pais, dada la imprudencia y el descuido con que los argentinos se manejan al volante. No se si habra llegado a sus oidos que Argentina ostenta el triste record de la mas alta tasa de mortalidad por accidentes de transito en el mundo…. Nunca se le ocurrio pensar porque las sociedades “hipercontroladas” son las menos afectadas por ese problema?
Como comentario aparte, no creo que la policia chilena le de garrotazos en la cabeza a los conductores solo por pasar un semaforo en rojo…. En cualquier pais civilizado frente a una infraccion de transito lo mas probable es que el infractor reciba una multa…. No obstante entiendo que Ud quizas haya utilizado esa expresion para darle mas dramatismo a sus afirmaciones….
[...] Learning From Argentina: How Not To Deepen The Global Crisis [...]
Hello Taos,
This is the first time that I have posted any type of an email comment so I hope that it turns out O.K. I am a native New Yorker who has been living in Argentina since 1978.That is 31 years.At this point I feel that I know the people and their mind set more than reasonably well.I believe that you also have acquired a good understanding of it in the time that you have been here.
I have read in your posts references from different sources that Argentina is considered one of the most anti-American countries in the Americas.There have been some responses by Argentines saying that they are anti-Bush but not really anti-American per se.This has not been my experience.In the three decades that I have lived here I have been insulted numerous times based solely on my nationality in situations totally unprovoked by me.I travel freqeuently to Brazil,Chile and even once to Cuba and I have never experienced such open and unnecessary hostility as I have here.
I speak totally fluent Spanish and functional Portuguese and have lived in 4 “barrios porteños”.The situations I mentioned all occurred in Barrio Norte in Congreso and San Telmo the neighborhood people are too busy trying to earn a living
to be bothered with such garbage.
Moreover,to suggest as some Argentine readers have done that the economic and institutional progress that Chile has acheived is shortlived is nonsense.Please note in La Nacion ,Sun.,21/02,Economia y Negocios section,”Chile cosecha los frutos de su
rigor”. The achievements of Brazil in these two same areas are almost too well known to comment upon.Lula’s government has raised more than 6 million out of dire poverty and Brazil a model of an emerging market economy with complete respect for the rule of law and democratic institutions.Speaking of “empires” ,we Americans could say that Brazil is “O Novo Imperio” with the Brazilians having bought both Swift and Budweiser.However,those are the rules of the game.When the Argentines become more pro-active-like their neighbors, including Uruguay,Botnia is an example-instead
of always being so negative and re-active maybe things will change for them.
To Brian McKenna,
I am sorry this has been your exerience. All I ask you then is why have remained in Argentina for 31 years then? Why not move to Chile or Brazil?