Saludos

A lot of businessmen don’t want to speak out against the government because their earnings are State related. Others, because they are dodging tax payments. Others have a “good thing going on” with the current government. None of them want trouble.

Of course the Kirchners are not against doing business, especially when they can get into it. But a whole lot of the criticism against them comes most from the companies side. Then again, I myself prefer businessmen being imposed by the government than business imposing over them, but that’s just me.

Thanks for the response, and best wishes for you too.

Very good points. Many thanks for your feedback. I’m glad to have it here as it enriches this blog and the dialog it aims to inspire.

As for the “in private” part, I’m referring mainly to businessmen. Analysts often don’t have business interests that could be hurt by speaking out against the Kirchners. As a result, they often are more willing to speak openly about the administration.

Business leaders, however, are exceptionally fearful about saying anything in public that might be perceived by the Kirchners as an affront to their sensibilities. I encounter this almost every day at work when trying to get sources to go on the record. This is unfortunate for multiple reasons, but it’s the way things work here at the moment. I would say that very close to all of the major business leaders that I know and come into contact with are very critical of the Kirchners in private but are afraid to say anything critical in public.

They cite the example of the president of Shell, who has spoken openly and negatively about government policies. His reward: Commerce Secretary Guillermo Moreno sought to put him in jail and Nestor Kirchner called for Argentines to boycott his company. Others worry the government will cause them trouble over taxes or trade or production or pricing policies, etc. Such concerns are voiced over and over again in my meetings and interviews.

It’s pretty clear that both Kirchners play a role in governing the country. But both have denied this repeatedly in public, so I found it interesting that Kirchner let the extent of his influence slip through the cracks in this apparently inadvertent comment.

Take care and best wishes to both of you,
Taos

Saludos, Taos

Pd: Dime Taos si en Estados Unidos no ha pasado lo mismo, pero sin el voto conciente de la población, como creo sucedió aquí. El otro día estaba viendo el programa de Conan O Brien, y en su monólogo dijo:
-Obama se reunió con Bush para saber cómo estaba el país. Luego se juntó con Cheney para saber la realidad.
Y también me han contado de algún afiche en el que se ve a Bushhh como “sirviente” de Cheney.

I fail to see why the “double command” thing seems to be such an issue, while in reality it is a non-issue. They’re wife and husband. They belong to the same party. Does anyone really beleive the 2007 election would have turned otherwise if Nestor was the candidate? How can a voter be betrayed if he chose Cristina and it turns out her husband and political ally is having an influence over her Government? The people who chose Cristina disagreed with Nestor’s policies?

Let’s ignore all of that for a second. Is it really reasonable to expect that the then current President doesn’ have a vote regarding who his successor takes as a running mate?

Again, this strikes me as the most irrelevant non-issue being pushed by the media. There are other -valid- things to critizice. A whole lot of them