The story seems like a wankfest on American dogoodery. Argentina and the US had similar economies in the early 19th century. End of story. They diverged after that and Argentina handled one disaster after another very poorly. America chose a different path. But, the author seems to have a very different history book than the one I had. The land wasn't free native Americans had lived on the land. But the policy of Manifest Destiny meant they couldn't be included in the developing country, ever. He also conveniently glides over the role the US had in destabilizing Central and South America.
The US economy has been very successful, but make no mistake there is nothing lucky or virtuous about it. If other countries, people, or economies had to be destroyed to further it's goals they were very good at that.
I think you might have a point if the success of the US economy was the result of the failure of others but that's simply not the case (and this is also why Argentina seems like a fairly apt pairing given that Argentina also had people who preceded the colonists who lived there).
Examples abound of countries who have pursued more liberal economic policies like that of the US who have done tremendously better than those who took routes similar to Argentina (e.g. take Hernando De Soto's work on property rights for example or any myriad of economic/regulatory indicators used by the World Bank/Economic freedom index). If you want to see countries whose people and economies were truly destroyed, look at those who sided with and aligned their economic views with the rivals of the US (e.g. Soviet republics) or Peronists like Argentina.
Yup, Hernando de Soto said it very well. There are vastly different kinds of capitalism in the world right now, and US (and Europe) simply have the kind which worked. Living in an ex-comunist country I know the other kind reasonably well: looks the same on the surface, but beneath it's state control all the way. Not a dictatorship nor communism, but a different system altogether. Fortunately my country (Romania) seems to have gotten on a better path lately.
Ars Technica recently referred to one of the moments that, according to this account, made America what it was.
They draw a parallel with current filesharing lawsuits and point out that in the past the government favoured thieves ('squatters') over the property owners.
(disclaimer : I'm French). Instead of answering the US-bashing comment, better read what Nikola Tesla has to say about the US in 1919 :
I wish that I could put in words my first impressions of this country. In the Arabian Tales I read how genii transported people into a land of dreams to live thru delightful adventures. My case was just the reverse. The genii had carried me from a world of dreams into one of realities. What I had left was beautiful, artistic and fascinating in every way; what I saw here was machined, rough and unattractive. A burly policeman was twirling his stick which looked to me as big as a log. I approached him politely with the request to direct me. "Six blocks down, then to the left," he said, with murder in his eyes. "Is this America?" I asked myself in painful surprise. "It is a century behind Europe in civilization." When I went abroad in 1889 - five years having elapsed since my arrival here - I became convinced that it was more than one hundred years AHEAD of Europe and nothing has happened to this day to change my opinion.
Very difficult to follow: "...five years since having elapsed here" Where is here? "...it was more than one hundred years AHEAD" Who was ahead? Didn't he just say America was behind? Also he went abroad in 1889, five years after having arived here? What??? I though this was from 1919? Plus, he went from where to where, and when?
OK, so when he arrived, he thought America was 100 years behind. Five years later, he had become convinced that America was 100 years ahead, and even after re-visiting Europe, he still hasn't gone back to his old way of thinking.
It's hard to be a superpower with 37 million people, but in 1900 Argentina didn't yet have 5 million. And in 1950 it hadn't reached 20. Uruguay was vrey rich in the 1950s, yet it had no influence in the world because it only had 2 million inhabitants.
Switzerland has fewer than 8 million people today. No, it is clearly not a superpower, but then again no one is writing articles about how it has failed to live up to its potential.
And Great Britain seemed to do acceptably well with fewer than 40-50 million people during its empire period.
Besides, during the defining interval, 1800-1920 or so, Argentina could have made up the difference by being a better place to immigrate, which is in part what the article covers.
Argentina has a land area of 2,736 thousand sq km. The US has a land area of 9,161 thousand sq km. So Argentina is only has about 1/3rd the land mass that the US does.
However, the extent of the U.S. land mass is bounded in the west by the Rockies and the deserts of the Great Basin, so in reality, the amount of arable land that both countries started out with is comparable. The arable Argentinian Pampas is closer to the coast than are the plains of the U.S. Just as importantly, the rivers in Argentina flow East-West, whereas the U.S. have the Appalachians between the East coast starting point and the breadbasket. This gives Argentina a STRONG head start in terms of being able to easily populate and exploit the arable interior.
In this light, Argentina should have had a higher initial population than the U.S. did. Argentinian farmers didn't have to clear fields for rocks as did the farmers of New England. They didn't have to cross the Cumberland gap or clear trees for farms in NY.
However, the extent of the U.S. land mass is bounded in the west by the Rockies and the deserts of the Great Basin, so in reality, the amount of arable land that both countries started out with is comparable.
The frightening thing is that the U.S. is now pursuing Argentine-style fiscal policy with massive new borrowing and spending, and the specter of protectionism is emerging here with all of the new subsidies and bailouts for domestic automakers, banks, and insurers.
"the spectre of protectionism is emerging"? "new borrowing and spending"? "new subsidies and bailouts"?
You give the impression that you only started paying attention to what your government does in the last few months. These things have gone on for decades (at the very least).
I was a staffer for the U.S. House Budget Committee in the mid-1990s so I've been quite informed for some time. This year's budget deficit is going to be greater than the entire federal budget in 2000. Basically since 2002 spending discipline broke down, but the process has accelerated over the past 12 months.
To understand progress you must understand corruption for absolute power corrupts absolutely, and absolute corruption destroys all traces of progress.
Dictatorships exterminate thinkers, the fuel of progress, and turn great workers into mindless servants.
A ten year dictatorship can turn the clock backwards a hundred years, or more.
Cleptocracy, the modern dictatorship with a democratic facade, are far worse, they look completely legit, approved by the people, but they are just a maffia whose only purpose is to use and abuse the country's resources for their own benefit while manipulating the law to perpetuate themselves in power.
Just take a look at every single latin american country touched by a leftist wave of "socialism" changing their constitutions at will just to allow continuous reelections to stay in power forever.
As an Argentinian I see a core point missing: evolving Corruption
In this crisis US can't differentiate between free market and corruption. Why S&P and other rating agencies gave AAA to AIG? it was really a miscalculation?
But to be realistic Argentina is infinite far from US. US has the opportunity to heal itself while Argentina future is very dark.
I think part of the argument here is that concentrating property rights into the hands of the few rather than the many, especially if the few control the government, makes corruption much more likely. International comparisons (mentioned in other comments in this thread) tend to show that countries with lots of private ownership of the means of production and minimal role of central government in operating the economy tend to have less corruption.
Hi , I am Argentinian.
Some savers who sued the banks had their money back but not due interests (my personal case).
IMHO the French commenter is right , US recepted lots more imigrants and way more technicaly skilled ones (Tesla is a great example of turn-of-centrury ideal inmigrant ,he was an electronics guru and workaholic).
I think that failure of importing/training enough technicians was far more important factor causing the "stop and go" development of my homeland than the disastrous political cycle.
Also an early comercial success in the first wave of globalization set the stage for too high expectations.Turn-of-century Argentina had the same chance to achieve superpower status as Sudafrica or Australia.
The future of my country is not grim we are a young vibrant country wih lots of hackers (and nobody want to blast us with nuclear weapons).
25 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 54.1 ms ] threadThe US economy has been very successful, but make no mistake there is nothing lucky or virtuous about it. If other countries, people, or economies had to be destroyed to further it's goals they were very good at that.
Examples abound of countries who have pursued more liberal economic policies like that of the US who have done tremendously better than those who took routes similar to Argentina (e.g. take Hernando De Soto's work on property rights for example or any myriad of economic/regulatory indicators used by the World Bank/Economic freedom index). If you want to see countries whose people and economies were truly destroyed, look at those who sided with and aligned their economic views with the rivals of the US (e.g. Soviet republics) or Peronists like Argentina.
They draw a parallel with current filesharing lawsuits and point out that in the past the government favoured thieves ('squatters') over the property owners.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/03/copyright-cr...
It's also a minor subplot in the Deadwood TV series.
I wish that I could put in words my first impressions of this country. In the Arabian Tales I read how genii transported people into a land of dreams to live thru delightful adventures. My case was just the reverse. The genii had carried me from a world of dreams into one of realities. What I had left was beautiful, artistic and fascinating in every way; what I saw here was machined, rough and unattractive. A burly policeman was twirling his stick which looked to me as big as a log. I approached him politely with the request to direct me. "Six blocks down, then to the left," he said, with murder in his eyes. "Is this America?" I asked myself in painful surprise. "It is a century behind Europe in civilization." When I went abroad in 1889 - five years having elapsed since my arrival here - I became convinced that it was more than one hundred years AHEAD of Europe and nothing has happened to this day to change my opinion.
-- extract from "My Inventions"
And Great Britain seemed to do acceptably well with fewer than 40-50 million people during its empire period.
Besides, during the defining interval, 1800-1920 or so, Argentina could have made up the difference by being a better place to immigrate, which is in part what the article covers.
However, the extent of the U.S. land mass is bounded in the west by the Rockies and the deserts of the Great Basin, so in reality, the amount of arable land that both countries started out with is comparable. The arable Argentinian Pampas is closer to the coast than are the plains of the U.S. Just as importantly, the rivers in Argentina flow East-West, whereas the U.S. have the Appalachians between the East coast starting point and the breadbasket. This gives Argentina a STRONG head start in terms of being able to easily populate and exploit the arable interior.
In this light, Argentina should have had a higher initial population than the U.S. did. Argentinian farmers didn't have to clear fields for rocks as did the farmers of New England. They didn't have to cross the Cumberland gap or clear trees for farms in NY.
Finally, something I can use WA for :)
http://www19.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=argentina+arable+land...
You give the impression that you only started paying attention to what your government does in the last few months. These things have gone on for decades (at the very least).
Dictatorships exterminate thinkers, the fuel of progress, and turn great workers into mindless servants.
A ten year dictatorship can turn the clock backwards a hundred years, or more.
Cleptocracy, the modern dictatorship with a democratic facade, are far worse, they look completely legit, approved by the people, but they are just a maffia whose only purpose is to use and abuse the country's resources for their own benefit while manipulating the law to perpetuate themselves in power.
Just take a look at every single latin american country touched by a leftist wave of "socialism" changing their constitutions at will just to allow continuous reelections to stay in power forever.
May God save the US from a cleptocracy.
todo: s/God/science/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6_i8zuffs
But to be realistic Argentina is infinite far from US. US has the opportunity to heal itself while Argentina future is very dark.
I think part of the argument here is that concentrating property rights into the hands of the few rather than the many, especially if the few control the government, makes corruption much more likely. International comparisons (mentioned in other comments in this thread) tend to show that countries with lots of private ownership of the means of production and minimal role of central government in operating the economy tend to have less corruption.
Self referential systems are not only prone to failure, but are doomed on the long-run due to missing independent guiding points.
"Any community with only one dominant power is always a dangerous one and provokes reactions." (Jacques Chirac, 2003)