I'm no genius, and certainly not of economics.
It is preposterous to expect me to have knowledge of a magical bullet that the whole Argentinian population can't manage to find and use in decades.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Argentina : el Peronismo ha vuelto
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
It is preposterous to expect me to have knowledge of a magical bullet that the whole Argentinian population can't manage to find and use in decades.
That is true to an extent, but also unrelated to what I asked and to what you said previously. Maybe you have been paraphrasing and I did not catch it?
To me the question is very simple.
The Monroe Doctrine has always prevented us Europeans from helping Argentina. So that Argentina has fallen victim to the IMF, that is a bank that doesn't want to save countries. They just aim at the profit maximization, even through unchristian means.
So, yes, Argentinians are the victims here.
They have been destroyed by demoniac forces...as we have seen in the seventies with the Plan Condor.
The question is: are there any countries that see the IMF under a positive light?
Argentina is a huge, enormous country made up of federal states (called provincias) but a central federal power is absolutely necessary because it controls that each province manages to implement the constitutional values of social justice, like those of article 14 and 14bis of the Constitution.
They are something very serious.
Only Peronism or similar ideologies can preserve and put those values into action.
I very much doubt it. As a rule, countries do not often feel a pressing need to lend money to others.
So nice of you to decide that virtue is a Christian exclusivity, and then only when it helps to project the perceived merits of Christianity.
Are you perhaps claiming that countries are forced to beg the IMF for money that they did not want nor need?
Do you even believe that countries can do any wrong or commit any mistake on their own, without some sort of sinister conspiracy having previously maculated their apparent sanctimonious purity and infallibility?
The question is: are there any countries that see the IMF under a positive light?
That is your question, at least.
Perhaps not. No one likes to admit that they need help. Particularly when they end up making promises in return of that help and falling short.
It is still odd that the IMF is criticized for fulfilling its role, when the critics are representatives of countries that have asked for its help and often enough failed to fulfill their promises towards it.
By Jove! You must live in some unearthly plane where countries are definitely much more magical and pure than here in this planet.
It depends if there's an affinity or in the case of Argentina, familiarity.
Of course Spain and Italy feel a spiritual need to help Argentina. There are their brethren there.
There has never been the chance because it has been prevented to them.
Especially after Spain became the new Socialist Spain, after 1978.
But the Monroe Doctrine is an impediment.
Yes, is is.
Yes. Since the Bretton Woods agreements (partially replaced by the Smithsonian agreements).
Errare humanum est. Perseverare autem diabolicum.
Considering what happened with the Plan Condor...of course there is a sinister conspiracy meant to rob a country like Argentina, incredibly rich in resources.
Have they helped Tunisia, by chance?
No...as far as I know...
so please...
Has Tunisia asked for loans from the IMF?
If they did not, why would the IMF attempt to intercede?
If they did not, why would the IMF attempt to intercede?
Yeah, we made a trade with South America. They'll get Florida and Texas in return for Argentina and two Brazilian states to be named later.
Come on, really?
Latin America hasn't got Florida and Texas.
They are the most American states I can think of. I mean...100% Conservative.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Most American states? You have a limited scope of what makes an American.
States that boast the loudest don't count.
It's all talk. Having flags all over your house, car, attire, etc don't make you a patriot.
Your actions do. Florida and Texas are filled with false patriots
Last edited:
Not that I disagree with your overall point that countries technically are not forced to ask the IMF for loans, but I view the IMF against the backdrop of neoliberal exploitation rather than in isolation of it. In an ideal world, no external factors would contribute to the sorts of disruptions that typically lead a country to ask from a loan from the IMF, but the reality of geopolitics and economics is far from ideal.
Many countries face economic difficulties due to mismanagement despite having the ability to avoid an IMF loan and being in charge of the ineffective policies that led to the economic problems (as opposed to being forced to adopt them), but many others face external pressure and are essentially turned into vassals of more powerful countries for various reasons.
When a country in the latter group faces economic difficulties largely or partially aggravated by factors like interventionism, exploitation, and environmentally destructive extraction of resources carried out by richer countries, it is not surprising for it to ask for a loan, in which case the IMF sets forth extremely neoliberal conditions that simply don't work well in some countries and can enable further privatization and subsequent increases in corruption and concentration of wealth. It almost seems that a core assumption of some of the IMF's policies is that similar neoliberal measures should work effectively everywhere, without much or any regard for the geopolitical and economic disparities between different countries.
The IMF is not a charity, nor do I believe it should be. I also don't think of it as "good" or "bad"; I mainly see it as an extension of the current global economic system, which has many pros but also many cons primarily in the form of exploitation, excessive concentration of wealth, and environmental unsustainability. I think that as the effects of climate change intensify, that last con may well prove to be the downfall of our current way of life and the brand of neoliberalism typically encouraged by the IMF as "reform"—in which case it would be a con arguably outweighing all or at least most of the pros.
Yes.
The IMF imposed austerity measures that Saied was forced to reject.
Blackmailing has never been something honest.
What does it mean? Being "forced to reject" demands of austerity?
How, if at all, is that any different from simply lacking the political conditions to build a believable plan to recapitalize?
No to IMF diktats Saied tells Meloni - World - Ansa.it
Tunisian President Kais Saied told visiting Premier Giorgia Meloni in Tunis Tuesday that the north African country's government would say no to unacceptable diktats from the International Monetary Fund, with which talks on a much-needed bailout have stalle... (ANSA)
It's always possible to find any solution.
Unless some banker refuses to renounce their own cynical egotism.