Argentina: Once.. One of the Richest Countries

[Teutone]

Very simple, leftism. Socialism.

This.

Peronism is business hostile.

The pink tide in South America left a everlasting damage.

[Diego Garcia]

This.

Peronism is business hostile.

The pink tide in South America left a everlasting damage.

Original Peronism --from General Juan Domingo Peron-- was not propperly leftist. It's been even accused of being "fascist".

The ulterior argentinian parties that claimed to be heirs of Peron have really nothing to do with Peron policies.They're really populist. They only take advantage of Peron's name.

Peron --along with Getúlio Vargas in Brazil and Carlos Ibáñez in Chile-- were undermined by the foreign policies of both Britain and USA, since they were willing to rid themselves of the economic subjugation of those countries, that prevented their industralisation and development, just from the beginning of their births as independent countries.

The revolutionary leftist movements in those countries came later, once all three got pushed aside from the power.

Those leftist movements you mention were responsible of another American intervention in the area, known as Operación Cóndor. But that's another different story.

[Teutone]

Original Peronism --from General Juan Domingo Peron-- was not propperly leftist. It's been even accused of being "fascist".

The ulterior argentinian parties that claimed to be heirs of Peron have really nothing to do with Peron policies.They're really populist. They only take advantage of Peron's name.

Peron --along with Getúlio Vargas in Brazil and Carlos Ibáñez in Chile-- were undermined by the foreign policies of both Britain and USA, since they were willing to rid themselves of the economic subjugation of those countries, that prevented their industralisation and development, just from the beginning of their births as independent countries.

The revolutionary leftist movements in those countries came later, once all three got pushed aside from the power.

Those leftist movements you mention were responsible of another American intervention in the area, known as Operación Cóndor. But that's another different story.

I speak about the economic aspect, fascism is also not free market orientated.

There is no alternative to economic sucess or any system that can challenge a competitive free economy. Humans thrive through competition. Franco created the spanish miracle by introducing the free market and Pinochet and the chicago boys are the reason that Chile is not a poor shithole still.

[Zeno]

Socialism.

[Diego Garcia]

I speak about the economic aspect, fascism is also not free market orientated.

There is no alternative to economic sucess or any system that can challenge a competitive free economy. Humans thrive through competition. Franco created the spanish miracle by introducing the free market and Pinochet and the chicago boys are the reason that Chile is not a poor shithole still.

I'm also talking about the economic aspect, if you notice.

Neither USA nor England economic origins were based on the free market. Both of them started being protectionist, very protectionist. In England, from the times of Elizabeth I; in the USA, since Hamilton times.

Afterwards, once fully industrialised and developped, they opted for the free market policies, to sell their industrial productions, whose main goal were, among others, Hispanic America.

All country agaisnt this policy was manipulated, intervened or somehow forced, to accept the free market. Through bombings --just take a look to the wars of opium in China--, coups etc.

Franco's government, in the beginning, suffered an international bloqueo, no free market by the way, whose goal was to starve the spanish population. Thanks to General Peron this didn't happen and Spanish people could survive. Franco policy on the Economy was also protectionist, not accepting an open free market, and creating the 10th most industrialised economy in the world. It was after his death that that industrialisation was forced to be eliminated as conditio sine qua non to enter in the EEC.

Of course, the fascist movements were not pro-free market, due to the same reasons that other states weren't wishing to keep being economically subjugated by others, especially concerning to loans from their financial systems. A debt make you other's slave.

Personally I have nothing against both kinds of countries. Everyone defends their own interests, either those who want them to get economically subjugated or those ones that want to get themselves of it, in order to get more progress.

Moralism is a wrong factor to explain and understand History, Geopolitics and Geoestrategy.

But facts are facts, those who have the real power given through the Industrialisation don't want that the others get more industrialised, and hence more developped than themselves. That's a constant in History, especially in the Anglosphere History in the modern times.

[Diego Garcia]

I speak about the economic aspect, fascism is also not free market orientated.

There is no alternative to economic sucess or any system that can challenge a competitive free economy. Humans thrive through competition. Franco created the spanish miracle by introducing the free market and Pinochet and the chicago boys are the reason that Chile is not a poor shithole still.

I'm also talking about the economic aspect, if you notice.

Neither USA nor England economic origins were based on the free market. Both of them started being protectionist, very protectionist. In England, from the times of Elizabeth I; in the USA, since Hamilton times.

Afterwards, once fully industrialised and developped, they opted for the free market policies, to sell their industrial productions, whose main goal were, among others, Hispanic America.

All country agaisnt this policy was manipulated, intervened or somehow forced, to accept the free market. Through bombings --just take a look to the wars of opium in China--, coups etc.

Franco's government, in the beginning, suffered an international bloqueo, no free market by the way, whose goal was to starve the spanish population. Thanks to General Peron this didn't happen and Spanish people could survive. Franco policy on the Economy was also protectionist and interventionist, not accepting an open free market, and creating the 10th most industrialised economy in the world. It was after his death that that industrialisation was forced to be eliminated as conditio sine qua non to enter in the EEC.

Of course, the fascist movements were not pro-free market, due to the same reasons that other states weren't wishing to keep being economically subjugated by others, especially concerning to loans from their financial systems. A debt make you other's slave.

Personally I have nothing against both kinds of countries. Everyone defends their own interests, either those who want them to get economically subjugated or those ones that want to get ridded themselves of it, in order to get more progress.

Moralism is a wrong factor to explain and understand History, Geopolitics and Geoestrategy.

But facts are facts, those who have the real power given through the Industrialisation don't want that the others get more industrialised, and hence more developped than themselves. That's a constant in History, especially in the Anglosphere History in the modern times.

[Universe]

I don't think Argentina "lost its wealth". It's an exaggeration to say Argentina was in any way rich (especially by modern standards).

If you lived 100 years ago in Argentina, you'd most likely consider it a poor country, or a shithole even. Many things that nowadays people take for granted were missing.

It had a relatively better position compared to other countries than nowadays, that is true. From that point Argentina simply didn't improve as much as North American and European countries, I wouldn't say it became poorer than before.

[Teutone]

I'm also talking about the economic aspect, if you notice.

Neither USA nor England economic origins were based on the free market. Both of them started being protectionist, very protectionist. In England, from the times of Elizabeth I; in the USA, since Hamilton times.

Afterwards, once fully industrialised and developped, they opted for the free market policies, to sell their industrial productions, whose main goal were, among others, Hispanic America.

All country agaisnt this policy was manipulated, intervened or somehow forced, to accept the free market. Through bombings --just take a look to the wars of opium in China--, coups etc.

Franco's government, in the beginning, suffered an international bloqueo, no free market by the way, whose goal was to starve the spanish population. Thanks to General Peron this didn't happen and Spanish people could survive. Franco policy on the Economy was also protectionist, not accepting an open free market, and creating the 10th most industrialised economy in the world. It was after his death that that industrialisation was forced to be eliminated as conditio sine qua non to enter in the EEC.

Of course, the fascist movements were not pro-free market, due to the same reasons that other states weren't wishing to keep being economically subjugated by others, especially concerning to loans from their financial systems. A debt make you other's slave.

Personally I have nothing against both kinds of countries. Everyone defends their own interests, either those who want them to get economically subjugated or those ones that want to get themselves of it, in order to get more progress.

Moralism is a wrong factor to explain and understand History, Geopolitics and Geoestrategy.

But facts are facts, those who have the real power given through the Industrialisation don't want that the others get more industrialised, and hence more developped than themselves. That's a constant in History, especially in the Anglosphere History in the modern times.

Good points, make sense.

Thanks for educating me

[Diego Garcia]

I don't think Argentina "lost its wealth". It's an exaggeration to say Argentina was in any way rich (especially by modern standards).

If you lived 100 years ago in Argentina, you'd most likely consider it a poor country, or a shithole even. Many things that nowadays people take for granted were missing.

It had a relatively better position compared to other countries than nowadays, that is true. From that point Argentina simply didn't improve as much as North American and European countries, I wouldn't say it became poorer than before.

Universe, please no offence, but I don't know where you have got your data from, but it's obvious you don't know too much about this issue. You're beeing too simplistic, I'm afraid.

You're just giving an opinion, as I see. And behind an opinion, there is nothing, maybe a feeling. In order to have a judgement, that implies certainly sort of a knowledge, you'd need to make an effort to get it.

So, just make an effort to find out what was happening in Argentina in the 50s, even in the 40s, with General Perón. Try to discover their industrial achievements, for instance, among others. And how those achievements process got just stopped. Try to get a knowledge about Getúlio Vargas in Brazil, as well.

So, when you had acquired some knowledge about this --and not only the typical stereotypes anc clichés--, maybe you'll see this issue from another very different perspective.

Greetings.

[Universe]

So, just make an effort to find out what was happening in Argentina in the 50s, even in the 40s, with General Perón. Try to discover their industrial achievements, for instance, among others. And how those achievements process got just stopped. Try to get a knowledge about Getúlio Vargas in Brazil, as well.

Doesn't contradict what I said.