This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
And North Korea should be South Korea.
The difference is that NK has been under one management since (effectively) 1945. The East German effect is well known, even if Korea is the most extreme example.
Argentina has had many governments, many skilled and intelligent senior officials who have genuinely attempted to transition to a prosperous market economy even if stymied by various longstanding political movements and interests. That they’ve all failed to arrest the catastrophe is kind of unique. Everyone knows communism is retarded, the conundrum with Argentina is that even economic mismanagement in the first world (see Greece and Italy pre-Euro) shouldn’t lead to Argentina-esque conditions for 70+ years in a row.
No, they don't. Lots of people think communism is great. Poor people, in general, think Communism is great. Intellectuals think Communism is great (though many are smart enough nowadays to not call it that). Venezuelans think Communism is great. The big exceptions among the poor are Cubans and many Eastern Europeans, and some right-wing Americans.
Ok, among widely-reputed non-Marxian economists, Argentina is interesting because even bad economic mismanagement, in a market or quasi-market economy, shouldn’t result in a disaster of Argentina’s scale. No mainstream economist is confused as to why Venezuela’s a shithole. Argentina is genuinely a mystery. None of the usual explanations work, even a series of terrible governments shouldn’t do this much damage.
This is just believers in government policy believing there should be a floor in government's ability to mismanage, rather than accepting that technocrats can easily make things worse for short-term political advantages. This is dispiriting to visions of top-down technocratic control, but is completely in keeping with far more banal expectations that politicians who run the economy for political benefit will not actually prioritize economic health.
That Argentina has some relatively unique political interest entrenchments in the way- such as regional ability to incur debt not found in most centralized economic systems- simply provides more obvious purchases for the later view. That Peronism was adopted functionally entrenched for so long is another.
As I’ve said here before (I think last year when we had the last big Argentina discussion) I completely agree with you that some unique quirks like the ability for state governments to effectively print money are substantially responsible for Argentina’s condition.
But I think that again you discount the weirdness of Argentina. The stagnation is unusual for a population of that quality and historic development even with severe economic mismanagement. Look at the regular catastrophic economic decisions taken by successive postwar Italian governments, for example, the endless (stupid, to appease unions and voters in the short-term) devaluation of the Lira. And yet Italy saw a huge amount of growth and was (the worst parts of the south excepted) broadly a prosperous modern country well before full Euro integration. Franco’s abortive attempt at autarky was quickly fixed. Ireland saw a huge economic boom after liberalization. Yes, these examples all have confounding factors. Yes, you can’t ignore proximity, EU economic integration even pre-Euro and so on. But the sheer mismatch between human capital and population prosperity in Argentina versus country of origin (ie Spain/Italy) is unmatched in any settler population, anywhere in the world.
Even bad politicians, provided they don’t literally abolish even the last vestiges of a market economy, which even Peron didn’t, don’t typically result in growth charts as bad as Argentina’s.
And yet you already identified a significant number of very relevant political, economic, diplomatic and other factors that Argentina lacked but their countries of origins had. Those are literally explanatory factors: post-war saw a huge amount of growth because the pre-war entrenched system had just been leveled and so there was only one direction to go, that rebuilding in that context after entrenched political interests had been bloodily wiped away changed the foundational dynamics from the first half of the century, that cultivation of prosperity was considered a strategic interest of the United States who gave the Europeans preferential market access that Latin Americans didn't, that European economic integration overturned local political-economic interests in key factors that enabled economic growth, even as it was shackled to one of the richest economic zones on the planet.
By contrast, post-WW2 Argentina was not subject to major economic reconstruction, its prosperity was not prioritized at a policy level of the United States, it was not part of a premium economic block, and it did not submit to external rulings to overrule domestic political-economic fusion.
The questions is comparison is thus reversed: the question is not why Argentina would fail despite it's failings, the questions should be why Argentina should be expected to succeed despite lacking major- even decisive- factors of success that could overcome failings.
I disagree. The question is why Argentina performs so far below comparable European (diaspora) nations. This isn’t explained by being in a slightly unfavorable postwar position, higher performance tribes have done well in highly remote corners of the world, the inverse has likewise been true. New Zealand did OK, Israel did OK, Argentina could have done OK. There were still large export markets; the broader Latin American economy grew substantially; the full weight of European integration restricting global imports only began to bite from the very late 1970s, well after Argentina’s decline had begun.
This is by far the poorest West-of-Hajnal majority nation on Earth. It is a curiosity, it is unique. I don’t think the mystery can be explained away the way you suggest.
Well, obviously you don't, but we also obviously disagree on the relative merit of various factors, with you discounting the core point of governance and politics I placing a high priority on it.
Even your choice of the 1970s is both odd and seems to lack an obvious political/policy dynamic that others had opportunity to partake in, but Argentina did not. Europe's ability to afford imports after WW2 was immediate crushed because, well, WW2 happened in Europe and the colonial empires were subsequently shattered, but European reconstruction entailed integration not only into the American market (which Argentina lacked equivalent access to), but the South Korean and Japanese markets (due to the special US trilateral economic deals where the US offered its Asian and European allies market access to the US in exchange for them granting access to eachother). As such, the Korean Miracle and the Japanese golden decades- and their stratospheric, extremely efficient, industrial output growth- were well underway into the 70s, undercutting the industrial-sectors of the Peronist system, even as the trifling things like the coup of Peron and the Dirty War undermined the agricultural sectors by running a terror campaign.
To cut to a core disagreement: I contest that Argentina is, and ever has been since WW2, a higher-performance tribe.
Peron was not an high-performance economic manager as much as someone who had the fortune of seeing the rest of the world blow itself up but not good enough to long-term capitalize, Peronism was not a high-performance ideology, it was not a political choice or economic model taken equivalently amongst the Latin American region, and the cross left/right dynamics of Peronism that let it outlast the coup meant that it's malefects continued to entrench well beyond where other countries purged their ideological opponents' systems.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link