• joelimgu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In particular yes. And even if its usually a bad idea an equilibrium must be found between social services and Liberal policies. And Argentina is clearly in much need of some Liberal policies. This president might take it too far, making some irreparable mistakes like doralisation, but seeing the state of the Argentinian economy its provably an overall positive. But again, its. Abit sad that he feels like insulting is the way to do it.

    Also, the IMF usually gives good advice to counties, most of its bad reputation comes from them trying to impose unpopular measures to counties on the border of collapse and it usually fails. But that’s like blaming Hospitals for not beeing able to save all patients. They usually ask for a but too much (as you said they are liberals after all) but its a good idea to listen to them

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, the IMF usually gives good advice to counties

      Oh… is “destroy your infrastructure for the benefit of US corporations” (somehow) “good advice” now?

      • joelimgu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Bc it isnt that. It usually is: stop giving money to people if you’re in debt, and keep your word to guive stability to you economy to attract investors. Obviously sometimes they give bad advice but its usually a good idea to listen to the IMF

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Bc it isnt that

          No. It is. Do you need me to paste links to the actual small-print of those (so-called) “trade agreements” the US manipulates 3rd world countries into signing?

          You know… the ones where the US dictates that it’s criminally insane and mentally diseased “free market” ideology should take precedence over the needs of the people living inside those countries? So here… let me fix your little statement for you:

          nd keep your word to guive stability to you economy to attract investors capitalist looters and pillagers.

          Is this starting to gel or do I have to draw you a picture?

          • joelimgu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Changing the language doesn’t change the output. You can call it whatever you want. But its a fact that a modern economy needs to participate in the global markets. Ite either that or self reliance (which means no oil, no smartphones, no imports generally). I am supposing that you dont want the second one.

            From this the only conclusion is that a country needs to produce something and be competitive, and the easiest way to do that is with investment.

            All those things are facts. Now, are there alternatives? Obviously, for example, France’s economy is in big part goverment run with success. But for that you need to maintain a competent government which in Argentinas I think we can agree that it is not the case.

            So, you either establish a more or less free market with a bit of stability, or you have a competent gov. The IMF thinks the first is easier, and so it recomends it.

            With that said, obviously some government intervention is needed and social policies are usually good, but to maintain those you need money, and sadly, you cant just print it (Again, Argentina is a great example for that).

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Changing the language doesn’t change the output.

              You are perfectly correct - no matter how you dress it up, neliberal capitalism will deliver the exact same results neoliberal capitalism has always delivered.

              and be competitive,

              Competitive at what? Impoverishing their own people to make billionaire parasites richer?

              But for that you need to maintain a competent government which in Argentinas I think we can agree that it is not the case.

              I don’t know about that… how long ago was France ruled by a CIA-approved fascist dictator?

              So, you either establish a more or less free market with a bit of stability, that is inherently unstable

              FTFY.

              The IMF thinks the first is easier better for US neocolonialism

              FTFY again. Good thing for you I don’t charge you for editing, eh?

              and sadly, you cant just print it

              Nobody bothers just printing money these days… it’s literally just data. And yes… it’s simply exists as that. An invention that can be made and unmade.

              • joelimgu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Ok, you cant print it indefenetly (saying the opposite is just ignorant). Also, it can be better for neocolonialism and for the country, its not mutually exclusive.

                And, can I as you how do you expect a country to buy oil, chips, planes, etc? A genuine question. If you dont export anything how do you convince other countries to guive you stuff?

                When I say globally competitive I mean having something that other countries pay you to make, thats it. And why? So that you can then pay them to guive you stuff.