Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Paypal Users In Argentina Can No Longer Make Domestic Transactions

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the beating-the-black-market dept.

The Almighty Buck 272

another random user writes with this excerpt from the BBC: "The online payment service said that from 9 October: 'Argentina resident Paypal-users may only send and receive international payments.' Last year the Argentine government announced restrictions on the purchase of U.S. dollars. It has led to an increase in currency sales on the black market — but Paypal's exchange rates are better. Locals were setting up two accounts under different email addresses and transferring money between the two, exchanging local currency pesos for dollars in the process."

cancel ×

272 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A word to the wise (2)

bl968 (190792) | about 2 years ago | (#41371913)

Game the system, pay the price...

Re:A word to the wise (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41371941)

Yeah. Look at all the people on Wall Street, who went to jail.

Re:A word to the wise (2, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 years ago | (#41372129)

I seem to remember huge job losses in that industry in the wake of the breaking scandal, so yes - game the system, pay the price. The "price" doesn't always mean incarceration...

Re:A word to the wise (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372651)

And how many of those people who lost their jobs were the ones that actually caused the problems? I don't recall seeing the CEOs of any of the banks hurting after their incompetence and hubris led to the crisis.

Re:A word to the wise (5, Informative)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#41372819)

I don't even recall any of the bankers themselves losing their jobs really. It was all the support staff that suffered like IT, admin, and customer facing branch staff. In this respect, and as the investment banks and customer facing banks are often different sub-companies, I'm not even sure people from investment arms of banks really paid a price at all for the most part.

Also, a year later, they were all getting hefty bonuses again to boot.

Re:A word to the wise (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372937)

Maybe you just don't know anything about that industry? Analysts and quants in bulge bracket banks were laid off in massive numbers. TV news played videos of dozens of people hauling cardboard boxes out of their offices at a time.

Re:A word to the wise (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373067)

I don't even recall any of the bankers themselves losing their jobs really.

Your recollection is not an authority on reality.

The best investment bankers certainly weren't laid off - hell, they worked out how to profit from all this. Even a friend of mine who manages a ~£600 million fund and who saw a ~5-10% drop in value over two years remained secure in his job. But there were hundreds of analysts who were laid off because they simply weren't of any benefit any more. It wouldn't be a financial crisis if all funds were still sustainable, would it?

Yet, IT in retail banking has been increasingly outsourced in the last 4 years, and branch staff have been cut. The former goes a fair way to explaining recent fuck-ups by RBOS etc. The guys at the top of the nationalised banks are now sucking at the teat of corporate welfare, so they certainly don't need to worry too much about where the next trough of caviar is coming from. It is inevitable that the people holding most of the money in a sufficiently "free" market will eventually buy out the government.

Re:A word to the wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373119)

Are you kidding me? Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros no longer exist. AIG doesn't exist in anything resembling its former self. Countrywide was sold off due to the crisis as well. And these are just the biggest offenders. Other (slightly) smaller offenders paid the price as well. The bank that did the best during the crisis (JP Morgan Chase) dumped its subprime assets in 2005.

Re:A word to the wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373233)

Those are corporations not human beings. The humans got shuffled around and any of them with connections landed on their feet at other corporations, likely with a signing bonus and a transfer package.

Re:A word to the wise (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372307)

You mean Madoff? Or would you like to talk about the mortgage meltdown stuff? Well the mortgage meltdown stuff gets interesting, because if you really want to get into that, the first thing that needs to happen is you go back to where the government forced banks into lending to people who shouldn't have gotten the loans in the first place. And when the banks said "we shouldn't have to..." the government said: "you will loan, or we'll pull your FDIC backing and launch trade and trust investigations against you."

Nothing quite like the government at work right? Might also want to look into which party was heavily involved in all of that too. But let's just say that, when changes were put forward to get it fixed back in 2002, and 2003 the "opposite party in charge" cockblocked the entire thing. Oh...if you didn't figure it out yet, it was the democrats.

Re:A word to the wise (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372369)

Oh...if you didn't figure it out yet, it was the democrats.

Yes, no Republicans voted for this atrocity in the first place, or voted to block it. No, sir. Not a single one. Oh, right, I bet those guys aren't "really" Republicans, definitely.

Hurrrrrrrrrr.

Might want to grow up a bit and realize politics isn't a fucking sporting event between two teams. Stop your fucking useless pennant waving, remove the giant foam finger from your rectum, and start looking at and voting for or against individual politicians.

Re:A word to the wise (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | about 2 years ago | (#41372591)

I know this is offtopic:

Might want to grow up a bit and realize politics isn't a fucking sporting event between two teams. Stop your fucking useless pennant waving, remove the giant foam finger from your rectum, and start looking at and voting for or against individual politicians.

but it needs to be broadcast as a PSA once for every campaign ad that airs.

Re:A word to the wise (5, Informative)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#41372643)

realize politics isn't a fucking sporting event between two teams

Except, it kinda does work that way.

Most people just have the teams wrong - Not red vs blue, not plebes vs silver-spoons, but rather "all of us" vs "anyone who runs for public office".

Oddly, despite having the bigger team, we usually lose.

Re:A word to the wise (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#41373017)

realize politics isn't a fucking sporting event between two teams

Except, it kinda does work that way.

Most people just have the teams wrong - Not red vs blue, not plebes vs silver-spoons, but rather "all of us" vs "anyone who runs for public office".

Oddly, despite having the bigger team, we usually lose.

Unfortunately, the competition these days makes soccer hooliganism look tame. Nothing less than the complete extermination of the other team and all its fans is acceptable. No "Well, we lost this one, so better luck next time" like in REAL sports.

Re:A word to the wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372569)

You are right.
However you still failed to realize that many of the players (which is why no jail time)
were, in fact, members of the United States of America Congress.

Re:A word to the wise (1, Interesting)

aurispector (530273) | about 2 years ago | (#41373013)

The name "barney frank" comes to mind. He was the driving force behind fannie mae churning out millions of subprime loans in order to "make housing more affordable". All this cheap money had the effect of creating the housing bubble, ironically making housing LESS affordable. Then, of course, the bubble burst and the people left holding the bag on upside down mortgages were the very ones frank was trying to "help". In response, the dems created the "occupy wall street" movement in order to shift blame from themselves to the banks that wrote the loans.

Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations. Alinsky would be proud.

Re:A word to the wise (1, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41372893)

What you mean to say is that the government and the banks supported an industry in which they both feathered each others' nests for as long as it would take them to get obscenely rich.

They're bastards on both sides, and America is the slowest country in the world to realise this.

Re:A word to the wise (4, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 2 years ago | (#41373009)

What you mean to say is, the United States of America has been printing money and using it to make purchases from other nations, and those other nations hoard those US dollars and trade them amongst themselves rather than redeeming them for American made goods, so America basically gets a free ride on the back of everyone else and has since the 70s.

It's like if I wrote a cheque and used it to pay for groceries, and the grocer didn't cash it, but paid their power bill with it, and the power company didn't cash it, but paid their employees with it, etc, etc.

But it's going to come to an end soon... China is selling oil for Yuan, and Russia has made an agreement with them to supply them with as much oil and gas as they want.

http://www.examiner.com/article/dollar-no-longer-primary-oil-currency-as-china-begins-to-sell-oil-using-yuan [examiner.com]

So, the era of the USA is at an end, along with the ridiculous culture they've created.

Re:A word to the wise (2)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#41372965)

In case anyone is believing this. The government hit the banks with branch availability and willingness to consider mortgages. In real life and not republican world, having objective criteria which were clear cut and non discriminatory would have been fine if they had upped their number of minority applications.

The issue was never trying to get unqualified minorities mortgages but rather trying to get qualified minorities mortgages.

Re:A word to the wise (2)

parkinglot777 (2563877) | about 2 years ago | (#41373033)

It seems that you are looking for only one group of people to blame because of your choice of political view. I would go even further than just politic in your case. Because everyone is making money or benefits -- banks, realtors, brokers, and home buyers -- no one attempts to do anything but keep trying to take the advantage of the situation. People who want to buy a house are talked into (by realtors & brokers) buying a house because they believe they can own a house and turn it over in a couple of months or years to make even more money even though they cannot really afford one. Brokers & realtors are making commissions even though they fabricate buyer's qualifications (but no one is in jail!). Banks are getting profit from loan interests (but found out later that they aren't going to so they attempt to push the debt to investors). They are all blinded by money they are making (or taking advantage of).

So I would say that a lot of people involved in the cause of the crisis. Pointing your finger to only one just because you don't like the one is a bias. If you want to point your finger, try to point to every single one of them.

Re:A word to the wise (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372665)

Yeah. Look at all the people on Wall Street, who went to jail.

what does the occupy movement have to do with it? :p

Re:A word to the wise (4, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#41372017)

It's the government of Argentina that is "gaming the system" by artificially increasing the price of dollars. Smart people are realizing that socialist policies are going to bring high inflation as they always do and wipe away people's life savings in the name of social justice .

Re:A word to the wise (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41372405)

"It's the government of Argentina that is "gaming the system" by artificially increasing the price of dollars. Smart people are realizing that socialist policies are going to bring high inflation as they always do and wipe away people's life savings in the name of social justice ."

Why are you telling us? If you really think it will make a difference, say it to Obama. And Congress, of course.

Re:A word to the wise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372613)

Nude Dudes on the Cock has such hits as "You Got It (The White Stuff)", "Smokin' Pole" and "Didn't I (Blow Your Wad)"

Donnie Ballberg sez:
"Sometimes...I suck my own penis."

Re:A word to the wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373165)

"It's the government of Argentina that is "gaming the system" by artificially increasing the price of dollars. Smart people are realizing that socialist policies are going to bring high inflation as they always do and wipe away people's life savings in the name of social justice ."

Why are you telling us? If you really think it will make a difference, say it to Obama. And Congress, of course.

I hope that you are joking, not everyone one lives in USA, I live in Argentina and I don't think that telling Obama is going to make any difference...

Re:A word to the wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372471)

It's the government of Argentina that is "gaming the system" by artificially increasing the price of dollars. Smart people are realizing that socialist policies are going to bring high inflation as they always do and wipe away people's life savings in the name of social justice .

yes,it is true,and this is the commond phenomenon around the world!

Re:A word to the wise (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372491)

"Smart people are realizing that socialist policies are going to bring high inflation as they always do and wipe away people's life savings"

Otoh, informed people know it was capitalist/neoliberal IMF policies that wiped away people's life savings and ruined Argentine's economy, and that it has since recovered under 'socialist' policies.

Re:A word to the wise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372681)

"Smart people are realizing that socialist policies are going to bring high inflation as they always do and wipe away people's life savings"

Otoh, informed people know it was capitalist/neoliberal IMF policies that wiped away people's life savings and ruined Argentine's economy, and that it has since recovered under 'socialist' policies.

BWWWAAAA HAAA HAA HAA!!!

Like Venezuela's, no doubt.

Re:A word to the wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373271)

Capitalist IMF?

That's an oxymoron. The IMF is socialism.

Re:A word to the wise (5, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#41372877)

"It's the government of Argentina that is "gaming the system" by artificially increasing the price of dollars. Smart people are realizing that socialist policies are going to bring high inflation as they always do and wipe away people's life savings in the name of social justice ."

Like all systems, just as over the top free market capitalism led to the banking collapse, over the top socialism can indebt a country beyond it's means too (Greece).

But what isn't true is that socialist policies in general always inherently bring high inflation. Countries like Canada, Germany, the UK, most the Scandinavian nations and so forth are good examples.

Using one failing country to push your own political ideology is stupid, especially so when there are many other countries succesfully using elements of that ideology you so sternly oppose and claim is doomed to failure.

Re:A word to the wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373189)

Good examples in that the value of the english pound is now half of what it used to be, and Japan isn't going to have money to pay pensions soon.

But you are misguided in that Germany is not a socialist country since the East-Germany fiasco, because the socialists nowadays rule in coalition with the conservatives that stop their WORST policies (that is, they don't have a free pass to ruin their countries to get rich, as they always do); same with the Scandinavian nations that recently got in giant troubles with crime and bankruptcy due to following socialist policies so harmful, they motivated one demented man to start his own "socialist-killing spread" to save his country.

If you want to see how quickly a country can get ruined by socialism, look at Greece (6 years), Spain (3 years), Cuba (2 years), Argentina (4 years) and Venezuela (5 years). Socialism has a long history of quickly ruining countries, and the correlation is so strong, I can predict with 99% certainty that France is going to go broke in 5 years thanks to Hollande.

Re:A word to the wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373373)

Oh yeah.

To prevent the christian nazis from killing people indiscriminately we should adjust our policy to reflect christian nazi ideals.

Re:A word to the wise (4, Insightful)

srussia (884021) | about 2 years ago | (#41372029)

Game the system, pay the price...

You were referring to the Argentine authorities, right? Price-fixing/rationing has always been a disaster. But it's not just Argentina, the most important price of all--the price of money (interest rates)--is still being fixed all around the world, with nary a peep from people, or indeed economists who should know better.

If people knew what money is and saw what is passed off as "money" these days, there would be a revolution overnight.

Never works, does it (2, Funny)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#41372047)

The UK had both price fixing and rationing in WW2, and we lost to the United States, which didn't.

Re:Never works, does it (2, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41372125)

>The UK had both price fixing and rationing in WW2, and we lost to the United States, which didn't.

What? Are you bloody serious?

http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/events/rationing.htm [ameshistor...ociety.org]

First google link, out of thousands.

--
BMO

Re:Never works, does it (2)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#41372673)

What? Are you bloody serious?

Considering that the UK didn't fight the US in WWII, and they didn't actually lose WWII (despite London taking some heavy damage) - I'd have to go with "no". :)

Re:Never works, does it (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41372301)

Furthermore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Price_Administration [wikipedia.org]

President Franklin D. Roosevelt revived the Advisory Commission to World War I Council on National Defense on May 29, 1940, to include Price Stabilization and Consumer Protection Divisions. Both divisions merged to become the Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply (OPACS) within the Office for Emergency Management by Executive Order 8734, April 11, 1941. Civil supply functions were transferred to the Office of Production Management.

It became an independent agency under the Emergency Price Control Act, January 30, 1942. The OPA had the power to place ceilings on all prices except agricultural commodities, and to ration scarce supplies of other items, including tires, automobiles, shoes, nylon, sugar, gasoline, fuel oil, coffee, meats and processed foods. At the peak, almost 90% of retail food prices were frozen. It could also authorize subsidies for production of some of those commodities.

Facts are inconvenient for some.

--
BMO

Re:Never works, does it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372695)

Furthermore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Price_Administration [wikipedia.org]

President Franklin D. Roosevelt revived the Advisory Commission to World War I Council on National Defense on May 29, 1940, to include Price Stabilization and Consumer Protection Divisions. Both divisions merged to become the Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply (OPACS) within the Office for Emergency Management by Executive Order 8734, April 11, 1941. Civil supply functions were transferred to the Office of Production Management.

It became an independent agency under the Emergency Price Control Act, January 30, 1942. The OPA had the power to place ceilings on all prices except agricultural commodities, and to ration scarce supplies of other items, including tires, automobiles, shoes, nylon, sugar, gasoline, fuel oil, coffee, meats and processed foods. At the peak, almost 90% of retail food prices were frozen. It could also authorize subsidies for production of some of those commodities.

Facts are inconvenient for some.

--
BMO

I bet there was no black market, either.

How can you think that quoting a Wikipedia page that states the US used price controls 70 years ago is some sort of refutation of a claim that price controls don't really work?

Why not just post a tide table for the Bay of Fundy?

Re:Never works, does it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372871)

The UK had both price fixing and rationing in WW2, and we lost to the United States, which didn't.

Whoever modded this up to +3 might want to crack open a history book.

Re:A word to the wise (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372083)

No, the interest rates as such are not fixed. The interest rates you hear from the news which are set is the interest rate which banks pay for money from the central bank (Federal Reserve, ECB etc.). And since it's exactly that institution which also sets that interest rate, its in principle nothing else than if another bank sets the interest rate for money it lends. The reason why in practice it does make a difference is that ultimately all money comes from that single bank (because it has a monopoly on creating the money). Therefore the interest rate that bank sets also affects all the interest rates of the banks, because they won't demand less than they themselves have to pay if they lend you money, nor will they pay more for your money than what they'll get it for from the central bank.

So, no it is no price fixing, but a legally enforced monopoly.

Re:A word to the wise (2)

norpy (1277318) | about 2 years ago | (#41372221)

In practice they do pay more for your money than from the central bank, as money from the central bank is only loaned for very short periods.
Our current central bank rate is at 3.5%

Here is an example from my bank for savings account

Standard base variable interest rate 0.01%
Standard variable bonus 5.25% deposit $50 and make no withdrawals
Earn up to 5.26%

Re:A word to the wise (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41372411)

"... with nary a peep from people, or indeed economists who should know better. "

Indeed, economists should know better. But as long as government and Wall Street insist that they must continue to spout discredited but self-serving Keynesian principles, things aren't going to get any better.

Re:A word to the wise (1)

javilon (99157) | about 2 years ago | (#41372465)

This is where bit-coin can be a good option. Independent from the future of the currency, right now it can be used to move money around without capital controls.

If I were Argentinian and I wouldn't be allowed to exchange pesos into foreign currency, I would exchange pesos into bit-coins as soon as I get them. Better than nothing.

Re:A word to the wise (1)

javilon (99157) | about 2 years ago | (#41372469)

Off course, after getting bit-coins I would exchange the bit-coin back into Dollars or Euros or whatever outside of Argentina. That way I woudn't need to bet on the long term viability of bit-coin.

Re:A word to the wise (2)

xelah (176252) | about 2 years ago | (#41372589)

And, ummm, are there many people with BitCoins who would prefer Pesos instead? If not, who are you going to trade with?

Re:A word to the wise (2)

javilon (99157) | about 2 years ago | (#41372963)

Same people that would give you dollars in exchange for Pesos, I guess. People is doing this right now, so they probably have some utility for Pesos.

In this particular case, it is easy. An entity sets up a bit-coin exchange outside of Argentina. A person from Argentina buys bit-coins in that exchange by transferring the Pesos where the exchange is located (this is not forbidden for now, Argentinians can buy foreign products, in this case bit-coin, using Pesos). Then since outside of Argentina there are no capital controls for Pesos, the Pesos are exchanged into dollars at current international rate in the bit-coin exchange. At this point neither the Argentinian nor the bit-coin exchange have Pesos anymore. Both are happy.

Re:A word to the wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373053)

There are many "bitcoiners" so keen to promote the use of Bitcoin that they'll happily take part in pretty much any trade involving bitcoins.

Re:A word to the wise (3, Interesting)

jonadab (583620) | about 2 years ago | (#41372923)

Actually, this kind of "gaming" of the system (called "arbitrage" in economics circles (although this is kind of a special case of arbitrage, because currencies are not traditionally viewed in exactly the same way as other goods and services)) is essentially unpreventable. Requiring an international transaction just makes it a two-step process instead of a one-step process (and perhaps also assures that in most cases there will be more than one person involved), but it doesn't change anything that matters. If they shut down Paypal altogether (in Argentina, or using their currency), other mechanisms will surface. As long as the Argentine peso is worth one amount inside Argentina and a different amount in the rest of the world, people will be buying it in the cheaper place and selling it in the place where it's worth more. The people who do this turn a profit, and either the prices in the two places are brought closer together or, if someone is artificially keeping them apart, doing so costs money, which goes into the pockets of whoever is doing the arbitrage.

Fundamentally, forcing an unnatural exchange rate on a fiat currency is not sustainable. I thought maybe the Argentine government had learned their lesson about dorking around with fundamental economic forces after their little hyperinflation fiasco in the second half of the twentieth century, but perhaps they needed to be reminded. You can't fight fundamental economic forces. Well, you can try, but the fight will not go well for you. It's like trying to fight the laws of physics, only your fate arrives slowly and painfully instead of swiftly.

Just wait (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41371933)

Another 4 years of MAObama and the dollar will equal the peso.

Problem solved, amiright?

Re:Just wait (3, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41371995)

Or 3 under Mitt.

Uhm. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41371979)

Transferring money from one of your own accounts to another, within the same country, is "money laundering and tax evasion" now?

"Money laundering and tax evasion" clearly is the "terrorism and cybercriminality" of the financial world, it is.

Re:Uhm. (5, Insightful)

mbkennel (97636) | about 2 years ago | (#41372041)

Argentina is completely screwed up now. There is no logic other than figuring out strange ways for the government to steal. Oddly enough the president has a huge approval rating. It's an Economic Reality Distortion Field.

It's pretty pathetic, because Argentina has tremendous natural resources compared to its population size and an educated population and few internal ethnic problems (they exterminated their natives in the 19th century). And to the north of them, without those advantages, Brazil is leaving them far behind despite having a robust social welfare state.

Source: in-laws in Buenos Aires; reading Economist.

Beef (4, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#41372061)

Too much of the Argentine economy consists of raising cheap beef for the US market. Most countries that are de facto producers for the US are screwed up. (And before you decide that is flamebait, go take a serious look at the CIA World Factbook.)

Re:Beef (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 2 years ago | (#41372609)

While I don't doubt it, it would seem to be a commodity with global appeal so they should be able to get out of it eventually...

Re:Beef (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#41372727)

Provided the land has not been bought up by US business, which I suspect is the case.

Re:Beef (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372901)

Provided the land has not been bought up by US business, which I suspect is the case.

http://www.propertywire.com/news/south-america/argentina-limits-foreign-buyers-201112195891.html

Stop posting. You are constantly wrong, and the few times you've attempted to support yourself with a citation you've given links which flat out contradict you.

Re:Beef (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373105)

Proudly not any more!!! now we produce soy beans for your pigs (literally)

Re:Beef (2)

hjf (703092) | about 2 years ago | (#41373225)

US doesn't import beef from Argentina, citing foot-and-mouth disease as the reason. In most areas of the country, this has been almost non-existant in over 20 years.
See when you travel overseas and they make you sterilize your shoes at the airport? Well, in some roads they built a shallow pool with disinfectant, after toll booths, so you come out slowly and have to drive throught it, and wash the underside of your car. That's how seriously we take that disease here.

I'm in Buenos Aires (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372257)

And you have half of your facts right.

Brazil has very much indeed left us behind. No doubt about that. But they have problems of their own too.

The behavior of the government here can be described as "random" at best, creating policies which have no clear benefit to anyone or purpose other than "someone, somewhere is stealing a lot of money with this... but I don't quite know how". It is very infuriating. They come out with blatant lies all the time, which has made the approval rating drop to what I imagine are single digits now. I say imagine since you can't trust any news outlets. I'd say something about that, but you americans have fox news, so we're relatively tame on that score. At least for now.

It's also sad that what used to be the "good" politicians are the ones now in office, corrupted beyond recognition. They got in basically by not being part of the US-slavish mafia that had been ruling for the last 20 years. But now they made up a mafia of their own, so that's not even a selling point anymore. It's nice that they don't just bow and take it in the ass 24/7 and lay the bill on us, but who cares if they still fuck us over even worse than before in many ways.

The opposing party is pretty much an open mafia, so there is really no other choice. If there were elections today, I couldn't vote honestly for anyone, unless votes were casted with bullets. I would vote for pretty much everybody then. Many times over.

Re:I'm in Buenos Aires (4, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | about 2 years ago | (#41372343)

And of course all the Argentine government do if they feel their ratings are slipping is distract the population by bringing up the Falklands again. Then accusing Britain of being "provocative" when Britain increases the defence of the Falklands from all the belligerent talk from the Argentine government.

Whether this works or not to distract the Argentine population or rally them around the current government, I don't know (an article I saw on the Spanish TV news analysis programme, Informe Semanal, seems to suggest it no longer works)

Re:I'm in Buenos Aires (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372957)

Wow, I am also in Buenos Aires and it's good to hear (read) somebody that thinks so similar to what I think. Let me know if we should go all boondocks saints on next election (or we could look at the TV very angrily at least, I'm not a very violent guy)

Re:Uhm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372775)

Argentina is completely screwed up now. There is no logic other than figuring out strange ways for the government to steal. Oddly enough the president has a huge approval rating. It's an Economic Reality Distortion Field.

See https://www.google.com/search?q=president+of+argentina&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a [google.com] ...

Searches related to president of argentina

...

president of argentina hot

...Any questions?

Re:Uhm. (4, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 2 years ago | (#41372193)

Only if you're poor. If you're transferring funds that are only worth a day's wages, you're "money laundering and tax evading." If you're transferring sums that exceed the total lifetime earnings of an individual in the majority, you're a currency trader, and a respected businessman. Two scenarios gaming the system in exactly the same way. It's called arbitrage, if I'm not mistaken. Do it on small scales, you're a criminal. Do it at large scales, you're a pillar of the community.

Re:Uhm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372309)

Do it on small scales, you're a criminal. Do it at large scales, you're a pillar of the community.

It's been true for at least 2000 years and it will be true 2000 years from now. Look at any roman rich.

The challenges of a global market (4, Interesting)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 2 years ago | (#41372035)

Governments used to be able to easily control currency flows because banks were needed to move money and for most people it was not easy to move small amounts. Now, with PayPa, for example, it's a lot easier to move a few hundred dollars across borders. How long is it before Argentineans with friends and relatives abroad "buy" things - effectively converting pesos into dollars and then have that person bring back dollars or keep them safely out of reach of the authorities? The authorities will have to setup ways to monitor online "sales" and collect taxes at the time of sale or tax PayPal transactions at the time of money transfer. Or, force PayPal to not do currency conversions. In the end, they will either have to give up, massively devalue the Peso or make it a non-convertablke currency.

Re:The challenges of a global market (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372171)

>Now, with PayPal, for example, it's a lot easier to move a few hundred dollars across borders.

But Paypal is easy to control, they did. E-gold and the other virtual gold currencies were a problem to control, then they sunk them all.

Re:The challenges of a global market (4, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41372417)

"Or, force PayPal to not do currency conversions. In the end, they will either have to give up, massively devalue the Peso or make it a non-convertablke currency."

Or -- far simpler -- just do as they did in the EU and make PayPal register as an actual bank.

Re:The challenges of a global market (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 2 years ago | (#41373217)

"Or, force PayPal to not do currency conversions. In the end, they will either have to give up, massively devalue the Peso or make it a non-convertablke currency."

Or -- far simpler -- just do as they did in the EU and make PayPal register as an actual bank.

Fair enough; although PayPal may decide the hassle is not worth it and simply leave the country.

Government fighting the market (5, Insightful)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41372075)

So people want to be able to buy something, government says: you can't. This always leads to black markets.

Inflation (money printing) in Argentina is high, their prices are going up 24% per year, which is the consequence of high inflation. Instead of stopping the inflation (stopping the money printing), the government wants to stop people from saving their purchasing power, however they do it. Apparently to the people of Argentina USD seem to be more attractive then their own currency.

In USA inflation is also high, 11-15%, but prices are not going up as quickly as in Argentina, because other countries are still willing to absorb the new dollars and exchange their goods for them, so prices are going up in other countries, who respond with their own inflation, they print their own currencies in response to USA printing and they are willing so far to exchange their own productivity (products they manufacture and make) for US dollars. This pushes prices up for those productive nations and this still acts as a price buffer for USA.

But look at this obvious response by government of Argentina: it's not that the government is plainly wrong in what it is doing, destroying the currency of the people.

The government says: it is the people, who are wrong for wanting to save their own savings, their purchasing power. Let's take the purchasing power away from the people. What it means is that the government wants to keep its high levels of spending but cannot or will not raise taxes, so it wants to steal from people. Printing money is theft of productivity and it's most obvious to the people when their prices go up.

Of-course very few people can understand the link between their prices going up and their government printing the currency, it's not a link that is necessarily very obvious directly to people, that's because people are not taught economics and the version of economics that they are taught is really not economics, it's propaganda that allows the government elite to keep people in check by denying them the real understanding of what is going on.

What is happening in Argentina is nothing new. Many countries did the same thing - printed money, set exchange controls, price controls, all it ever does is it creates black markets and very quickly creates very wide separation onto the poor and rich, even among people that maybe didn't have that huge of a separation before the gov't actions.

The newly printed money does not equal wealth. The amount of production stays the same (or it is decreased because people move their savings somewhere else and this means moving production somewhere else, so the country suffers decrease of productivity and increase of money supply), so the new money simply ends up bidding up prices for the existing assets and goods.

This is why inflation (money printing) hurts the poor much more than the wealthy, because the poor live on various fixed incomes, they are getting less and less with every check, be it a salary or a dividend or a pension check, whatever.

The wealthy end up bidding up prices for existing assets. Everything becomes a fight for a fixed or a decreasing pie, the pie is not growing. Only savings and production grows the pie, money printing destroys savings and productivity and re-allocates the pie from middle and poor to the top.

That's why there is a higher and higher wealth disparity, it's not because the 1% is stealing something, it's because the government is stealing something, the government is stealing purchasing power, it's destroying the savings, productivity, it's destroying the currency.

Of-course as people try to avoid their purchasing power from being destroyed by the government, the government sees this as something to be prevented, so it sets exchange controls, currency controls, wage and price controls. Minimum wage is just an attempt to hide levels of inflation, like many other things that gov't does it backfires and creates more unemployment and dependency and decreases productivity and standard of living.

The government fighting against people trying to save themselves is the ultimate immoral action and in the market is trying to help the people. PayPal was helping people and gov't found out about it and now is preventing that specific type of help.

--

The busts, the recessions that come after booms are the market way to address the imbalance in the system, to rebalance the equation, to restructure the debts, free up resources (by destruction of things that shouldn't exist, like various indebted companies for example, companies that live off of subsidies) so that the resources can be allocated more efficiently. The gov't creates issues more debt to fight the recession. The latest QE in USA [slashdot.org] is an attempt to fight the recession, to fight the cure to the problem that the government created by doing more of the same thing that caused the problem in the first place, which was government created as well.

So nothing is new, it's all the same, the governments create problems and then when the markets and people try to solve them, the government creates bigger problems for the future trying to prevent people and markets from solving the current problems. That's what this is all about.

Re:Government fighting the market (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372139)

And the USA is not printing money in QE3? This is a battle of relatives, what people think, A Vs B.
I like Vietnam's failings better. With a CC they withdraw USD in Cambodia and bring the send Dong back, ever weakening their currency. Gold is 10% dearer than the open exchange rate, and now illegal to physically own gold, although you can 'store it' at gold shops. If people wake up and work out the actual cost of a gold bar, then the rigged currency differential is easily established.
Once the 4%-6.5% barrier is breached, it becomes a flood.
Lesson: Do not exceed 4%.

General Description (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372849)

I think the poster you responded to was describing the sick effects of inflation in general. They apply to *all* countries. Inflation fucked up Germany in the 20s and brought Hitler to power. Inflation fucked up most of Europe at that time. Dictators here and there.

Nowadays they call it "Quantitative Easing", as "Inflation" is of course a "bad" word. We are ruled by first-rate idiots. People who want to "smooth out" the economic cycle, people who cannot reign into the excesses and greed of the financial market players.

Actually the most sensible thing to do would be to nationalize all banks, limit the number of bankers and remove any bonus schemes. But I guess most Western politicos are fully in the pocket of the banksters. Combine that with a misguided understanding of "freedom" and you can explain what we have today. This system will kill capitalism, because capital stored in the financial system will effectively be stolen and/or destroyed by the banksters. What we have at this point is Thieferism, not Captialism !

Don't expect the financial industry fix themselves. They will be fixed by some future government. Mr Hitler had a drastic fix for the banksters and I guess we will see that again in some form.

Re:General Description (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373291)

If you nationalize all banks, you put them in the hands of politicos. Spain's current economic crysis has been single-handledly caused by "Cajas" (public, nationalized and highly politized banks). It's the single worst thing you can do, because at least private business have to make sure they win money in order to continue existence. Public business hide the losses under the rug until it's so big, it destroys a country's economy.

Re:Government fighting the market (2, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41372249)

In USA inflation is also high, 11-15%, but prices are not going up as quickly as in Argentina, because other countries are still willing to absorb the new dollars and exchange their goods for them, so prices are going up in other countries, who respond with their own inflation, they print their own currencies in response to USA printing and they are willing so far to exchange their own productivity (products they manufacture and make) for US dollars. This pushes prices up for those productive nations and this still acts as a price buffer for USA.

I heard someone complaining that the US caused inflation elsewhere. I told him to shut up and complain to an MP. The US didn't "force" them to print money. If everyone else stopped printing money now, then the US economy would fail. The sooner we get through that, the better off the world will be. The US is a massive anchor on the world economy. The problem is so many still think about it as the foundation (which it was, back in the 1960s with the large educated population and no damage to infrastructure. But everyone else passed the US since, and the US is a net drain on the planet. Let US fail and move on. The world will be a better place if they just stopped bending over backwards to keep the US from failing.

Re:Government fighting the market (5, Insightful)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41372337)

Well, it will come eventually. I mean Greece wasn't a problem 2.5 years ago, right? What I mean is that nobody heard of Greece as being a problem 2.5 years ago. All of a sudden it became a problem.

So did the problem happen in a few days? No, of-course not. Greece had the problem of government spending of money that it didn't have (borrowed money) for decades. Greece should never have entered the Euro zone, because Greece was fundamentally screwed up even when Euro zone was being established. Same with many other countries there.

But Greece could keep borrowing with short term papers (ARMs) and it could keep spending money it could never repay. Eventually this became obvious and now there is a depression, which is again, a way for the market to rebalance the equation. A way to allow the scarce resources to be allocated more efficiently. Companies that are inefficient and governments that spend more than they can take in, spend borrowed or stolen money, they must fail so that the credit, the money can be saved and eventually the savings can be used to restart production.

Instead the European union decides it's going to start printing more and more Euros, placing the burden on the people who still produce and pay taxes, be it in Germany or in Switzerland (now, that the Swiss committed economic suicide by hard linking their currency to the Euro). This will not solve the problem for Greece, it will only make the problem bigger for everybody else.

Same thing for USA. Since 1971, when Nixon defaulted on the dollar, the economy has been going down. If you take all sorts of graphs, that compare wealth distribution, compare wages, salaries, purchasing power, manufacturing, government spending, whatever you want, you'll see an interesting thing that happened since about 1971 - there is an edge there, and all these charts show that since then the disparity started growing, the real earning power started going down, the debt started growing much more than before, inflation really took off, all the bad things that eventually do destroy the economy started around that moment.

Of-course to lead to that moment, it took 1913, when the Federal reserve (and IRS) were established in the first place, which allowed for rapid expansion of government.

People don't realize it, but growing government is not a good thing. Government shouldn't be growing all the time, it should do a few things and stay about the same in terms of size and power. A government that is growing all the time signals that the real economy is shrinking all the time and government that is growing is gov't that is getting more powerful, it signals that individual freedoms are shrinking.

That's the combination that eventually destroys the economy, everything. The problem is the government, it's a very lucrative place to be, even if you are very mediocre or just plain stupid. I mean to grow a successful business you have to be productive, you have to work pretty hard, (maybe you have to be luckier than your average guy, but still, it takes a huge effort).

To become wealthy by working for government you have to be cunning, cheating, lying and as unprincipled as possibles - those are the qualities that get rewarded. And those people have the power in their hands. Of-course they'll abuse it for personal gain, what else is new? The problem is that they should never have had that power, they used to be constrained by the law that was set above the government - the Constitution, but they figured out how to get around the law. That's a pretty good explanation as to why so many people in government are lawyers.

Lawyers. Not engineers. Not scientists. Not real business people. Not even just plain folks without anything special about them, who are not lawyers.

I think the next crisis will force the people to review what kind of government they want, what is the function of government, what is the role?

As far as I am concerned, the time of ultra-nationalist ideas must pass, the government shouldn't be negotiating on behalf of businesses, it shouldn't be stealing individual freedoms either. The governments should become more local and decentralized rather than being all encompassing, federal or even State governments. Those things will collapse eventually, hopefully we'll see something sooner than later.

I would much rather have people organize their governments on a local level - municipal, and leave the commerce alone, allow the businesses and people to trade as they want without federal governments, state governments interfering. This will force efficiencies into everything and efficiencies in allocating resources do lead to higher standard of living.

Re:Government fighting the market (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41372453)

"Same thing for USA. Since 1971, when Nixon defaulted on the dollar, the economy has been going down. If you take all sorts of graphs, that compare wealth distribution, compare wages, salaries, purchasing power, manufacturing, government spending, whatever you want, you'll see an interesting thing that happened since about 1971 - there is an edge there, and all these charts show that since then the disparity started growing, the real earning power started going down, the debt started growing much more than before, inflation really took off, all the bad things that eventually do destroy the economy started around that moment."

There is no need to get that fancy. A single number, the purchasing power of the dollar (price levels), is sufficient to illustrate your point [postimage.org] . Alternatively, you can simply flip the graph over vertically, which shows the worth of the dollar over the same time period. Nobody ever shows it that way, though, because it's far too scary [postimage.org] . The latter is the very same graph, just showing the opposite side of the same coin, as it were.

Re:Government fighting the market (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41372467)

Correction: I stated, incorrectly, that purchasing power and price levels were the same things. Actually, the first chart is price levels. Purchasing power (worth) is shown in the second chart.

Re:Government fighting the market (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372395)

Inflation is 11-15% in America? This is completely incorrect, inflation has never even gone above 6% in any given month/year since 1990. Inflation is also not "money printing", it is the value you lose in buying power on your currency per year. Inflation rates recently have been very low. Check the inflation calculator [bls.gov] for yourself. How did this get modded +5?

Re:Government fighting the market (3, Interesting)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41372421)

You are the product of the propaganda machine that I am talking about. The real inflation in USA has not been reported since Nixon either, they have changed the way the inflation is counted enough times for it to mean absolutely nothing.

Same with the GDP numbers, they are completely meaningless. It's a number, it means nothing. It's reversed engineered to fit the necessary levels of propaganda. 70% of it consumption, not production. Consumption of imported goods. 40% of economy is financial manipulations, banking, stock market, whatever. Again, that's not production. Maybe 5% of it is all the manufacturing and agriculture that still exists in USA. The rest of it is government spending, military, all sorts of government contracts.

The real GDP in USA has been falling since 1971. There WAS a bump in 1981, that's when Paul Volcker took the interest rates to 21.5%, which was high enough for people to get back into dollars and government debt purchases. Since then it has been falling steadily again. The GDP is supposed to be deflated by the real inflation numbers, and the real inflation numbers are reverse engineered, manufactured by the government for your consumption.

The real inflation numbers in USA vary between 11 and 15% year to year, and you can trace them by looking at a basket of commodity prices going up, precious metals, oil, even food, etc.

Some people still track inflation the way it was calculated before Nixon's time [shadowstats.com] .

Re:Government fighting the market (4, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 years ago | (#41372973)

You do know that inflation is set by the CPI, which is (wait for it) a basket of commodity prices. The basket contents change periodically, but are relatively stable. If inflation were going up 11-15% per year, I would have seen my real purchasing power go down by half in the past 6 years, and yet it hasn't been anywhere close to that. Most of the stuff I buy is probably averaging 20% higher than it was 5-6 years ago which is (surprise!) about 3.5%. If you just look at gold and gasoline, you're going to get a mighty skewed picture of what "inflation" is.

Now, if you want to talk about the purchasing power of the dollar against some foreign currencies - sure, the dollar has lost ground. I remember a dollar north of 200yen (in the 80s) and at parity with the British pound. Then again, looking over the mid term, the Euro was introduced at $1.25, fairly quickly dropped, then gained ground in the 2000s, peaking during the US financial crisis and when the congress was staring at default, and has settled back to $1.30.

(BTW - I have an old friend who does work on the CPI and PPI, and I can tell you without a doubt that there is no collusion or conspiracy going on. You're welcome to argue what "inflation" means, but I promise they are not cooking the books)

Re:Government fighting the market (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41373389)

The basket of prices does not include many important things, that are excluded supposedly because they are too volatile.

However when reporting on inflation not on a weekly or monthly basis, but instead reporting on inflation per year or even decade, those supposedly 'volatile' goods MUST be included in the numbers.

Instead the calculations always exclude things that people truly use and buy every day. Food, energy, rent, housing, such things. These MUST be included into calculation of price inflation (and I say 'price inflation', I really mean just rising prices. Inflation is money printing, the change in dictionary definition came around 10 years ago, but it doesn't matter, their trying every Orwellian trick in the book, but people shouldn't fall for it [wsj.com] .

Beyond that, the real inflation should be counted against the relative value to gold, which is the real money, it's what people use as real money and it's what governments fight against, they hate real money, that's because real money prevents long terms deficit and debt financing of all that government spending and thus prevents growth of gov't, prevents destruction of individual liberties.

AFAIC gold = freedom and fiat = slavery.

Your old friend may not even realize it, but he is part of the propaganda [wikipedia.org] machine [blogspot.de] .

Re:Government fighting the market (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372735)

You sound just like Peter Schiff, and I agree with you.

Re:Government fighting the market (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372791)

So roman_mir has started a new account after his old one got stuck posting at -1...? Hooray!

UK Banned the 500 euro note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372915)

Before we get all 'holier than though', UK did a disguised currency control when it did large scale Quantitative Easing. It barred hi denomination Euros notes on the excuse of 'terrorists use them'. Seriously, as if a terrorist would draw attention to themselves by changing a 500 Euro note in the UK! Why would their bosses even give them Euros?? Why wouldn't the terrorists be given sterling in the first place! It made absolutely no sense, if you believed it at face value.

In reality they wanted to prevent people withdrawing sterling and buying Euro notes while QE was going on. By barring the high denomination it became impractical to hold euro cash, the quantity would have just been too high. Euro zone countries had also refused to do a currency swap, a currency swap is what USA did when it did a QE, by swapping worthless printed dollars for Euros, it ensured the dollar wouldn't fall in relation to the Euro. In effect Euro would prop up dollar. This was not offered to Gordon Brown because he was despised in Europe.

With money left in the UK banks, the banks were less likely to collapse, and better still if it was in UK Sterling, then QE would dilute it, shifting money from the bank account holder to whichever fat banker the Bank of England decided to hand the money to.

So Argentina did a less subtle form of currency control, but they are hardly the only country to do it, UK does it too.

Re:Government fighting the market (3, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#41373077)

Will you stop with this Austrian nonsense.

1) Inflation is the measure of price increases not the increase in base currency. If the Fed were to create tons of MZM but no increase in minted dollar we would have massive inflation. Conversely if the Fed/Treasury/Mint printed 10x as many dollar but didn't change MZM there wouldn't be any inflation.

2) Inflation generally does at least in the short term increase productivity. The lag between printing of money and raising of prices creates artificial wealth which creates artificial demand. If the economy is demand constrained, which is often the case when governments start engaging in inflationary policies, production increases.

3) "This is why inflation (money printing) hurts the poor much more than the wealthy, because the poor live on various fixed incomes, they are getting less and less with every check, be it a salary or a dividend or a pension check, whatever." In most countries at this point the fixed income is inflation adjusted. The real issue is quite a lot of the bottom 99% are net debtors while the top 1% tend to be creditors. Policies designed to shift wealth from creditors to debtors benefit the bottom not the top.

4) During the period of time prior to the 1930s where we had a lightly regulated financial system we had frequent panics. Once we had a highly regulated financial system we had few if any. As we moved back to a lightly regulated financial system we had several major panics. I'd say the correlation is not that government causes the problem.

5) If busts were just restructuring of debt we wouldn't see panics depress activity in areas of the economy with little or no debt. They would be more localized than they are. The fact that panics seem to depress activity across almost all sectors means that they just depress demand and this sets off a chain reaction.

Re:Government fighting the market (2)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41373325)

Austrian economics is the only economics that we know works, all other theories are used for propaganda, nothing else, they are not useful to predict economic situations and outcomes.

1. Definition of inflation has been updated in dictionaries [wsj.com] to support government propaganda. There is a reason the government doesn't publish M3 numbers anymore, they go against government propaganda.

2. Inflation only does one thing to 'increase productivity', that one thing is equivalent of a pay cut.

When the Fed's chairman (Bernanke right now) talks about 'employment mandate', he is talking about using inflation (*which is his only tool, he has no other tools, all tools he has only use this one hammer: creating money out of thin air and pumping them into the economy one way or another, loans or asset purchases or whatever*), he is talking about DECREASING YOUR WAGE IN REAL TERMS.

That's right. The only reason the economy may 'pick up' in the short term due to higher inflation (stimulus, QE, whatever) is because while your nominal pay check stays the same, your labour is now cheaper to higher in real terms. So the Fed devalues your labour, congratulations. Heads they win, tails you lose.

3. "inflation adjusted" - this is government propaganda. First they underreport inflation by 1000%, then they 'adjust' your fixed incomes to that number, that is 10 times smaller than the real inflation rate.

Policies designed to shift wealth never benefit the bottom, they only benefit the top. Somebody sells an apartment at 70 million and somebody else buys it, how does it benefit the bottom? The bottom ends up paying more for food, energy, rent - the REAL things people pay for every day, not that fake 'basket of goods'.

4. 1930 is infamous, that's when the government truly upped the ante, stepped in with massive stimulus, bail outs, work programs designed to make it look like there is economic activity, while in reality destroying and mis-allocating the scarce resources further. That recession was started by the Fed printing dollars to buy bad UK debt from France. Hoover started with huge purchases of assets, huge money printing, FDR came to power on the promise of austerity but then doubled down on the bail outs and money printing. That recession was created by the Fed and turned into a depression by the Fed and the Treasury and the government (president and the Congress and the Senate and SCOTUS, everybody participated in that disgrace). Since 1947 (when the depression ended with the end of the WWII due to gov't cutting spending by 64% and all taxes by over 30%) USA had massive growth of gov't, which couldn't be sustained on a gold dollar, so 1971 was the time Nixon defaulted and the seventies were a disaster, which shows you to be wrong about the 'post-regulation' era as well.

The stagflation was the final nail in the coffin of Keynesian charlatanism. It was a paradox, impossible by Keynesian standards, but there is nothing impossible about inflation and rising unemployment. It's very simple: the production was falling even faster than inflation, so unemployment was rising.

5. The busts are restructuring of the debt, and the debt touches everything. When the gov't is half of the economy (and money is half of every transaction) you are not safe in any part of the economy, there is debt in everything. Even if you are doing something with no debt and you have customers and profits, your profits are going to disappear once your customers disappear, and they will disappear because they are in massive debt and have no productive jobs themselves.

In your inbox soon... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372097)

Dear Sir
I am a successful Argentinian businessman who is in urgent need of your assistance. I have the sum of $10,000,000 equivalent in US Dollars which I need to transfer to an associate of mine in this country. Due to restrictive government policy, we require a 3rd party intermediary located outside the country. If you are willing to provide your services for this task, we will compensate you the sum of $5,000 USD. Please contact me as soon as possible, urgency is high in our minds to accomplish this transaction.
Our email address is: 9racdge82@mailvault.com

Sincerely,
Your Future Associates

Re:In your inbox soon... (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 2 years ago | (#41372425)

You jest, but that was my first thought too. I suspect that we'll see a sharp uptick in 419s written in Spanish over the next few months now that there are some nice [deljuego.com.ar] official [bbc.co.uk] media [thenextweb.com] reports [fayerwayer.com] from third parties to lend some credence to the scam.

Re:In your inbox soon... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41372511)

"... now that there are some nice official media reports from third parties to lend some credence to the scam."

No... now that there are some nice official media reports that indicate that it's not a scam, but a potentially legit investment.

bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372141)

this is why we need bitcoin or alikes, a currency without government regulation.

Failzo8rs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372237)

chosen, whatev

http://www.mazca.net (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372265)

Your Blog gave us useful information to work. You have done an amazing job! I share this to my friends.
Audit in Dubai [slashdot.org]

Currency speculation. (0)

Alex Belits (437) | about 2 years ago | (#41372327)

Currency speculation is a human right!!! Everyone is entitled to exploit government-subsidized industries by endlessly converting currency in a way specifically prohibited by the government to support development of a healthy and safe development of economy!

Next, we should defend the right to steal and sell drugs from hospitals' emergency rooms!

</sarcasm>

Re:Currency speculation. (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41372437)

Freedom is a human right.

There shouldn't be any government subsidized industries, by the way, that's how economies are destroyed - with government getting into business.

DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372571)

You can always visit the fucking fauklands !! Oh, wait !! No you can't !! The Brits kicked your ass out of there !! Sheffield was a lucky shot !! Right then !! Carry on !!

No, A French Missile (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372881)

They had less than 10 Missiles. If they had 200, they would have annihilated the RN down there. Not Freedom Missiles. French Missiles.

Sounds like an argument for why (1)

ToddInSF (765534) | about 2 years ago | (#41372783)

everyone should be using bitcoins.

Economic freedom IS THE most fundamental freedom there is; without it, ALL other freedoms become comparatively trivial.

Re:Sounds like an argument for why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373011)

I couldn't disagree more.

For me, the most important fundamental freedom concerns thought. Laws against certain thoughts or lines of reason combined with the technology and resources to enforce them would be far greater abuse than anything restricting trade. At best, economic freedom could be considered similar to the "right" to private consensual communication between adults (trading virtual goods and commodities) but this is not as vital as freedom of thought by any stretch.

I'm scared (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372811)

Really, I'm very scared. The government and some government related organizations are publicly destroying our freedoms little by little. It's not only about the economy, they're actually persecuting people and organizations that do not agree with their policies.

They're even imposing fines to private consulting companies that publish inflation percentages that do not match with the 'official' ones.
I just don't know what to do anymore.

The new policies basically screwed up a trip I've been planning for a year, doing extra hours at work and trying to save every argentine peso. It's not fair. And I was going to study, not to visit Disney Land.

Its draconian (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41372939)

Our goverment thinks that because they got 54% last elections, they have absolut control. Having more than 54% means they have quorum in the senate, they can move forward anything our president want. That also means that they don't have to explain anything to anyone. They subsidize poverty (if you worked all your life and you got fired, you are screwed. But if you are poor and don't have a job, you will get money. And more money for each of your sons), so (most) poor people don't want to work anymore. All hard workers from medium class know that our currency can't be trust when hard times comes (anyone here remembers about 'corralito'?), but out gov't is taking away that too, and hyper-controlling everything you do so they can collect more taxes.
Now, there are few media groups that are not aligned with the gov't, they are having problems as well. One of the biggest media groups (group Clarin) is about to be disarmed next Dec 7. And the gov't spend a LOT of money in official media and propaganda to tell the 'official' story (like there is no inflation, there is no insecurity, there is no poverty, there is no unemployment)

Next presidential elextions will ocurr in 2015, we still have a long way ahead...

The Curse Of Catholicism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41373113)

..that is what you have. If you subscribe to the notion that there are absolute authorities on earth, it is obvious that the government will assume that role.

So - go to the street and protest that authoritarianism. Go into politics and try to fight all that intrasparency and corruption. Quit the church. They will only support all the manipulations by the rich and powerful. Of course it will be called a "social program to help the needy". When in reality it is a program to enrich the ruling party's members. And channel lots of money to the church and the perverts who are their clergy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>