I found it worth the read, maybe you will, too.
Short excerpt:
Peronism endured, and indeed endures: Argentina’s current president calls herself a Peronist, and so did her predecessor, who happens to be her husband. One reason is that, in a limited way and under its own distorted terms, it succeeded. The state had become strong. The government owned and ran not just natural monopolies such as water and electricity but anything that looked big and strategic – steel, chemicals, car factories. The economy did industrialise. But it was still falling behind. In 1950 Argentine income per head was twice that of Spain, its former coloniser. By 1975 the average Spaniard was richer than the average Argentine. Argentines were almost three times richer than Japanese in the 1950s; by the early 1980s the ratio had been reversed. Argentina’s was a fragile and superficial progress that masked relative decline.
3 comments:
KT, that paragraph reminds me somewhat of what we are seeing now wrt to the Obama Administration.
Even while the unemployment figures are higher than what the Obama people said they would be even with porkulus, they are beginning to posture that things would be much, much worse were it not for porkulus.
You think things are crappy now? Thank goodnees we came along so they didn't get a lot crappier.
Dean,
The whole article was filled with parallels. For one, you get the sense that Juan and Evita would have loved the speech at Invesco Field, just for the sheer pageantry of the thing.
The economic aspects are pretty much spot on.
Great link. Thanks. The hallmark of peronism is the corruption of the rule of law for political purposes. See Chrysler bankruptcy for details.
Post a Comment