The Liberation of Venezuela

Discussion of current events
Post Reply
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 3432
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Liberation of Venezuela

Post by Doc » Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:50 am

“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 4128
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Chavez-Maduro: the final nail in Venezuela's coffin?

Post by neverfail » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:17 pm

Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:11 am

From 1960 until Chavez took over Venezuela it was a democracy. It had problems but there was medicine and food people weren't dying, weren't fleeing the country in millions.
That goes without saying!

Just pointing out that the Chavez-Maduro contribution resembles the final straw that broke the camel's back. The camel had already been loaded up by a string of governments that preceded Chavez.

neverfail
Posts: 4128
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Chavez-Maduro: the final nail in Venezuela's coffin?

Post by neverfail » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:19 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:35 am

It went from laizez faire capitalism to Socialism, that's why. Even Peron's fascism was a form of Socialism.
More likely it went from sound economic management to being ruled by f***wits!

neverfail
Posts: 4128
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Chavez-Maduro: the final nail in Venezuela's coffin?

Post by neverfail » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:00 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:59 am
neverfail wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:42 am

Beginning around 1900, it reminds me of Argentina's decline from one of the three or four wealthiest (wealthiest in terms of average real incomes and general living standards) countries on earth down to current basket case status.
Argentina is to me the most puzzling country in the world. How can a richly endowed country in natural resources and agricultural potential, with an educated population mostly of European descent, be so incapable of providing its people with a high standard of living. What the hell are doing wrong?...

Argentina fascinates everyone that way Sertorio.

I do not claim to have a pat explanation either. Yet I have a special interest in the place because it reminds me so much of "Australia's latino alter ego". Over the years I have met a number of immigrant-settlers from Argentina who were virtually of one mind on how much my country reminds them of theirs. An immigrant close friend from Uruguay (Uruguay is like a cross-border, scaled down extension of Argentina in socio-economic terms) even told me "when we (she and her family) first arrived in Australia the way of life was already so familiar to us it needed no explanation. Our only challenge was to learn fluent English"

Consider the similarities.

Both are located deep in the earth's southern hemisphere in "end of the Earth" geographic locations. Both developed "grassland" (livestock ranching) economies in response to beconnong but distant markets in the northern hemisphere. The most important of these by far was for both countries the United Kingdom.

Both grew from nothing at the beginning of the 19th century, relying on repeat waves of immigration from Europe to populate themselves. Both by the beginning of the 20th offered their settler inhabitants living standards that were among the very best the world had on offer at the time.

Both attracted capital investment from abroad. The biggest single item being the buildup of railway networks to transport the surplus farm produce down to seaports for despatch by sea to the UK market. British capital investment; technology transfers and knowhow were crucial. However there was a difference. Whereas Argentina attracted direct portfolio investment from Britain, the Australian colonies had to use the good offices of their government to solicit loans from the big London merchant banks. So while Argentina ended up with with a (British) private enterprise system of railways Australia developed state owned rail networks. To this day only a couple of thousand kilometers of track are not publically owned out here.
..........................................................................................................

I get the impression that Argentina in those halcyon years did even better than Australia because of its Atlantic coast location. It was much closer to its primary overseas market than Australia so it gained the advantage of cheaper freight costs for its exportable commodities - which meant better returns for producers. Since the same country tended to be the main source of imports for both countries it also (for the same reason) meant that Argentina benefited from (at retail level) cheaper imports especially in finished products.

Australia, more distant from both market and source of imports would have (sort of) needed to struggle harder.

What went wrong? Partly, I believe, it was something that no Argentine (or Australian) government could be held accountable for. Shifting global trade patterns.

Post WW2 Britain, burdened by a massive amount of post-War debt, was simply no longer the dynamic trading partner that it has been before the first World war. This reflected itself in a relatively stagnant export trade along with globally low prices for the bulk commodities that these southern grassland countries were selling to the world.

It was not just Australia and Argentina who suffered the shortfall. New Zealand suffered a current account crisis in 1958 that set that country back. I first visited New Zealand in 1967. The decline in its fortunes were both visible and palpable. Like Argentina, Australia and uruguay NZ was another southern grasslands country whose own growth had previously been stimulated by the very same factors as the other three.

So why did not Australia follow in their footsteps? All other things being equal we should have. Australia found a reprieve however.

In 1955, despite much opposition at home, especially from our still numerous World War Two veterans, Australia signed its first trade pact ever with Japan. The Japanese were very glad to get that trade treaty signed because at the time Japan was something of an international outcast for the same reasons as Germany and italy. The signing of post WW2 Japan's first ever treaty with any foreign country was considered in Tokyo as being the first step in Japan's diplomatic rehabilitation; its re-acceptance into the international community.

From that point on Australia's trade with Japan went from strength to strength. In 1960 Japan eclipsed Britain as our biggest export market and the following year superseded the UK as our biggest overall external partner I.e. exports and imports combined). That Japan-Australia trade treaty provided the broad template for our future dealings with other Asian markets as these progressively emerged.

In Buenos Aries by contrast they must have been "asleep at the switch": apparently unmindful of the opportunities emerging in Asia. In mitigation however, I must point out once again the importance of location.

If (as I pointed out earlier) Argentina had the edge on Australia with respect to its comparative closeness to the UK then with the emergence of Asia-Pacific (led by Japan) as the world's most dynamic trading region the shoe now decidedly shifted to the other foot.

Australia had been shocked out of our infatuation with Britain by the fact that in 1942 we were staring the prospect of imminent invasion by the Japanese Imperial armed forces. Neither Argentina, Uruguay nor even New Zealand had the same WW2 historic experience so I suspect this allowed all three to continue living in then past buoyed by memories of past glories.

With hindsight, the Japanese in 1942 may have done us a huge favour.

neverfail
Posts: 4128
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: the rise and demise of Argentina.

Post by neverfail » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:34 pm

Sorry, folks. I should have changed the subtitle from Venezuela to the (off topic) the rise and demise of Argentina. My mistake!

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3303
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Chavez-Maduro: the final nail in Venezuela's coffin?

Post by cassowary » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:15 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:19 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:35 am

It went from laizez faire capitalism to Socialism, that's why. Even Peron's fascism was a form of Socialism.
More likely it went from sound economic management to being ruled by f***wits!
Yeah, that's because Juan Peron adopted Socialist policies. See this article:

How Socialism ruined Argentina by Manuel Tainoira

Excerpts:

No the reasons for Argentina's decline lie elsewhere. The turning point is very clear鍟he rule of Juan Perón from 1946 to 1955, and the socialist policies he imposed on the Argentine econ觔my.
A ruthless demagogue, Perón conditioned all his gov苟rnment acts to the political advantages they could provide him. He soon found that socialist economic policies were easily accepted by over half the Argentine population. Thus, he proceeded to close the economy to international commerce, to nationalize public services, and to establish the state management of most economic activities, either directly or through regulations. His political success was such that Perón's main opposition party, the Radicals, changed its own platform to espouse these same economic ideas. This trend toward state control was indirectly encouraged by the wave of socialism then sweeping through most of Europe.


Remember what Aristotle said?
In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.
... Aristotle
A more accurate way to put it would be that those with below average income outnumber those with above average income. So, to win elections, politicians must promise to rob those with above average income to pay those with below average income for their votes.

Argentina would have done better if Peron kept a market economy and limit its Socialism to a welfare state, like the Nordic countries. But he had to nationalize industries and protect inefficient Argentinian companies from foreign competition.
Perón nationalized the railroads, airlines, buses, comunications, foreign trade, and energy, among other activities. The immediate effects were a drastic deterioration of service and huge deficits. Consider a few examples. In 1945 Argentina had 48 percent of the telephones installed in Latin America. Today that percentage has fallen to 7 percent. There are 1.5 million phone lines, but there are also one million pending applications that cannot be satisfied by the company.


Ownership or at least control of the assets of production is a staple of Socialist ideology because they hate Capitalism and distrust the free market. The result is disaster.
That which government does not own it controls with regulation. The creation of a business in Argentina re訂uires all sorts of permits and approvals. If the applicant happens to be a foreigner, the procedure will require years. Bureaucratic procedures have become so complex and uncertain that there has evolved a new profession of "experts" who, for a fee, will handle them.
Yep, over regulation will kill entrepreneurship. At its root is the Marxist loathing of the free market. What is the free market? The answer is all of us. We are buyers and sellers at the same time. We sell our services to our employers or directly to our clients if self employed. At the same time, we buy goods and services from others.

Regulation means the government is putting a strait-jacket on all of us. They are taking away our freedom to participate in economic activity. They want to tell us what to do. They don't trust us and want to control us. It is the beginning of dictatorship. That is why all the worst mass murderers in history all considered themselves Socialist - Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro etc.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The next question to ask is why did they elect such a leader as Peron?

This may have something to do with culture. North America and Australia are originally populated by North Europeans while Argentina was populated by South Europeans. Let's face it. The South Europeans, relative to the North Europeans, are bums. Sorry Sertorio. (I actually like South Europeans better. When I was young, I had an Italian girlfriend. I like wine better than beer and like Italian food very much. )

Something in their culture make them believe it is ok to adopt Socialist policies which is robbing Peter to pay Paul. They don't feel guilty about using their vote to rob someone to benefit themselves. I think the Protestant faith teaches us the success is a sign of God's blessings. This attitude fends off the feeling of envy and so inoculated North America and Australia from going full blown Socialist.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 4128
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Chavez-Maduro: the final nail in Venezuela's coffin?

Post by neverfail » Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:52 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:15 pm


Remember what Aristotle said?
In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.
... Aristotle
CASSOWARY: that is a standard borrowed catchphrase of yours that I have seen repeatedly on this website.

While I found your link explaining how all of the statism brought in by the Peron administration most illuminating, I stand by my earlier claim that Argentina has not been helped by the massive shift in global trade patterns (the dynamic of international trade) away from the North Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific region . Result = improved advantage to Australia and New Zealand: enhanced handicap to the likes of Argentina and Uruguay.

Nations turn to socialism when they have reason to believe that capitalism has failed them. If Australia today shows stronger leanings towards private entrepreneurship than Argentina, I would suggest that a sizeable part of the reason is that we have the good fortune to be domiciled in a region of the world that challenges this side of us to come out and engage.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Democracy? CASSOWARY: are you unaware that Juan Peron first came into government via a military coup?

Yes, he was an army officer by profession.

Argentina's old democracy has come to an end years before he first became President in 1946.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per% ... %80%931946

President Edelmiro Farrell (left) and his benefactor, Vice President Juan Perón, in April 1945.
In 1943 a coup d'état was led by General Arturo Rawson against conservative President Ramón Castillo, who had been fraudulently elected to office.[6] The military was opposed to Governor Robustiano Patrón Costas, Castillo's hand-picked successor, who was the principal landowner in Salta Province, as well as a main stockholder in its sugar industry.

As a colonel and his power of premier minister, Perón took a significant part in the military coup by the GOU (United Officers' Group, a secret society) against the conservative civilian government of Castillo. At first an assistant to Secretary of War General Edelmiro Farrell, under the administration of General Pedro Ramírez, he later became the head of the then-insignificant Department of Labour. Perón's work in the Labour Department witnessed the passage of a broad range of progressive social reforms designed to improve working conditions,[7] and led to an alliance with the socialist and syndicalist movements in the Argentine labour unions. This caused his power and influence to increase in the military government.[8]

After the coup, socialists from the CGT-Nº1 labour union, through mercantile labour leader Ángel Borlenghi and railway union lawyer Juan Atilio Bramuglia, made contact with Perón and fellow GOU Colonel Domingo Mercante. They established an alliance to promote labour laws that had long been demanded by the workers' movement, to strengthen the unions, and to transform the Department of Labour into a more significant government office. Perón had the Department of Labour elevated to a cabinet-level secretariat in November 1943.[9]


Demonstration for Perón's release on 17 October 1945
Following the devastating January 1944 San Juan earthquake, which claimed over 10,000 lives and leveled the Andes range city, Perón became nationally prominent in relief efforts. Junta leader Pedro Ramírez entrusted fundraising efforts to him, and Perón marshaled celebrities from Argentina's large film industry and other public figures. For months, a giant thermometer hung from the Buenos Aires Obelisk to track the fundraising. The effort's success and relief for earthquake victims earned Perón widespread public approval. At this time, he met a minor radio matinee star, Eva Duarte.[2]


The Peróns at their 1945 wedding
Following President Ramírez's January 1944 suspension of diplomatic relations with the Axis Powers (against whom the new junta would declare war in March 1945), the GOU junta unseated him in favor of General Edelmiro Farrell. For contributing to his success, Perón was appointed Vice President and Secretary of War, while retaining his Labour portfolio. As Minister of Labour, Perón established the INPS (the first national social insurance system in Argentina), settled industrial disputes in favour of labour unions (as long as their leaders pledged political allegiance to him), and introduced a wide range of social welfare benefits for unionised workers.[10]

Employers were forced to improve working conditions and to provide severance pay and accident compensation, the conditions under which workers could be dismissed were restricted, a system of labour courts to handle the grievances of workers was established, the working day was reduced in various industries, and paid holidays/vacations were generalised to the entire workforce. Perón also passed a law providing minimum wages, maximum hours and vacations for rural workers, froze rural rents, presided over a large increase in rural wages, and helped lumber, wine, sugar and migrant workers organize themselves. From 1943 to 1946, real wages grew by only 4%, but in 1945 Perón established two new institutions that would later increase wages: the “aguinaldo” (a bonus that provided each worker with a lump sum at the end of the year amounting to one-twelfth of the annual wage) and the National Institute of Compensation, which implemented a minimum wage and collected data on living standards, prices, and wages.[11] Leveraging his authority on behalf of striking abattoir workers and the right to unionise, Perón became increasingly thought of as presidential timber.[clarification needed]

On 18 September 1945, he delivered an address billed as "from work to home and from home to work". The speech, prefaced by an excoriation of the conservative opposition, provoked an ovation by declaring that "we've passed social reforms to make the Argentine people proud to live where they live, once again." This move fed growing rivalries against Perón and on 9 October 1945, he was forced to resign by opponents within the armed forces. Arrested four days later, he was released due to mass demonstrations organised by the CGT and other supporters; 17 October was later commemorated as Loyalty Day. His paramour, Eva Duarte, became hugely popular after helping organize the demonstration; known as "Evita", she helped Perón gain support with labour and women's groups. She and Perón were married on 22 October.[2]
Do not underestimate the role played by his Evita in helping Juan to become popular. She, not he, was the one adored by the crowds.

Juan Peron, with considerable help from Eva Duarte, formed a mass movement based upon the labour unions solely to deter the army from staging a military coup against them . For the Argentine public the choice must have been that stark: Peronism or the military. No third choice!

If you wanted the army to stay out of government the only feasible alternative was to join the Peronists.

Please don't make me feel ill by blaming Argentina's predicament on "democracy' - your standard knee jerk response. In Argentina's case democracy turned out to have been a will-of-the-wisp. I suspect that it still is.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 3432
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Liberation of Venezuela

Post by Doc » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:10 am

https://panampost.com/sabrina-martin/20 ... -networks/

Mysterious Turkish Company Helps Maduro Extract Gold to Fund his Corruption Networks
Turkey has played an increasingly large role in facilitating socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro's longevity in power.
“Here, the government tells the Turkish companies: ‘We will give you the gold mine, you create the facilities, 70% of the mine will be yours and 30% will belong to the state’. There are several companies making such agreements here,” he told BBC Turkey.

In the absence of oil production in Venezuela, Maduro is desperate to seek other ways to “self-finance” in order to stay in power.

Maduro’s international actions and agreements show that he has handed over part of the country’s economy to Russia, China, and Turkey, all with the intention of staying in power.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2882
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Chavez-Maduro: the final nail in Venezuela's coffin?

Post by Sertorio » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:19 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:15 pm

Yep, over regulation will kill entrepreneurship. At its root is the Marxist loathing of the free market. What is the free market? The answer is all of us. We are buyers and sellers at the same time. We sell our services to our employers or directly to our clients if self employed. At the same time, we buy goods and services from others.

Regulation means the government is putting a strait-jacket on all of us. They are taking away our freedom to participate in economic activity. They want to tell us what to do. They don't trust us and want to control us. It is the beginning of dictatorship. That is why all the worst mass murderers in history all considered themselves Socialist - Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro etc.

(...)

Something in their culture make them believe it is ok to adopt Socialist policies which is robbing Peter to pay Paul. They don't feel guilty about using their vote to rob someone to benefit themselves. I think the Protestant faith teaches us the success is a sign of God's blessings. This attitude fends off the feeling of envy and so inoculated North America and Australia from going full blown Socialist.
Socialism came about because capitalism doesn't care about people, it only cares about profits. To capitalism, people are either consumers or productive tools, never beings with dignity, feelings, needs and dreams. People are to be exploited, either by having them consuming what capitalist firms produce - independently of the need or lack of need for those goods or services -, or by having them produce as much as humanely possible for a salary as small as feasible. To fight such predatory system people had to invent something as distant as possible from capitalism. Socialism was the answer, and while radical socialism may have created as many problems as it has solved, there are less brutal approaches to socialism which may in fact make people happier without making them poorer. The problem with making socialism work is the fact that socialist politicians are no less greedy and ambitious as capitalist ones. Sooner or later many socialist politicians will subvert the system in order to personally benefit, and they even end up selling themselves to the big capitalists in order to get richer. In other words, a socialist oligarchy is no better than a capitalist one, and the common people are equally forgotten by both. It will take an above average enlightened people to avoid these pitfalls. Will we see it in our lifetimes? Probably not, but I will keep trying...

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3303
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Chavez-Maduro: the final nail in Venezuela's coffin?

Post by cassowary » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:59 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:52 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:15 pm


Remember what Aristotle said?
In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.
... Aristotle
CASSOWARY: that is a standard borrowed catchphrase of yours that I have seen repeatedly on this website.

While I found your link explaining how all of the statism brought in by the Peron administration most illuminating, I stand by my earlier claim that Argentina has not been helped by the massive shift in global trade patterns (the dynamic of international trade) away from the North Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific region . Result = improved advantage to Australia and New Zealand: enhanced handicap to the likes of Argentina and Uruguay.

Nations turn to socialism when they have reason to believe that capitalism has failed them. If Australia today shows stronger leanings towards private entrepreneurship than Argentina, I would suggest that a sizeable part of the reason is that we have the good fortune to be domiciled in a region of the world that challenges this side of us to come out and engage.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Democracy? CASSOWARY: are you unaware that Juan Peron first came into government via a military coup?

Yes, he was an army officer by profession.

Argentina's old democracy has come to an end years before he first became President in 1946.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per% ... %80%931946

President Edelmiro Farrell (left) and his benefactor, Vice President Juan Perón, in April 1945.
In 1943 a coup d'état was led by General Arturo Rawson against conservative President Ramón Castillo, who had been fraudulently elected to office.[6] The military was opposed to Governor Robustiano Patrón Costas, Castillo's hand-picked successor, who was the principal landowner in Salta Province, as well as a main stockholder in its sugar industry.

As a colonel and his power of premier minister, Perón took a significant part in the military coup by the GOU (United Officers' Group, a secret society) against the conservative civilian government of Castillo. At first an assistant to Secretary of War General Edelmiro Farrell, under the administration of General Pedro Ramírez, he later became the head of the then-insignificant Department of Labour. Perón's work in the Labour Department witnessed the passage of a broad range of progressive social reforms designed to improve working conditions,[7] and led to an alliance with the socialist and syndicalist movements in the Argentine labour unions. This caused his power and influence to increase in the military government.[8]

After the coup, socialists from the CGT-Nº1 labour union, through mercantile labour leader Ángel Borlenghi and railway union lawyer Juan Atilio Bramuglia, made contact with Perón and fellow GOU Colonel Domingo Mercante. They established an alliance to promote labour laws that had long been demanded by the workers' movement, to strengthen the unions, and to transform the Department of Labour into a more significant government office. Perón had the Department of Labour elevated to a cabinet-level secretariat in November 1943.[9]


Demonstration for Perón's release on 17 October 1945
Following the devastating January 1944 San Juan earthquake, which claimed over 10,000 lives and leveled the Andes range city, Perón became nationally prominent in relief efforts. Junta leader Pedro Ramírez entrusted fundraising efforts to him, and Perón marshaled celebrities from Argentina's large film industry and other public figures. For months, a giant thermometer hung from the Buenos Aires Obelisk to track the fundraising. The effort's success and relief for earthquake victims earned Perón widespread public approval. At this time, he met a minor radio matinee star, Eva Duarte.[2]


The Peróns at their 1945 wedding
Following President Ramírez's January 1944 suspension of diplomatic relations with the Axis Powers (against whom the new junta would declare war in March 1945), the GOU junta unseated him in favor of General Edelmiro Farrell. For contributing to his success, Perón was appointed Vice President and Secretary of War, while retaining his Labour portfolio. As Minister of Labour, Perón established the INPS (the first national social insurance system in Argentina), settled industrial disputes in favour of labour unions (as long as their leaders pledged political allegiance to him), and introduced a wide range of social welfare benefits for unionised workers.[10]

Employers were forced to improve working conditions and to provide severance pay and accident compensation, the conditions under which workers could be dismissed were restricted, a system of labour courts to handle the grievances of workers was established, the working day was reduced in various industries, and paid holidays/vacations were generalised to the entire workforce. Perón also passed a law providing minimum wages, maximum hours and vacations for rural workers, froze rural rents, presided over a large increase in rural wages, and helped lumber, wine, sugar and migrant workers organize themselves. From 1943 to 1946, real wages grew by only 4%, but in 1945 Perón established two new institutions that would later increase wages: the “aguinaldo” (a bonus that provided each worker with a lump sum at the end of the year amounting to one-twelfth of the annual wage) and the National Institute of Compensation, which implemented a minimum wage and collected data on living standards, prices, and wages.[11] Leveraging his authority on behalf of striking abattoir workers and the right to unionise, Perón became increasingly thought of as presidential timber.[clarification needed]

On 18 September 1945, he delivered an address billed as "from work to home and from home to work". The speech, prefaced by an excoriation of the conservative opposition, provoked an ovation by declaring that "we've passed social reforms to make the Argentine people proud to live where they live, once again." This move fed growing rivalries against Perón and on 9 October 1945, he was forced to resign by opponents within the armed forces. Arrested four days later, he was released due to mass demonstrations organised by the CGT and other supporters; 17 October was later commemorated as Loyalty Day. His paramour, Eva Duarte, became hugely popular after helping organize the demonstration; known as "Evita", she helped Perón gain support with labour and women's groups. She and Perón were married on 22 October.[2]
Do not underestimate the role played by his Evita in helping Juan to become popular. She, not he, was the one adored by the crowds.

Juan Peron, with considerable help from Eva Duarte, formed a mass movement based upon the labour unions solely to deter the army from staging a military coup against them . For the Argentine public the choice must have been that stark: Peronism or the military. No third choice!

If you wanted the army to stay out of government the only feasible alternative was to join the Peronists.

Please don't make me feel ill by blaming Argentina's predicament on "democracy' - your standard knee jerk response. In Argentina's case democracy turned out to have been a will-of-the-wisp. I suspect that it still is.
First of all, Neverfail, Peron was elected in 1946 Presidential election. He was not brought to power in a coup. See your own link.

Excerpt:
Perón and his running mate, Hortensio Quijano, leveraged popular support to victory over a Radical Civic Union-led opposition alliance by about 11% in the February 24, 1946 presidential elections.
The 56:44 split is roughly what I would expect. From my observation of the US, 60% of the population earn less than the average income while 40% earn above the average income. So, I assume the ratio is about the same in most countries, including Argentina.

Thus a clever politician like Peron would side with the majority by promising to redistribute the money from the minority to the majority. What Aristotle said remains very true. So I like to quote him.

Had the military triumphed and kept Peron in jail, Argentina would have been spared Peron's Socialist policies. See your own quote. MInimum wage, laws that favor the unions, state ownership etc are all leftist prescriptions. Such policies led to economic disaster.

After the war, Europe was rebuilding. So there should also be ample opportunity for Argentina to benefit and grow economically. But alas, it took the wrong economic policies.
The Imp :D

Post Reply