English dubbed version:
Original version in Spanish:
Saker Message:
English dubbed version:
Original version in Spanish:
She is awesome. This is an hour-and-twenty-minute-long extemporaneous speech in which she displays not only a thoroughly systematic viewpoint but an apparently total-recall memory. America’s politicians wouldn’t be able to compete successfully against her (except, like Hillary Clinton, in fundraising, where Kirchner wouldn’t be able to compete at all). Kirchner seems much too good to be able to succeed in American politics.
Yes! — In a way she reminds me of Vladimir Putin — practical and methodical, forthright and to the point, her insightful mind clear as crystal and like him fearless to boot she is too!
Cristina Fernandez de Kircher talks and talks about all her achievements and everything she has done so terribly well but ignores the fact that her chosen successor was not elected, that the people were fed up with ‘Kirchnerismo’ and its clientelism, the corruption of her government, the destruction of wealth that was caused through policies, the capital controls imposed on them.
She doesn’t talk about how the private sector suffered. While most economies in South America were booming, Argentina was either barely growing or going through a recession. Her husband before her and she herself adopted a milder version of Chavismo, this set Argentina on the same track as the Caribbean country. However, unlike in Venezuela Argentina’s institutions were much stronger and resisted their undermining, so she left office and another political party took over, which is now mending some of her disastrous policies. (Although there is no doubt about Macri’s loyalties towards Wall Street).
The fact that important documents of her government were destroyed shortly before leaving office and one of her former ministers was caught throwing 8.9 million USD of cash over a fence into a nunnery recently, leave a bitter aftertaste to the grand words she is using in this interview.
There is no space for self-reflection, for remorse or even critique, instead she already is full of critique for the incumbent government. Without realizing that much of the difficulties the country is now going through are still caused by her own policy.
Argentina, same as with other South American countries, needs to learn to resist populist shiny prominent politicians that promise everything to the people while squandering and wasting the resources of their rich nations. I hope a thorough and neutral investigation will take place in some of the more ominous cases of her years in power, such as the murder of the famous attorney general Alberto Nisman or the 180 degree turn on YPF. This will not only bring closure to the chapter Kirchnerismo in Argentina but also help ensure that current and future governments know they will be accounted for.
Get over your presumption.
Realignment takes time in the best of environments, much less one beset by US and Israeli capital, through UK banks.
Your argument is tired, repeated enough to hold nothing but your belief in orthodox propaganda to reinforce the status quo.
No more time for your purile argument.
Good luck.
A summary of Bill Mitchell on the case of Argentina:
Beginning in 1991 and until 2001, Argentina lost control of its currency by pegging it to the dollar and running up debt (public and private) in US dollars. Hence they were reliant on export income to remain solvent. When their export markets recessed they were unable to pay their foreign-currency debts.
Further, by abandoning the peg, they created massive liabilities in a foreign currency and had to take their chances on default. Because they could not longer gain the foreign exchange reserves to maintain it, Argentina’s currency went into freefall for a while, with all the negative short-term consequences that come with that dynamic.
The original decision to peg to the dollar was a serious mistake, because it did not fit the trade and production structre of the Argintine economy. It faced quite different external shocks than those that the US had to deal with. The US predominantly traded with countries whose own currencies fluctuated in line with the US dollar. Argentina was a very open economy with a small non-tradables domestic sector. So it took the brunt of terms of trade swings.
Both monetary and fiscal policy were constrained by the peg arrangement. The central bank could only issue pesos if they were backed by US . So dollars had to be earned through net exports which would then allow the domestic policy to expand.
However, the neo-liberals made matters worse with wide scale privatisation, cuts to social security, and deregulation of the financial sector, the latter which burdened the economy with massive amounts of foreign-currency denominated debt.
The wheel started to come off in the late 90’s when the export markets started to decline, and the peso became overvalued—while the dollar strengthened. This led to loss of competitiveness in the export markets.
Things started to come unstuck in the late 1990s as export markets started to decline and the peso became seriously over-valued (as the US dollar strengthened) with subsequent loss of competitiveness in the export markets. By this time there was recession and high unemployment. The country was headed towards insolvency.
Here is where neo-liberal racket comes in: austerity by way of tax increases to appease the bond markets who are taking advantage of high premiums on foreign debt. This is like breaking the legs on a bed-ridden patient to make sure he won’t leave his bed.
What Argentina need was a population who could buy things, not a population who would buy less because they were being over-taxed. IMF propaganda brainwashing always tells the country that their austerity measures will “encourage investment”—as if a country in recession constitutes a good investment. But of course, the IMF wants to keep a country in perpectual debt so that it can eventually loot the country by way of massive privatizations on the part of the 1%. Can’t pay your debts? No problem, we roll the debt over (“bail you out”) for you, and meanwhile sell all your resources.
With riots starting towards the end of 2001, the government finally understood that their ideas were dead wrong. In 2002, they defaulted on government debt. Dollar denominated debt was converted to pesos and terms renegotiated.
Initially, Foreign direct investment dried up when the default was announced. Moreover, the Argentine government could not service the debt as its foreign currency reserves were gone. Very fortunately, they understood that at that point borrowing from the IMF would have required one their austerity packages, and that under the circumstances it would have led to outright revolution.
Finally, in 2005 the government completed a deal: most of the defaulted bonds were swapped for others of much lower value with longer maturities.
The entire crisis was engendered by the faulty neo-liberal policy of the 1990s – the peg and convertibility. The only solution was arrived at: Argentina must regain its currency sovereignty.
A country sovereign in its currency can spend the currency it creates into the economy to create aggregate demand. Its exchange rate is no longer tied to the dollar’s performance; its fiscal policy is no longer dependent on the quantity of dollars the government could accumulate by exporting; and its domestic interest rate now is under control of its central bank.
The government now understood that it had to adopt a domestically-oriented growth strategy. Newly elected President Kirchner initiated a massive job creation program that guaranteed employment for poor heads of households. Within four months, the Plan Jefes y Jefas de Hogar (Heads of Households Plan) had created jobs for 2 million participants which was around 13 per cent of the labor force. This not only helped to quell social unrest by providing income to Argentina’s poorest families, but it also put the economy on the road to recovery. Needless to say, these sorts of initiatives are anathema to the 1% elites who also control the media.
Argentina that a country with huge foreign debt obligations can default successfully and enjoy renewed fortune based on domestic employment growth strategies and more inclusive welfare policies without being bludgeoned by the IMF racket. The truth is that governments that are sovereign do not have to be imprisoned by global financial markets.
The real exchange rate for the peso peaked in October 2001, and the low point was in 2002, after which it rose and stabilised around 45. This entirely to be expected depreciation brought with it, on the other hand, a massive boost to international competitiveness. Argentine exports became much cheaper and demand grew rapidly at the same time as import demand fell because of the rise in prices in the newly restored local currency.
By the the mid-2000s the Government actually had to take measures to stop the peso appreciating further given the size of its trade surplus. The central bank acquired huge stockpiles of foreign reserves (USDs mainly) by selling pesos in the foreign exchange market. Contrary to certain uninformed opinions, there were plenty of buyers for this depreciating currency.
The foreign exchange intervention of the central bank (selling pesos) is sterilised by issuing government debt—debt denominated in its own currency. A crucial point.
So no-one would want a currency in free fall? The second graph shows the movement in USD reserves held by the BCRA between 1999 and 2007. They nearly ran out in 2002. The question you need to ask yourselves: where did they get these dollars from?
The final graph in this sequence shows the volumes of foreign exchange transactions for Argentina between 2003 to 2007. It is hardly descriptive of a necrotic foreign exchange sector.
It is true that Argentina had to bear an initial major inflation impulse as its currency depreciated, which eroded real living standards, but the reversal in standards was just as swift as the currency appreciated again on the back of renewed growth.
Conclusion
“The reality is that Argentina, in part, provides a model for all nations that have surrendered their currency sovereignty courtesy – either via a peg of some sort of outright use of foreign currencies (as in the Euro case).
That is why the elites are working hard to disabuse us of the notion that Argentina is broadly applicable. They know that the nation effectively got away with a major default, enjoyed renewed FDI and have been growing more or less continuously ever since.
They don’t want anyone to get any ideas!”
Neoliberalism is all about corporate–the1%–privatisation.It is the chosen weapon the elites. See the next post please giving the view of Michael Hudson and Paul Craig Roberts.
This is what Argentina gets with Macri at the helm. Poor Argentina.
Privatization Is the Atlanticist Strategy to Attack Russia
Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson
Two years ago, Russian officials discussed plans to privatize a group of national enterprises headed by the oil producer Rosneft, the VTB Bank, Aeroflot, and Russian Railways. The stated objective was to streamline management of these companies, and also to induce oligarchs to begin bringing their two decades of capital flight back to invest in the Russia economy. Foreign participation was sought in cases where Western technology transfer and management techniques would be likely to help the economy.
However, the Russian economic outlook deteriorated as the United States pushed Western governments to impose economic sanctions against Russia and oil prices declined. This has made the Russian economy less attractive to foreign investors. So sale of these companies will bring much lower prices today than would have been likely in 2014
Meanwhile, the combination of a rising domestic budget deficit and balance-of-payments deficit has given Russian advocates of privatization an argument to press ahead with the sell-offs. The flaw in their logic is their neoliberal assumption that Russia cannot simply monetize its deficit, but needs to survive by selling off more major assets. We warn against Russia being so gullible as to accept this dangerous neoliberal argument. Privatization will not help re-industrialize Russia’s economy, but will aggravate its turn into a rentier economy from which profits are extracted for the benefit of foreign owners.
To be sure, President Putin set a number of conditions on February 1 to prevent new privatizations from being like the Yeltsin era’s disastrous selloffs. This time the assets would not be sold at knockdown prices, but would have to reflect prospective real value. The firms being sold off would remain under Russian jurisdiction, not operated by offshore owners. Foreigners were invited to participate, but the companies would remain subject to Russian laws and regulations, including restrictions to keep their capital within Russia.
Also, the firms to be privatized cannot be bought with domestic state bank credit. The aim is to draw “hard cash” into the buyouts – ideally from the foreign currency holdings by oligarchs in London and elsewhere.
Putin wisely ruled out selling Russia’s largest bank, Sperbank, which holds much of the nation’s retail savings accounts. Banking evidently is to remain largely a public utility, which it should because the ability to create credit as money is a natural monopoly and inherently public in character.
Despite these protections that President Putin added, there are serious reasons not to go ahead with the newly-announced privatizations. These reasons go beyond the fact that they would be sold under conditions of economic recession as a result of the Western economic sanctions and falling oil prices.
The excuse being cited by Russian officials for selling these companies at the present time is to finance the domestic budget deficit. This excuse shows that Russia has still not recovered from the disastrous Western Atlanticist myth that Russia must depend on foreign banks and bondholders to create money, as if the Russian central bank cannot do this itself by monetizing the budget deficit.
Monetization of budget deficits is precisely what the United States government has done, and what Western central banks have been doing in the post World War II era. Debt monetization is common practice in the West. Governments can help revive the economy by printing money instead of indebting the country to private creditors which drains the public sector of funds via interest payments to private creditors.
There is no valid reason to raise money from private banks to provide the government with money when a central bank can create the same money without having to pay interest on loans. However, Russian economists have been inculcated with the Western belief that only commercial banks should create money and that governments should sell interest-bearing bonds in order to raise funds. The incorrect belief that only private banks should create money by making loans is leading the Russian government down the same path that has led the eurozone into a dead end economy. By privatizing credit creation, Europe has shifted economic planning from democratically elected governments to the banking sector.
There is no need for Russia to accept this pro-rentier economic philosophy that bleeds a country of public revenues. Neoliberals are promoting it not to help Russia, but to bring Russia to its knees.
Essentially, those Russians allied with the West—“Atlanticist Integrationists”— who want Russia to sacrifice its sovereignty to integration with the Western empire are using neoliberal economics to entrap Putin and breach Russia’s control over its own economy that Putin reestablished after the Yeltsin years when Russia was looted by foreign interests.
Despite some success in reducing the power of the oligarchs who arose from the Yeltsin privatizations, the Russian government needs to retain national enterprises as a countervailing economic power. The reason governments operate railways and other basic infrastructure is to lower the cost of living and doing business. The aim of private owners, by contrast, is to raise the prices as high as they can. This is called “rent extraction.” Private owners put up tollbooths to raise the cost of infrastructure services that are being privatized. This is the opposite of what the classical economists meant by “free market.”
There is talk of a deal being made with the oligarchs. The oligarchs will buy ownership in the Russian state companies with money they have stashed abroad from previous privatizations, and get another “deal of the century” when Russia’s economy recovers by enough to enable more excessive gains to be made.
The problem is that the more economic power moves from government to private control, the less countervailing power the government has against private interests. From this standpoint, no privatizations should be permitted at this time.
Much less should foreigners be permitted to acquire ownership of Russian national assets. In order to collect a one-time payment of foreign currency, the Russian government will be turning over to foreigners future income streams that can, and will be, extracted from Russia and sent abroad. This “repatriation” of dividends would occur even if management and control remains geographically in Russia.
Selling public assets in exchange for a one-time payment is what the city of Chicago government did when it sold the 75 year revenue stream of its parking meters for a one-time payment. The Chicago government got money for one year by giving up 75 years of revenues. By sacrificing public revenues, the Chicago government saved real estate and private wealth from being taxed and also allowed Wall Street investment banks to make a fortune.
It also created a public outcry against the giveaway. The new buyers sharply raised street parking fees, and sued Chicago’s government for damages when the city closed the street for public parades or holidays, thereby “interfering” with the rentiers’ parking-meter business. Instead of helping Chicago, it helped push the city toward bankruptcy. No wonder Atlanticists would like to see Russia suffer the same fate.
Using privatization to cover a short-term budget problem creates a larger long-term problem. The profits of Russian companies would flow out of the country, reducing the ruble’s exchange rate. If the profits are paid in rubles, the rubles can be dumped in the foreign exchange market and exchanged for dollars. This will depress the ruble’s exchange rate and raise the dollar’s exchange value. In effect, allowing foreigners to acquire Russia’s national assets helps foreigners to speculate against the Russian ruble.
Of course, the new Russian owners of the privatized assets also could send their profits abroad. But at least the Russian government realizes that owners subject to Russian jurisdiction are more easily regulated than are owners who are able to control companies from abroad and keep their working capital in London or other foreign banking centers (all subject to U.S. diplomatic leverage and New Cold War sanctions).
At the root of the privatization discussion should be the question of what is money and why should it be created by private banks instead of central banks. The Russian government should finance its budget deficit by having the central bank create the necessary money, just as the US and UK do. It is not necessary for the Russian government to give away future revenue streams in perpetuity merely in order to cover one year’s deficit. That is a path to impoverishment and to loss of economic and political independence.
Globalization was invented as a tool of American Empire. Russia should be shielding itself from globalization, not opening itself to it. Privatization is the vehicle to undercut economic sovereignty and increase profits by raising prices.
Just as Western-financed NGOs operating in Russia are a fifth column operating against Russian national interests, so are Russia’s neoliberal economists, whether or not they realize it. Russia will not be safe from Western manipulation until its economy is closed to Western attempts to reshape Russia’s economy in the interest of Washington and not in the interest of Russia.
For Spanish speakers:
Argentina con Macri: “Desastroso mito occidental atlantista”
http://www.hispantv.com/noticias/opinion/215186/argentina-soberania-monetaria-macri
[“Argentina with Macri: Disastrous Western Atlanticist Myth”]
Ok so one comment above talks about the Peso crisis which was before the Kirchner era and the second one talks about a totally different country with different background and history, Russia.
Well if you want me to reply to your critique fair enough, but please let’s talk about the Kirchner era and specifically her government and her achievements and under-achievements.
Hispantv owned by Iran still glorifies Maduro to this day, no matter what he does to his people, as such I cannot take it all too serious when it comes to talking about Macri. As in Latin America you’re either on the extreme left or with the elites and on the right. There is too little room for anything serious in between or self reflection. And the same can often be said about its political analysts and commentators.
This is the problem with the blogosphere. Did you actually read Anonymous’ post and understand it? I doubt it, since you it is entirely about how Argentina under the Kirchner’s surmounted the neoliberal dollar-pegged peso problem. You actually would have learned a lot by reading and comprehending the post. Bill Mitchell is one of the very best economists in the world, and a colleague of Michael Hudson. Do you understand the difference between a country that is sovereign in its currency and one that is not? Do you know with some precision what neoliberal economics is and what it entails for a country? Do you understand what financialization of an economy is? Go to Michael Hudson’s site and educate yourself. Read his books “The Bubble and Beyond” and “Killing the Host.” The article about Russia was also about Macri–namely neoliberalism. You clearly didn’t read the article. You think the problem is lack of “self-reflection.” In your case, I tend to agree with you.
Thank You for your comment
James please do not tell me what article I read and didn’t read, I did take the time to read both despite yours being off-topic. You’re again avoiding my point, the Peso crisis occurred in 2001 and Nestor came to power in mid 2003. It is true that he had to re-negotiate some of the restructuring of bonds with foreign lenders. Yet the pain suffered from the crisis and the re-valuation of the currency occurred before him.
After an economy defaults and a sharp recession occurs there is usually a strong re-bound, many countries have gone through the same process such as Mexico or Brazil in the 90s. If you want to praise the Kirchners for this, fair enough, but I guarantee you this was bound to happen also in Argentina with or without their policies.
What is more you talk of sovereign money, yet you blend out that the Peso was again pegged to the Dollar under Christina, basically repeating the same ‘mistake’ of her predecessor government. How familiar are you with Argentina and its economic policy James? What you are doing here is judging others without having the slightest knowledge of their background and lives. I try not to judge you, but this attitude doesn’t speak highly for you.
The guy is a troll and probably on a salary. Please bear that in mind before getting frustrated. Macri’s government has full floors of employees trolling about employing different personas. This one babbles about typical Argentinian middle class uninformed common sense. There’s another one in the comments more anti Jew style.
@ JamesW:
“Did you actually read Anonymous’ post and understand it?”
^ Obviously not.
All these anti-Kirchners people understand is the simplistic argument that the Kirchners’ administrations were corrupt and therefore “they had to go,” ask them for details and all you’ll get are talking points from the corporatist, pro-globalist media (either local or global media).
It’s the same idiotic narrative being used all over the Third World / developing nations to rally the support of the uneducated masses behind their true real enemies: the 1 percenters.
Look at what happened in Brazil (Dilma), or Ukraine (Yanukovych), same simplistic corruption chargers, whether those charges were real or trumped-up, the point is that the accusation is always the same one.
I mean; like Macri is not corrupt! Like Porkoshenko is not corrupt! (Both oligarchs, btw), or like Dilma replacement administration is not corrupt to the bone! To even entertain the idea they’re not corrupt is beyond laughable (right!), but you won’t hear that on the media, because those are the people they support, so they’ll make sure their skeletons are well kept under lock and key in their closets.
The problem with these nay-sayers in the developing world is that they don’t understand (or they do understand but they just don’t care) that is a class-war. They’re usually fairly educated, middle class, forever looking outwards rather than inwards, they look at their own compatriot working-class and poor with disdain, they worship anything “western,” or anything coming from first world countries, they usually either speak or at least can read some English, so they pride themselves on the fact that the great unwashed plebs can’s get their news sources from places like Routers or the Wall Street Journal or whatever, further cementing their contempt for lower classes than theirs…
So, there’s no wonder, when a leader comes along in one on these developing nations [Chavez, prime example], one who truly wants to help his/her country, build it up, and do something about the plight of the long forgotten underclass, they – the western brown nosers – don’t like it.
Rinse and repeat. It’s the same story all over the ‘global south.’
BTW, if these nay-sayers hate their own countries (and their people) so much, they should emigrate to their beloved “West.” Trouble is that their beloved west, generally doesn’t want them. They make them jump thought endless visa hoops [and hefty fees] to grant them residency.
Talk about not getting the hint! They’re just as bad as love suitors not getting the hint when they stubbornly insist on flirting with the person they’re interested in, when the person in question already said; thanks but NO thanks!
Pathetic losers. That’s all they are, at best. Pathological creeps at worse.
-TL2Q
Excellent salient points u have made. Straight out of an anglo-zionist manual on how to deflect and deceive. How many Argentinians have been put on the unemployment list since MACRI got in. How many government entities have been for sale to the corporate elite since Macri has been in. How many Union members have been incarcerated since Macri got in. Those r facts as well my anglo-zionist sympathiser. To coin an old CHE expression ‘LA PATRIA OH LA MUERTE’
The guy is a paid troll. No doubt about it.
The new government in Argentina came to power after a relentless information war, which intensified in the last 10 years. Their army of trolls, now supported by public funds seems to have also targeted thesaker. Let’s just call Alexander P’s game and ignore him afterwards. No one holding his political views could be possibly a reader of the saker.
“While most economies in South America were booming, Argentina was either barely growing or going through a recession.”
Is that so ? She was president from 2007-2015, and Argentina had constant growth during those years. GDP/PPP/capita is the most honest number (of the GDP based ones) to use, if we are to compare living standards.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/argentina/gdp-per-capita-ppp
100 years ago Argentina was the wealthiest country in Latin America. Even as recently as 1946, it was the 5th wealthiest country in the world based on GDP per capita. Above Switzerland, France, Sweden, Denmark etc.
It’s fall from grace has been its own doing. Nothing is more emblematic of it than Maria “Trout Pout ” Fernandez de Kirchner. Pretentious name, silly person.
Nothing represents Argentina’s failure more than its obsession with the Falklands. A successful country would have flourished and forgot about the matter.
Hmmm, ot seems a couple of websayanim here don’t like Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. That alone is good reason to suspect she has done more good than bad.
For : Vok Tak
Video below she says Jews suffered more than anyone else in Argentina.
Hmmm…From whom have we heard that before?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NZOu4i82nKk
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/29189/20141230/argentine-president-adopts-jewish-godson-sparking-misunderstanding.htm
Her mother Ofelia Judith Wilhem–Jew
Her father Eduardo Fernandez- descendant of Spanish Jews
Kischner is really “Kirtznert” — Jewish name.
https://seguridadpy.wordpress.com/cristina-es-delincuente/
Carmel by the Sea
https://seguridadpy.wordpress.com/cristina-es-delincuente/
http://www.economist.com/node/9947039
http://www.jewishjournal.com/obituaries/article/jewish_groups_mourn_kirchners_death_20101029/
I don’t know who is trying to fool who here, but; Kirchner is a german name, and Christina (female version of Christian) is not exactly a typical jewish convert name. Also – Kirschner means ~churchworker/etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchner
Futhermore, she had a fair amount of conflicts with zionism, and the jewish leadership in Argentina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristina_Fern%C3%A1ndez_de_Kirchner#Middle_East
So – I am fairly skeptical of your claims.
More for Vok Tak:
Is it good for the Jews? I guess it was.
http://www.coha.org/argentine-us-jews-applaud-as-argentina-elects-kirchner/
The ADL mourned his death. Zionist Jews mourning for a non-Zionist Non- Jew????
Not likely.
Look it up the title is: “ADL expresses condolences on the death of Argentina’s Former President” and….
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/death-of-nestor-kirchner-jewish-leaders-praise-late-argentinean-president-s-courage-and-commitment
http://www.jta.org/2010/10/27/news-opinion/world/jewish-groups-mourn-kirchners-death
https://mentirasyverdadesdesveladas.blogspot.com/2015/01/cristina-k-una-sionista-gobernando.html
And as you know a sayanim, I am certainly not.
Carmel by the Sea
The ancient US laws against Usury were eliminated in the US when my two sons were quite young. Today the older son is 56 years old, my younger son was assassinated by heavy metals in the US Art college he attended suma cum laude, in 2012, he born in 1962.
The global plans of Bush 1 before he ever became part of the US presidential structure, building on his Senator father’s global plans. A twenty year Senatorial free ride.
The global poverty was set up then. In order to refight WW11 into the US/Nazi win or, the elimination of Russia.
Saved the link to this video to download it in the morning when my Wi-fi speed is good! I always remember her fiery address at the UNGA in 2015. She has no fear for standing up for what is right and just ~! What a brave and beautiful lady she is! God bless you and may some miracle happen in both Argentina and Brazil. God bless you President Fernandez de Kirchner, as that is who you still are to me and thousands upon thousands of others!
What an interesting and cultured interview. She really has a diplomat´s presentation, and a gift for drawing issues and situations down to their human dimensions, with a wonderful sense of analysis, of looking at relationships. The interviewers were polite and respectful, fully awake to the interchanges. I have been suffering from american political meltdown coverage, and the coarse platitudinous scripts sold like the latest product. How strange to think that the US is full of brilliant, sensitive, committed, democratically minded women and men, who could even give a coherent speech, yet we are given despised narcissists as our `leaders´. There is so much I don´t know about the Argentine history and economic situation, but I came away from her talk with more context and data. Thanks!
For those interested in the economics perspective of Michael Hudson, Paul Craig Roberts, and others:
7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Monetary Policy
http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
Fiscal Summit Counter-Narrative: Part One
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/fiscal-summit-counter-narrative-part-one.html
The Fiscal Summit Counter-Narrative: Part Two, Defining Fiscal Sustainability
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/the-fiscal-summit-counter-narrative-part-two-defining-fiscal-sustainability.html
The Fiscal Summit Counter-Narrative: Part Three, Are There Spending Constraints On Governments Sovereign in Their Currencies?
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/the-fiscal-summit-counter-narrative-part-three-are-there-spending-constraints-on-governments-sovereign-in-their-currencies.html
Modern Money Theory Primer
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html
A politician I could actually listen to for over an hour – amazing – who talked about reality – the world most of us live in – issues that matter – very different in her style than “Pepe” or Evo but more than ok.
Pleased you published this interview.
“Somos el peronismo/kirchnerismo que no duda que nuestra líder es Cristina”
Un abrazo y saludos desde el Sur de Francia.