Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Brazil, yes. Argentina!? They're a fething serial basketcase with an economy a fraction of the size of the UK's. I don't normally accuse you of this, but you have to be trolling there, bro. I'm calling you out.

Argentina's GDP is ~20% of the UK's in nominal terms and around 40% in terms of PPP, but they also have a ~9% growth rate.

It would seem that not everyone shares your optimism regarding Argentina's long-term future:

Miami Herald wrote:After several years during which Fernández bragged that Argentina was one of the world’s most rapidly growing economies while the United States and Europe were crumbling, Argentina’s economy is now projected to slow down from nearly 9 percent last year to 2.2 percent this year, according to the latest World Bank estimates. Many independent economists say that even that projection is too optimistic, and that the country may end this year with a recession.

“We think the story ends with a large devaluation sooner or later,” said a recent report by UBS bank economist Javier Kulesz, who added that it would come along with a large increase in public utility prices, heightened social tensions, and low if not negative growth. “This is nothing Argentines aren’t familiar with. They have seen this movie in its various versions quite a few times over the past few decades,” he said.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/16/2851968/argentinas-economic-fiesta-is.html

Reuters wrote:Argentine dairy farmers dumped truckloads of milk in protests this week while millions of commuters endured the longest subway workers strike in history, all thanks to high inflation that is not seen easing despite a sharp economic slowdown.

The government shuns orthodox policies and spends heavily to stoke swift economic growth. Official data has drastically lowballed price rises since 2007 and President Cristina Fernandez avoids mentioning inflation, estimated at 20 percent to 25 percent a year - the highest rate in Latin America.

Her government has fined and even sued economists who publicize their inflation estimates, which tend to double or triple the official figure.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-argentina-economy-idUSBRE87912G20120810

dogma wrote:By contrast the UK's growth rate is ~1%, lower than Jamaica's.

Currently, yes. That's subject to change though.

Dogma, if you had said US/Brazil relations I could have taken you more seriously, but US/Argentina? No.

Argentina is too volatile at the moment to be taken at face value by anyone. They have already nationalised one resource industry, (the Spanish one I can't remember the name of). And while their growth may be higher than the UKs at the moment, since they're lying about what the actual figure is I doubt that it's 9%. Inflation there is about 24%, despite the governments assertion it's only 10%. They are operating on a "protectionism" policy for their trade and have put restrictions on how much foreign currency anyone can own, specifically the dollar. And on top of that they have also been yellow carded by the IMF with a review later this year to see if it goes to a full red card with subsequent expulsion and sanctions.

One of their military training vessels is currently impounded in Africa for non payment of debts incurred when they defaulted on their national debt. Ironically the ship has been impounded on the instructions of a US hedge fund. Do you still think that the US business world wants to tie itself closer to Argentinia?

Now should the government change in the next election and move to a modorate position then all bets may/will be off. Only time will tell.

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and regarding the permanent seat on the security council, I'm sure that Mr Salmond will claim that as part of the divorce settlement.......

 AndrewC wrote:
Dogma, if you had said US/Brazil relations I could have taken you more seriously, but US/Argentina? No.

Argentina is too volatile at the moment to be taken at face value by anyone. They have already nationalised one resource industry, (the Spanish one I can't remember the name of). And while their growth may be higher than the UKs at the moment, since they're lying about what the actual figure is I doubt that it's 9%. Inflation there is about 24%, despite the governments assertion it's only 10%. They are operating on a "protectionism" policy for their trade and have put restrictions on how much foreign currency anyone can own, specifically the dollar. And on top of that they have also been yellow carded by the IMF with a review later this year to see if it goes to a full red card with subsequent expulsion and sanctions.

One of their military training vessels is currently impounded in Africa for non payment of debts incurred when they defaulted on their national debt. Ironically the ship has been impounded on the instructions of a US hedge fund. Do you still think that the US business world wants to tie itself closer to Argentinia?

Now should the government change in the next election and move to a modorate position then all bets may/will be off. Only time will tell.

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and regarding the permanent seat on the security council, I'm sure that Mr Salmond will claim that as part of the divorce settlement.......

US and Latin America. In addition to massive oil and natural gas reserves, massive markets, and better food, Latin America is the home to multiple countries with growth rates of 6% or substantially higher: Peru, Brazil, Chile to name a few. Argentina not so much currently, but it is a massive country with a bright potntial future, especially after they steal your oil.
Currently very few businesses think about Argentina, but we sure do think about Brazil, Peru, and Chile.

 Albatross wrote:

It would seem that not everyone shares your optimism regarding Argentina's long-term future:

Short term future is not much better. The nationalisation of internal oil reserves hurt Argentina greatly. Their economy is not completey down the toilet because Frenandez inherited a position where Argentina had had her last load of debt written off and the cooldown period had expired.
Malvinas is the Argentine equivalent of 'bread and circuses' a national scale distraction. Its dangerous because the Argentine government will always come back to the issue when in trouble, and they are usually in trouble.

Obviously the solution is for Scotland to invade Argentina.

Scotland is not going to leave the UK. They would have certainly voted for a devo max option, but that's no longer on the table.

On the assumption that the incredibly unlikely does occur, Orlanth's chain of catastrophic events is about as likely as discovering everyone from Switzerland is an alien.


The remaining collective of Wales, England, and Northern Ireland will plod on, much the same as they ever have done. The political landscape will change to being intensely pro-Tory for ten or so years. London's setting as a financial capital will be relatively unaffected, although a short term of turbulence will occur in the transitionary period. Argentina will not invade the Falklands, as they would lose if they did. The US and France will not want to boot England off the Security Council.

The only thing that's truly up in the air is whether the Scottish economy would crash and burn, and remain stable.

I feel like I'm being offered a doorbuster of a barn with a leaky roof and no insulation.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Obviously the solution is for Scotland to invade Argentina.

Grey Templar....FLAWLESS VICTORY! now FINISH HIM!

Nah, Scotland won't invade Argentina, it's too warm and not enough rain for us.

Frazz, you did read my first sentence? US with Chile, Peru and Brazil are all fine, not one of them is bothered about who 'owns' the Falkland Isles. Brazil recently told Argentine Officials to get lost over a Falklands Flag at an International Badmington Competition. Argentina complained and Brazil told them it was a recognised country to enter the competition and to stop complaining. I know, hardly earth shattering but still it's official recognition.

Auston, I've driven past that barn numerous times and the 'D' continues round the corner of the building.

Orlanth, the debt wasn't written off. Most of her creditiors accepted something rather than nothing from Argentina. Case in point the seizure of the vessel in Ghana.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
They have already nationalised one resource industry, (the Spanish one I can't remember the name of).

They nationalized YPF which was held by Respol, which was itself held in majority by the Spanish government until the mid 90's. And by "nationalized" I mean they seized 51% of the issued shares.

Kirchner is correct in stating that the seizure was needed to reappropriate Argentina's mineral resources, because Europe has been exploiting them for decades.

 AndrewC wrote:

And while their growth may be higher than the UKs at the moment, since they're lying about what the actual figure is I doubt that it's 9%.

The World Bank estimate is ~9%. The only groups calling Argentinian GDP growth less than 1% are, shockingly, British.

 AndrewC wrote:

And on top of that they have also been yellow carded by the IMF with a review later this year to see if it goes to a full red card with subsequent expulsion and sanctions.

Which no one will obey, aside from the British and Falklanders anyway.

 AndrewC wrote:

Oh and regarding the permanent seat on the security council, I'm sure that Mr Salmond will claim that as part of the divorce settlement.......

And no one will acquiesce.

 AndrewC wrote:

Oh and regarding the permanent seat on the security council, I'm sure that Mr Salmond will claim that as part of the divorce settlement.......

Given that it is current SNP policy to withdraw from NATO (although this is highly likely to change) I somehow doubt it.

I think the only reason Dogma sidetracked the debate was simply the erroneous use of the word "abandon" instead of merely "move a little bit away from"

He is quite right that to move forward its not got to be a case of the US and the UK daisy chaining each other around their grandmother's apartment (Canada!?) and we have to get along with everyone, not just the English speaking nations that will always be close to due to our shared language, culture and obviously ancestry. In the same way that Obama seems to have cooled his jets with us and the Israelis I certainly think we should put a little more effort into building trade and diplomacy with places we historically don't get along with, the UK should really try and work things out with the fething Argies for example.. instead of us all being mates with people we will always be mates with anyway!

As I said earlier, your mum always spends more time with the useless, waster borderline smackhead son with a gambling addiction than she does with the smart kid who is studying hard. The US, UK, CAN, AU, NZ relations will always take care of themselves, so logically we would be better served putting more effort in with all the other mother fethers.

Not really abandon, just.. you know.. have normal diplomatic ties. I mean, gak, we haven't "abandoned" plenty of countries we have a pretty gak relationship with.

You don't have to abandon anyone, we can all be pals, especially considering we're even mates with the French these days!

As stated before (and staying on topic) Scottish independence would have no real affect on the UK economy or our international standing in the short term . It would free up more money for the rest of the UK probaly .

But if the Scots wish to go they should have the right to decide democratically to be independant . As should the UK be given the right for a referendum to continue membership in the EU .

Oh, irony and sarcasm are lost on this forum......

Dogma, sometimes you are so blinded by your own opinion that you cant actually see you may be wrong.

Lets take YPF. The government took 51% of the shares of the company thereby gaining control of it. They also took only those shares owned by foreign interests, leaving local interests untouched. The stated reason was that YPF had not invested as much money as they said they would. The balance sheet at that point was neutral. Repsol had put in as much as they had taken out, hardly exploitation! The real reason, Kirchner needed a quick fix for popularity and attacked a sore point of the Argentine people, ie fuel costs, down with the evil europeans, boo hiss!

I never said Argentina had a growth rate of less than 1%, I said that no-one really knows what it is. Also the latest forcast seems to be for a recession rather than growth.

You seem rather sure of the IMF sanctions, I wonder why? Regardless of your personal bias on the issue other people will take note, especially when any business in Argentina becomes unsanction by the IMF (thereby being unable to recoup losses should Argentina default on deals), nationalisation of foreign interests, dodgy accounting etc.

Cheers

Andrew

 AustonT wrote:

Spoiler:

I feel like I'm being offered a doorbuster of a barn with a leaky roof and no insulation.

HAHAHAHAA!!! Nicely done!

Scotland leaving the UK would be sad, honestly. It sounds like a vocal minority rattling sabres and trying to stoke a Scottish National Pride rally. Not sure that's any more well-thought-out than the Texas nut jobs that want Texas to leave the union. That just isn't going to happen over here. Neither is CA going to leave. That's just crazy talk.

 AndrewC wrote:
They also took only those shares owned by foreign interests, leaving local interests untouched.

Indeed, that's how you reappropriate corporate holdership in the absence of private purchase.

 AndrewC wrote:

Also the latest forcast seems to be for a recession rather than growth.

No, they're forecasting low growth, not a recession.

 AndrewC wrote:

You seem rather sure of the IMF sanctions, I wonder why? Regardless of your personal bias on the issue other people will take note, especially when any business in Argentina becomes unsanction by the IMF (thereby being unable to recoup losses should Argentina default on deals), nationalisation of foreign interests, dodgy accounting etc.

The IMF doesn't endorse individual businesses. What are you talking about?

As far as bias goes: Yep, the US citizen is more likely to be emotionally engaged than the guy living in the Falklands.

The idea of voting No on independence got cheers on Question time, and the idea of Yes and the Deputy First minister Nicola 'Vinegar Tits, face like a slapped Jimmy Krankie" Sturgeon were booed!

HUZZAH!

Comedy.

http://www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/index.php/engerland/51-enemies.html

Graphite wrote:
Comedy.

http://www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/index.php/engerland/51-enemies.html

So that's where Orlanth got his ideas...

 Castiel wrote:

Graphite wrote:
Comedy.

http://www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/index.php/engerland/51-enemies.html

So that's where Orlanth got his ideas...

Make light of it if you will, political comedy touches so many issues its unfair and unwise to consider those issues parodied as inherently ridiculous by the association.
Here is the original link parodied:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9616006/Britains-enemies-will-exploit-Scottish-independence-to-cut-UK-power.html

One could make light of the fact that the Daily Mail covered the story extensively. I knew better than to use links to their their editorials as evidence.
But when the papers as diverse in base as the Sun and Guardian discuss the same issues its unwise to wave it off as 'sensationalism'.

I don't see what the issue is. Abraham Lincoln had a simple solution.

"We want to secede!"
"No."

It was more like:


"We want to secede!"
"No."
"Says who?"
"Me... and all these guys."

"...shoot."

Abe was also fighting vampires at the time.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
It was more like:


"We want to secede!"
"No."
"Says who?"
"Me... and all these guys."

"...shoot."

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Abe was also fighting vampires at the time.

Thats ok. He was one of history's greatest multitaskers. Ocassionally he would get into the ring with Godzilla and Chuck Norris as well when they would get uppitty from time to time.

Interesting side story. Always wanted to be a re-enactor, but I think I'm the only Southerner who wanted to play a yankee (and go burn some plantations...)

Reenacting's a blast, the big battle here is actually the Army of the Territory of Colorado vs. Texas.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't see what the issue is. Abraham Lincoln had a simple solution.

"We want to secede!"
"No."

How is that meaningfully different to George Washington's decision to secede?

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't see what the issue is. Abraham Lincoln had a simple solution.

"We want to secede!"
"No."

How is that meaningfully different to George Washington's decision to secede?

Because Washington won?

 Bromsy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't see what the issue is. Abraham Lincoln had a simple solution.

"We want to secede!"
"No."

How is that meaningfully different to George Washington's decision to secede?

Because Washington won?

Washington didn't decide to secede. Congress did. What Washinton did was make secession successful.

Oddly enough, Congress has been around longer then the Country has. Not the finest relic we've kept around

Obviously you missed the fact that Washington had like twenty goddamned dicks.

eh what?