MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

• 

  GeoffWard

  To demand
  the Vice Presidentship (with the Presidentship next time),
  33% of all seats in Government to the unions, and - on top of this -
  to decimate Argentinean unionised industry with a 10%-take,
  higher-than-inflation salaries,
  reimbursement of unions’ 'solidarity' funds,
  increasing the minimum taxable income,
  etc,
  shows a more-than-partial socio-political swing for the future of Argentina .
  
  Socialism/communism - arrived at through the power-plays of union industrial blackmail - produces no future for Argentina in an economically globalised world where her competitors advance themselves to Argentina's detriment.
  
  Non-competitiveness is no solution.

  May 21st, 2011 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  ElaineB

  @1 It is like watching a friend self-harm.
  
  You are right that in an economically globalised world this is a disasterous image for Argentina to portray. The idea that a country doesn't need to trade globally to prosper is sadly out of date.

  May 21st, 2011 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  I

  Finally Argentina is aiming for a national market, what did we have to ofer besides food ?? and how long have we been working to feed the elite ?? we are at a point where we arew buying our own oil from the brits, enought is enought, there is nothing wrong with a government dictating their own rules, last time I checked USA droped into Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya while UK is occupying Malvinas Argentina and we are supposed to trade our raw material for us to buy own resources coming back as finish products ?? how convenient, and then what we go back to the dirt and dig more of our wealth for them to have well payed union jobs ? in USA or Canada ?? no way !!! personally I like the unions but I also love Argentina, in a democratic state the unions always side with the state, because it is the state that has the power to draft laws to promote progress, never the less sometimes greedy unions find themselves being an obstruction to public order.

  May 21st, 2011 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  ElaineB

  @3 I agree with having unions too. They are needed to protect the individual who may not have any power in the workplace and can, therefore, be exploited. The problem is, as you say, when the union becomes greedy to the detriment of the country as a whole.

  May 21st, 2011 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

• 

  GeoffWard

  I'
  Chile is also resource poor, and when the copper seams are worked out what will Chile have? A developed state - why? because it chose to play to its strengths and play by the rules of the game.
  
  I remember when Burma turned in on itself also. It became a country in hibernation. Only now, many years later, is the country raising it's head again - and only because it needs to move as the awakening giant of China stretches, flexes and rolls all over the surrounding Asian countries.
  In time, a hibernating Argentina would need to move likewise as Brasil asserts its continental might.
  
  Wrt. “in a democratic state the unions always side with the state”.
  I have to say, it depends on the political colour of the party in control of the state. In Republican USA and Conservative UK this is rarely the dynamic.
  And it is rarely true under governments of any colour when the unions overstep their primary role within the structure of the country's industry. The talk might be smooth on the surface but the battle is taking place fiercely beneath the surface.
  
  I everything ok with you, I?
  Your recent postings are very different from a couple of months ago.

  May 21st, 2011 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  -+

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!