MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Bachelet proclaimed pre-candidate promises tax and education reforms
Former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet was proclaimed as pre-candidate for the coming presidential elections next November 17 during a political rally in Santiago organized by the Socialists and the Party for Democracy (PPD). Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMichelle Bachelet
Apr 15th, 2013 - 03:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The daughter of an Air Force general tortured to death for opposing General Augusto Pinochet”
Margaret Thatcher once said, “It was you(Pinochet) who brought democracy to Chile.”
(1)
Apr 15th, 2013 - 04:15 am - Link - Report abuse 01 - 6 :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
(2)
Apr 15th, 2013 - 04:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0RiBer -:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Bachelet or not... doesn't matter. Nobody's gonna change a working system (luckily). We will surely not see experimental playgrounds like in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela or Argentina...
Apr 15th, 2013 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0@1
Apr 15th, 2013 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're living in the past Marcos, Pinochet was a useful tool we took advantage of to secure our goal, it was a war we didn't start but one we finished.
Deal with it and move on.
Marcos-= as ever mentally fixed in the past and unable to face today and reality and the future - oh, its so Argentine.
Apr 15th, 2013 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Great news, Maggie out and Michelle in in the same week! I predict a landslide...
Apr 15th, 2013 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bachelet will win, just as Maduro did. Just as FA will win in Uruguay next year.
Apr 15th, 2013 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0;)
@7,8
Apr 15th, 2013 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since when were you guys such fans of Neo-con policy and the Chilean Iron lady?
Do you know anything about Chilean politics?
Bachelet’s concertación signed off on more bilateral FTAs than, probably, any other government in the world.
They also aggressively pursued FDI in all sectors of the economy.
As for treatment of political adversaries:
In 2006 the public schools went on strike for months demanding a range of things, from free bus passes to moving the schools from municipal control to a central authority. They are the poorest students in the country, many lost an entire year of schooling and Bachelet did not move one centimetre to meet their demands...just like Maggie with the miners only the school children were delt with much more severely (tear gas, water cannon, plastic shot, etc).
Bachelet applied anti-terrorist laws to deal with Mapuche protests and was happy for Mapuche prisoners to go on hunger strike...again sounds kind of like Maggie.
The same way the US liberal minded don’t get upset at Obama (not a white man) stepping up drone assassinations, many Chileans don’t mind Bachelet (not a white man) beating up school children and the indigenous. Funny old world.
Anyway, here’s to 4 more years of growth, increasing prosperity and improving human development index...the Chilean way!
9
Apr 15th, 2013 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bachelet is not perfect, I agree. But she's a lot better than Piñera and more important, she isn't as reluctant to Latam integration as him.
Chile is free and welcome to do it the Chilean way. I'm just happy it's with Bachelet in charge :)
@10
Apr 15th, 2013 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why is she better than Piñera?
Is it just his political DNA you don't like or is there some objective reason?
Look at the facts:
Who spent more on defence? Bachelet.
Who applied anti-terror laws more? Bachelet.
Who was intransigent with students? Bachelet.
Who put more people in work? Piñera.
Who increased wages for the poorest? Piñera.
Who increased taxes to fund increased educational spending? Piñera.
Who removed the military’s ring-fenced spending? Piñera.
Who is de-mining the border with Peru? Piñera
Based on achievements I prefer Piñera’s center-right coalition to Bachelet’s center-right coalition.
There is no candidate in Chile like CFK or Maduro, no one, not even on the nuttiest extremes – for that we are very lucky.
Bachelet is more integrationalist than Piñera? I see no evidence for that. Are you referring to anything in particular?
At least Piñera has successfully integrated most of South America’s airlines in to one ;)
Last night Goldborne screwed up in an interview on the show “Puntocero” and although Allamand is probably the choice for the conservative coalition, I'm fairly certan Gordy will win the election.
Apr 15th, 2013 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Although she is very popular, she did little to improve public education, a terrible job on medicine and managed the 2010 earthquake poorly. However, she'll do well as she'll have the support of the left.
As long as the Banco Central is left independent and copper market does not collapse, Chile remains with a bright future.
Probably, for the Chileans disgrace, she can win next elections....But, this years with Mr. Piñera at the office have been better tan the whole 20 years with the left (not center-left) coalition which colapsed with the very poor term of the Gordis Chanchelet......In all aspects, the present Gvt. has improved the numbers received from the Concertación Gvts. Is a fact that, even the destroyer oposition from the left parties (which include the Christian Democracy & Communist Party at the extremes), Chile has lived a brighten term from 2010 when Piñera took the power.....He has solved almost all the “big” problems we had before him, like employement (in qtty. & quality), health, education, enviroment, social security, personal and state incomes, housing, hearthquake recovery, corruption, safety, etc.....
Apr 15th, 2013 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fortunately, he did it without engage our country in bad pratices like the remaining Latam countries (with very few exceptions like Peru, Colombia & Mexico) keeping us free to grow while the others went down by the cliff...Our “integration” with the other Latam countries (with the exceptions all you know) has been just words of well breeding....so they stay quiet into the shit while we move to the development....
By the way, in Chile we haven´t candidates like Inmaduro, Chavez or Evito
because we aren´t a banana republic like those countries, so that kind of people have no room here......
As someone say, our President former company has integrated the Latam countries with its LAN branches and overtook to Brazilian TAM....and our retail companies have done the same...so, how could you say that we don´t try to integrate .....
I do like reading news story's about Chile :) Seems like one of the only countries in south america moving forward & not back (+ I like the chilean analysis on this story)
Apr 15th, 2013 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Condorito question i've read Peru has been offered Eurofighters from Spain, i know you have F-16's (and the best airforce in the Southern cone) but would this change chile's defence plan?
Comment removed by the editor.
Apr 15th, 2013 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@12 Chicureo
Apr 15th, 2013 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't see the interview last night but it doesn't surprise me. Goldborne seems to be all charisma and little substance and Allamand is the opposite.
@ Sergio
Yes, I agree, by all objective measures the country has performed better under Piñera than Bachelet. Unfortunately too many people vote on a tribal basis rather than on objective criteria.
@cornish
It has been reported that they are looking to buy 18 Eurofighters, but I guess this would be to enable them to phase out their old Migs and Mirages, hence covering their own short fall rather than changing the balance in the region. Peru and Chile are more economically integrated now than ever and I don't think anybody wants to rock that boat.
(Plus the Chilean airforce has a spy satelite to keep an eye on then just in case ;)
precencia is a bit shameful I have to admit. It is of course presencia...
Apr 15th, 2013 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I almost reported it for not being in English, or Spanish...
Condorito. I'm pretty impressed (as a 28 yr old armchair general) having your own spy satellite is something not many european NATO country's can afford!.
Apr 15th, 2013 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can't say i've read up on Chilean-Peruvian relations, apart from stumbling on a peruvian military blog which suggested some anonymously & a lot of old military books :) Beautiful thing about democracy tends to subdue nationalist feels, doesn't explain Argentina tho! (brainwashing is a awesome thing?).
Don't worry, it happens to the best of us, but I think the word you are looking for is “ausencia”.
Apr 15th, 2013 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Seems there are people that must write in another forum.......they don´t understand thet rules must be respected.. (like in all the aspects of life). Maybe my English can be poor and some can´t understand me but I tray to meet the rules......
Apr 15th, 2013 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Said that, to the core....
15@ You are bonded to the past....Maybe you don´t know that that evil killer was dead long time ago and all the good persons (except the communist like you) have agreed that he was a infra human that have sown the hate between the inhabitants of the SA countries......and killed his oponents without mercy...
14@ It´s probably that Peru tray to level its airforce considering the next desition from Hague court that would be against it.....But, the airforce it´s not just jets and guns..... the most important are the pilots, engineers and logistics.who will do these machinnes work properly.....
And, yes just 4 countries in LA are going forward....all of them with capitalist based Gvts...... All the remainig in LA are falling down with leftist based Gvts.....Sound it strange....?? Not to me......!!!! Experiences like the USSR, Cuba, Viet Nam, China, etc...have demonstrated that the communism doesn´t work, even in a weak way, so some of them have changed to the capitalism as the economic way under a fake communist Gvt. or simply have erased the communism literaly....and are moving forward too......Only the stupid ones remain under a communist way or are going back to the communist way to get those countries to poverty and slavery.
12@ Maybe Allamand will be the right man or maybe Golborne willbe the one....The sadness would be if the Chanchelet is the “man”........Back to the dark age is not a joke after this brights last 3 years.....
16@ Your right....a tribal basis to vote is what can make the difference between the good one and the bad “butter lady” (please, don´t compare her with the great Maggie the Iron Lady, isn´t fear now she is resting in peace).....
@1-3 No more than “soundbites” - worthless verbiage. Notice - no intelligence, nothing “useful”. No more than whinging. And, just look, from the most useless, incompetent, imperialist, poor, belligerent, crap “state” in the area. And full of war criminals. 99% of the population are war criminals. An important question. What do you do with a piece of brown, slimy, sticky, smelly stuff sticking to your boot? You scrape it off and “dispose” of it. And thus to argieland. Of course, argieland has other failings. It's aggressive, belligerent, corrupt, criminal, depraved, genocidal, ignorant, illegitimate, larcenous, mendacious, psychotic, puerile and squalid.
Apr 15th, 2013 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7 I agree. Preferably on you.
@8 Maybe. Or perhaps the “latinos” will take over. and she'll be assassinated.
@10 Aaah, I get it. “latam” integration. Otherwise known as argie domination. And there we have it, folks. “Stevie” the argie subversive. Paid by the argie “state”. Promised who knows what, by the argie “state”. Let's face it, no “real” Uruguayan with the integrity and benefit of the Uruguayan state and people at heart could come out with his sort of crap.
@20 Keep going, Sergio! Regarding your English, let me try to help. It isn't “tray”, it's “try”. And it's “opponents”. “literally”. Not “brights”, just “bright”. And “Your right”. Sorry. The term is an abbreviation. “You are not” equals “You're not”. Does that help?
everybody with a minimum of criteria standards will recognize, that beyond the front-political colours Piñera and Bachelet are “representing”, Piñera has had way more social measures than Bachelet ever did. She really confronted the leftist on a harsher way than Piñera, who tried to mediate and find a compromise (especially with enormously increased education budget).
Apr 15th, 2013 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Integration? Piñera had a “peace pact” with Chavez and the whole region, while Bachelet was not too shy to openly confront and critizise Chavez autocracy.
When I read Stevies and British_Kirchnerist comment, it only comes to my mind how easily most Argies are being politically influenced and remote-controlled by supposed political flippancy and superficial glitter. It's so easy to lead them as sheeps by pamphlets. No wonder they will never get a rational government elected... EVER.
#22 I'm not an Argie. The clue is in the name =)
Apr 15th, 2013 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Piñera is a socialist and Bachelet the hardcore neoliberal.... As you wish. Then we agree, Bachelet for Presidenta!
Apr 16th, 2013 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0;)
What I find interesting is the number of Argentines that take an avid interest in the workings of a functional democarcy next door. Bachelet may indeed win and this will be a win for Chile.
Apr 16th, 2013 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Did Bachelet ever look at changing the constitution so she could remain in power? Supposedly she had the popularity for it.
That is the sign of a real democarcy. Perhaps if Bachelet does indeed win, then we will see Piñera back again after her next term.
That's what's fun about democracy, you don't know the answer usually.
Will Argentina change its constitution any time soon I wonder?
@22 ManRod
British_Kirchnerist is right, the clue is in his name. The Kirchnerist part because he has proven before that he is not a “Britisher”.
Anglolatino
Apr 16th, 2013 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0You lot should really get yourself a constitution before telling others how to deal with theirs...
Times changes, and constitutions with them. After all, it's the people's choice, not yours.
@25 “Will Argentina change its constitution any time soon I wonder?”
Apr 16th, 2013 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Depends on your definition of soon. CFK doesn't have enough votes on Congress to change the constitution and no support. Unless a miracle occurs on the mid-term elections, she won't be able to change the constitution.
@26 Stevie
Apr 16th, 2013 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0First off, thank you for this opportunity. You seem a little off you game lately.
“You lot should really get yourself a constitution before telling others how to deal with theirs...
Times changes, and constitutions with them. After all, it's the people's choice, not yours.”
Australia does have a constitution. It dates from the formation of our nation in 1901. It is even written down. Times do indeed change but that certainly does not mean that constitutions always should. They are not a fashion accessory.
And you are right that it is the people's choice. Coming from a country that was formed by a vote of the people, that is quite a laughable thing to say. How was your country formed?
So I'll give you a few facts and you choose a country to compare my constitution against....
Years in force: 112
Number of constitutions: 1
Time current constitution in effect since country's formation: 100%
Year of undemocratic rule: 0
Ability to change: the people ONLY (A double majority = a majority of the country's population as well as separate majorities in each of a majority of states)
Changes attempted: 44
Changes successful: 8
Last change: 1977
Time since constitution was altered compared to country's formation: 32%
Australia has the 10th oldest continually operating written constitution in the world.
You were saying?
So you are Aussie. Great. I have little issues with Australians.
Apr 16th, 2013 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0One question though, does that constitution of yours include the aborigins?
When you say “year of undemocratic rule: 0”, does that include the aborigins in your democracy?
Of course a change in the constitution is made by the people, or an overwhelming majority of the same. In Australia, in Argentina, in Venezuela and everywhere else.
You were saying?
@29 Stevie
Apr 16th, 2013 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“One question though, does that constitution of yours include the aborigins?
When you say “year of undemocratic rule: 0”, does that include the aborigins in your democracy?”
First off it's Aborigines. With both an 'e' and capitalised as it is a proper name. If you're going to use them to make a point, then at least get that right.
Aborigines are not included in our constitution. All mention of them were removed by a referendum in 1967. Up to that point the states of Australia, which were and still are sovereign states, legislated Aboriginal affairs. Aborigines voted from the start of federation. However the right was sporadic and inconsistent. It was fully enfranchised in 1962.
So that was 50 years last year. But I think you need to learn the difference between a democracy with faults, a dictatorship and disenfranchisement.
And let's face it, Uruguay doesn't have any full blooded indigenes left to disenfranchise.
Why, have we in 112 years of existence acted worse than places like Chile, Argentina and Uruguay did since their independence.
I love how you keep moving the goal posts. Was Australia built on the dispossession of lands and denial of rights of its native inhabitants?
Yes!
Is there a country in Latin America where this isn't true too?
No!
“Of course a change in the constitution is made by the people, or an overwhelming majority of the same. In Australia, in Argentina, in Venezuela and everywhere else.”
Aaah no! Not everywhere. Venezuela since 1999, yes. A simple majority is needed. If 20 people vote and 11 are for yes - change made. Recount? Not likely. LMAO. Argentina, no! See Section 30 of the Argentine constitution to see exactly how easy it is to change.
I especially like the racism of Article 33 of Venezuela's 1999 constitution. But then again Section 25 of Argentina's “foster[s] European immigration”.
“You were saying?”
Lots it would seem as you keep moving the goal posts and stating lies. Try harder please.
aborigins is quite fine for me. After all, it's the name you gave them, not what they called themselves.
Apr 16th, 2013 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your points are fair enough, but it sounds like you should stop worrying about SA constitutions and worry of your own instead. Sounds a bit outdated in my opinion...
;)
Stevie
Apr 16th, 2013 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“aborigins is quite fine for me. After all, it's the name you gave them, not what they called themselves.”
You aren't insulting me in your choice of words, however you are insulting Aborigines. With between 350 and 750 different languages that were spoken, there is no Aboriginal word for their race so they identify and have taken ownership of the name Aborigine. It is they that use this and dissuade use of other terms. Hence the capitalisation as it is now their name for their race.
This is what they call themselves. Quite funny that someone of European descent is choosing to ignore their wishes. Hypocritical much?
If you don't wish to use this word, that is fine by me. I keep telling you that your own words do half my arguing on here anyway.
32
Apr 16th, 2013 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only thing that is funny here is your desire of discussing aborigins all of the sudden.
Call them what you want. The day I meet one, I'll ask him how he identifies himself. I'm sure they didn't live in a desire of being named by the Brits, despite your effort to make it appear as their wish...
(33) Stevie
Apr 16th, 2013 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why don't you believe Mr. Anglolatino?
He wouldn't tell us Ozzie Porkies, would he?
All “Aboriginals” in Oz luuuv the Anglo word “Aboriginal”.
Specially when used by the Anglos in its abbreviated form...: “Abo”
@ 32 Stevie
Apr 16th, 2013 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting that you castigate Australian for colonisation. I again ask “have we in 112 years of existence acted worse than places like Chile, Argentina and Uruguay did since their independence?”
“you should stop worrying about SA constitutions and worry of your own instead. Sounds a bit outdated in my opinion..”
To bring it back on topic, this was an interesting comment to make. What is so worrisome about the Australian constitution? And why is it outdated?
In your continual quest to be as hypocritical as possible, I note you don't find the racists sections of the Argentine or Venezuela constitutions offensive. Aren't they outdated? I bet you don't even know what I'm talking about.... not surprising considering how little substance your comments usually contain.
Also you never seemed to raise an issue when Maduro illegally took power in Venezuela after the death of Chavez. The Venezuelan constitution seemed to be easily ignored when it is protected someone you support.
Also the ease of changing the Argentine constitution doesn't seem to worry you. Seems a bit outdated when so many now required referenda to change them.... again according to you.
But then again you aren't arguing that Chile is in the same league as Venezuela and Argentina when it comes to democracy.
Bachelet may indeed win the next election. Alternating power is a win for democracy and the people. Compare this to the unending rule that is slowly (though now increasing in speed) ruining both Argentina and Venezuela.
Chile with its low debt, high growth, low inflation and low crime rate compared to the exact opposite in both Argentina and Venezuela. Seems like the version of democracy that I espouse is pretty superior to the one you do.
@34 Think
Yes, we all get it; you're a racist. There's no need to continually prove it.
Anglolatino
Apr 17th, 2013 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are the one complaining about how easy it is to change the constitution in Argentina and Venezuela.
Now you blame them for being outdated.
Please make your mind up.
I havent't even looked at the Australian debt, but I can tell you without even doing so that it is much higher than the Argentinian, Chilean, Uruguayan and Venezuelan put together...
@36 Stevie
Apr 17th, 2013 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0“After all, it's the people's choice, not yours.”
I proved you wrong - Argentina's doesn't need the people's choice.
“Of course a change in the constitution is made by the people, or an overwhelming majority of the same. In Australia, in Argentina, in Venezuela and everywhere else.”
I proved you wrong. Argentina's doesn't require a referendum. Neither does Chile's or the US.
“you should stop worrying about SA constitutions and worry of your own instead. Sounds a bit outdated in my opinion...”
Who said a constitution was outdated? You! Without reason - perhaps it is too durable and not elastic enough for a frequent bout of junta every now and again.
“Times changes, and constitutions with them.”
Your argument, not mine.
Seems like you to need to make up your own mind. Because so far you haven't actually stated which form of constitution you support or why. It is very easy to attack when you your self maintain a small target by standing for nothing but contrarianism.
“I haven't even looked at the Australian debt, but I can tell you without even doing so that it is much higher than the Argentinian, Chilean, Uruguayan and Venezuelan put together...”
Wow another change of subject. Who would have thunk it?
Well considering our economy is bigger than these four countries COMBINED, then yes in nominal terms it just might be. Around about A$260 billion.
But what's this? Only 20% of GDP? Surely that can't be true after all Stevie you claimed on another thread that all developed countries were debt ridden.
So let's compare debt to GDP shall we:
Chile 11%
Argentina 43%
Venezuela 49%
Uruguay 49%
And in nominal terms:
Chile US$27 billion
Argentina US$191 billion
Venezuela US$154 billion
Uruguay US$23 billion
Grand total of US$395 billion.
So ummmm NO, not higher!
Lower unemployment than all 4.
Lower inflation that 3.
Lower government deficit than 2.
Bet you wished you'd looked that information up now.
Next change of subject! I'm having so much fun.
Anglolatino
Apr 17th, 2013 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are all over the place with your arguments on the constitutions. Just to put clear, I believe a constitution is by the people and for the people. They themselves choose when to change it, how to do so and what it states.
As an Australian you have influence on the Australian constitution.
I can have many opinions on the Australian one, as you can have on ours. That is a matter of opinions so stop pointing fingers and if your aim is to change anything, change your own.
As I said, I have nothing against Australia, other than their alliance with USA in certain areas. And I'm glad they are doing great with their public debt. I'm also glad Chile is doing even better.
Now, stop playing with numbers and check out the debt that really counts and the one I was referring to. The external debt.
Australia - 1.4 Trillions
Chile - 100 Billions
Venezuela - 90 Billlions
Argentina - 138 Billions
Uruguay - 15 Billions
Enjoy your fun.
“But then again you aren't arguing that Chile is in the same league as Venezuela and Argentina when it comes to democracy.”
Apr 17th, 2013 - 06:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course we Chileans are not... we cannot offer such a GREAAAT system of democracy like in Argentina, where you have a multifacetic scenario of left Peronism, right Peronism, extremist Peronism, liberal Peronism, fascist Peronism, populist Peronism, Gorilla Peronis....”
Well, I think we all get it! xD
By the way, Stevie... you are throughing together statistics which have nothing in common. Do you actually understand the difference of external debt and Public debt? Your comments are an evidence that you don't...
Public debt defines the accumulation (aka say: incompetence) of the governments to handle budgets in a rational manner. The nominal value isn't that significant, but the percentage of the national GDP, as it reflects the (in)balance of the public spenditures. In that aspect, Argentina and Venezuela are way worse than countries like Australia and Chile. It would be even worse, if somebody would still give you as much money as you ask for, but nobody relies in Arg anymore.
The external debt (the last figures you quote) are a mixture of public debt and private debt. The height of this value is not too representative, because it can be intepreted in different ways (negative and positive). Related to the general GDP, a high value of the external debt can also mean a high “trust” into the local economy, as it means a high fluctuation of loans within the market due to low risk. A too small external debt compared to the GDP also means that there is no confidence in the local market, nobody lends money due to the high risk of not paying back. Thats for example the reason why the external debt of Argentina has decreased so much: not because you have a great economy, but nobody trusts and neither lends you any money anymore.
ManRod
Apr 17th, 2013 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0With all respect, the public debt is one thing, the external debt is another.
The external debt is a great indication as to how the “developed countries” have been living on lent money for some decades now.
Progress? Sure... Tell that to their grandchildren, or children if things continue to develop in the same direction as up until now. They are the ones to pay for the party.
I am aware that it's 2 different things... that's why I am explaining it to YOU, as you have evidently mixed both things up in your previous comments.
Apr 17th, 2013 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0So relax the nerve, we already noticed that you don't have a clue ;)
By the way, it didn't work out to “turn arround the ship” in your last comment.
It's the public debt that shows the incapacity of goverments to deal with their budgets and their “future and grandchildren”. Their incapability to handle their own economies. High public debts are mostly based on populistic guided governments (Like the one of CFK and Chavez), promising lowering taxes, giving away free goodies (in any aspect), borrowing money for short-termed economic incentives, etc... mostly those short sighted actions don't stand in relation to effect/costs and contributes to maximize the public debt to levels that transform into unsolvable barriers (see Argentina, Greece, Spain, etc...) and economic long term drawbacks. Its the grandchildren who have to “pay” the consecuences of an irresponsible management of Public debts, like seen in your populistic countries (+southern European ones, which are very similar).
Obviously THAT's unfair, because the private debt is only bond to companies and individuals, which are terminable. Public debts is being transferred from generation to generation into all times...unless you default and suffer the severe consecuences.
#25 “Did Bachelet ever look at changing the constitution so she could remain in power? Supposedly she had the popularity for it”
Apr 17th, 2013 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed, even if she doesn't change the constitution there can be a return of Cristina in 2019 =)
ManRod
Apr 17th, 2013 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0You choose to look at the public debt, not because it shows any incapacity as you say, but because it is far more convenient than having a look at the external debt. How do you explain to your ideological friends that in order to achieve what the developed country has achieved, you need to borrow Trillions of dollars?
Tell me of one developed country that has achieved what they did without borrowing large amounts of cash. Cash that their children will have to pay back.
The public debt is a number that shows a country's deficit (most usually) in running the budget. The external debt is the immediate solution for those countries with high rating at the rating agencies.
Not that taking the public debt into account will help your argument.
If you order the countries by public debt as % of GDP, in top 20, you'll find
Japan
Italy
Greece
Portugal
USA
Ireland
UK
Belgium
Iceland
France
Canada
South America being the
amongst countries such as
Eritrea
Lebanon
Jamaica
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Singapore
Grenada
Sudan
Antigua and Barbuda
Not as nice reading as the AAA, but still beautiful numbers, compared to the list of external debt, especially per capita
Take Luxembourg, they owe some 3.5M dollars per person. The UK some 350k , Australia some 50k. Chile owes 5k per head, Argentina 3k.
Stevie, I see you still have not understood the significance of the differentiation between external debt and public debt in the context of an economy, you keep mixing them up.
Apr 17th, 2013 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The height of public debt in relation to the GDP leaves you no margin in interpretation to meassure the responsability of the governments regarding decadence of ruling, FULL STOP!
The effects of this behaviour can be different, depending on the economic counterweight each country has to offer in products, exports, etc... but they all struggle in agony or fall into a deep groundless dark hole (if not yet, they will). The list of nations you have given is a perfect proof of what I am telling you, because all these nations, irrelevant of the categorization “industrialized or not developped”, can commit this error. It's not a confrontation of rich vs poor countries, but responsible nations able to handle their budgets vs nations doomed by their populism OR mighty lobbies.
Now, I love the example of Luxemburg you give, because that makes somewhat clear what the difference of public debt means vs external debt. Luxembourg is the perfect example of a “scary” gigantic external debt, but with one of the lowest public debts on earth (18%). How come? Because public debt is related to the budget management of governments only, and in this case they do not spend more than they have as income.
Why do they have such a great external debt then, do they all really consume thaaaat much ? Of course not in that dimensions. External debt is a very general categorization for:
1. Public debt
+
2. Private debt (may it be of individuals, companies, BANKS, etc...)
As we all know, Luxemburg has a massive inflow of capital, due to suspect individuals and companies bunkering their money over there. The relation of money inflow (in this case categorized as “debt”) in that little “nation” stands in extreme inbalance with the amount of inhabitants. Though they do not “suffer” it, as they profit in a very massive way.
ManRod
Apr 17th, 2013 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only time I mentioned public debt was when I listed the countries, only for you. I'm still talking about external debt and external debt only, no need to get confused. And unless you want to make me believe every developed nation is a major financial centre, how do you explain the Trillions in debt each and every one of them have?
Their welfare has been based on loans from the IMF and the WB, and now, somebody has to pay for the party. Stop introducing public debt, that has nothing to do with the external one. Stop mixing them both.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!