Bring it all together from a century ago – the migration, the wealth, the European influences and architectural aspirations (everyone had Paris envy), the public art, even the road widenings – and this is what you get:
There’s a big lesson here too, which came home to me quite powerfully as I was reading a history of Argentina while listening to the latest Trumpian news out of the States. How could such a rich country as Argentina, as evident in the built legacy of Buenos Aires, decline so far, so fast?
I’m not the only one to have asked.
The economic history of Argentina is one of the most studied, owing to the “Argentine paradox“, its unique condition as a country that had achieved advanced development in the early 20th century but experienced a reversal, which inspired an enormous wealth of literature and diverse analysis on the causes of this decline.
Argentina possesses definite comparative advantages in agriculture, as the country is endowed with a vast amount of highly fertile land.[2] Between 1860 and 1930, exploitation of the rich land of the pampas strongly pushed economic growth …
Beginning in the 1930s, however, the Argentine economy deteriorated notably. The single most important factor in this decline has been political instability since 1930, when a military junta took power, ending seven decades of civilian constitutional government.
In macroeconomic terms, Argentina was one of the most stable and conservative countries until the Great Depression, after which it turned into one of the most unstable. Successive governments from the 1930s to the 1970s pursued a strategy of import substitution to achieve industrial self-sufficiency…
America First, America First.
Dear USA: please listen to the rest of the world (who have experience dealing with populist narcissists in power) about how to react to Trump. Please, please, please.
I don’t think I’m saying anything new here, but it needs to be said again. In my view, the bigger problem isn’t the next four years: it’s what happens after that. Those of us who despise the man need to keep our eyes on the prize.
Trump didn’t win: the Democrats lost, convincingly, and not just at the presidential level. Though Trump certainly didn’t deserve to win, the Democrats did deserve to lose. The people voted for change in 2008. They didn’t get it, so they voted for change again in 2016. Throughout 2016, my response to friends who dismissed Trump was consistent: “I think he has a good chance.”
The rise of a xenophobic populist in response was entirely predictable. If not Trump, someone else would have appeared soon enough. I see him as like a wild animal: danger to be avoided, not some prodigy with the force of will to change history. He’s a buffoon. The real fault lies elsewhere. Yes, with ignorance and hatred, rampant in a country that has shredded its social institutions. More importantly with the people in charge when this was allowed to happen.
The Democrats need to develop a genuine popular alternative. They resoundingly rejected any such thing during the campaign. Since then, they have only doubled down on their mistakes. Embedded in a toxic neoliberal ideological brew of rationality and meritocracy from which they have benefited handsomely, their self-satisfied sermon to those who have been left behind boils down to “be more like us.” They believe the fault lies with anyone but themselves. Losing, they see the problem as too much democracy, not to little. They are unable to hide their desire to put Brecht into practice by dismissing the people and electing a new one.
Of course the Democrats and Republicans have long conspired to exclude any third parties, so the Democrats, with all their faults, are all there is. If they can’t offer change in four years, if they can’t learn to listen, if they can’t develop some humility, then I believe that we well see another Trump inauguration. At this rate, we may even see a constitutional convention of the states. The next four years will not be pretty. I’m far more concerned with what follows.
But why did the military junta take power? What was it about the society that led to that?
The poster child for decline is Cuba. Before it fell into collective misery in 1959, it was a middle-class society like Argentina & Chile at the time. In fact, Cuba had a higher per-capita income than many countries in Europe. Any place can be excused for dabbling in communist life. The problem with Cuba is they stuck it out, thinking it would get better. Now, they are joined in various categories with N Korea.
I highly doubt that North Korea has a lower child mortality rate than the U.S.
I had seen it claimed that the rot started during the First World War, rather during the Great Depression, when the closure of the world economy, which had been previously characterized by very free movement of people and capital, if somewhat tariff restricted movement of goods, hit hard a place like Argentina that was so dependent on the open operation of world trade, finance, and migration.