Federal Capital (Paco Urondo Agency, published in 2010 Magazine, November 2010)
The 1976 coup was essentially two key goals and tightly intertwined: Argentina desperonizar society while breaking the pattern industrialization through import substitution. General Aramburu believed that simply banning the symbols and liturgies associated with Peronism, society in general and the working class in particular would forget the legacy of Juan Domingo Peron and Eva Duarte. However, as opposed to what is thought by the authors of the coup of 1955 the result was the growth and the radicalization of the Peronist resistance that forced the military to allow the return of General Peron to the political scene in the early seventies.
For this reason, the military concocted the 1976 coup came to the conclusion that the only way to effectively Argentina desperonizar to society was through the destruction of the economic model which resulted in a strengthening of the column vertebral Peronism, that is, the organized labor movement. That is, deindustrialize Argentina's economy to weaken the working class and sustain the construction of a new economic model for the dominant sectors. This new regime of accumulation was the neoliberal model of financial recovery that took several steps in its construction and consolidation involving trade liberalization, the free operation of capital markets, deregulation of markets, labor flexibility and a process privatization.
military dictatorship and the neoliberal model implementation (1976-1983): the implementation of the neoliberal model during the military dictatorship had two stages. The first step was the concentration of income through three measures taken during the first year of the dictatorship. In Indeed, the nominal wage freeze, elimination of price controls on goods with a sharp devaluation of the currency caused a significant reduction in real wages of workers from sparking inflationary process.
This phenomenon generated an income transfer from the dominant employees breaking the "tie society" which had been formed during the import substitution industrialization and fundamentally from the first two Peron. Thus, the working class came to participate from 44% of GDP in 1975 to 28% in 1976 so the appropriating capital of 56% of GDP in 1975 became part of 72% in 1977. Therefore, during the first year of the neoliberal model was a strong concentration of income generating social impoverishment, breaking one of the central features that had characterized society in Argentina during the model of industrialization through import substitution.
After spraying the real wage income concentration and compress the domestic market developed the second phase of implementation of the neoliberal model: the construction of a model of financial recovery and dismantling national manufacturing apparatus. This was achieved through financial reform introduced by the military dictatorship in 1977 which consisted basically of two points. On the one hand, liberalization of interest rates and prohibiting the Central Bank of Argentina to finance the fiscal deficit. Thus, from the reform, the fiscal imbalance came to be financed through public borrowing. The result was an increase in local interest rates.
Along with the reform of the military dictatorship established financial liberalization of the capital account balance payments, thus allowing the private sector, and basically the major economic groups, could borrow money abroad and leak their resources freely. From these measures were changed in Argentina's economy relative returns of different economic sectors. To be more profitable financial sector to invest in industrial production. Moreover, we add the exchange-imposed tablita Martinez de Hoz which involved a fixed exchange rate pre-announced devaluations. In other words, all economic agents knew praises day and the national government would devalue the currency.
In this model of financial recovery with growth of public debt, both internally and externally to finance the fiscal deficit was a significant growth of private external debt as a result of the so-called "financial cycle." From the strong growth of the international financial system liquidity as a result of the emergence of petrodollars to the early seventies the international interest rate was reduced compared to the domestic interest rate rise as a result of financial reform 1977.
In this context, the concentrated internal capital began to borrow abroad at a relatively low interest rate, then buy pesos in the local market and depositing it into the domestic banking system that gave them a higher interest rate to which they had borrowed. Importantly, the interest rate of deposits in pesos were greater than they could receive in dollars, for this reason the dollars for pesos changed given that the exchange rate was fixed and they knew in advance when you devalue the currency.
Thus, financial income obtained from the mass recovery of cash they got from debt abroad. But also the gain they got then ran away abroad. Thus, while external debt grew sharply expanded private capital flight abroad of the big economic groups. Financial income was higher than income productive thus resulting in one of the central causes of deindustrialization and rising unemployment during the military dictatorship.
Finally, in 1982, Domingo Cavallo, chairman of the Central Bank decided to nationalize the private external debt. That is, the external debt of large economic groups passed the national state, why the population had to pay Argentina through the payment of taxes. He nationalized the debt of the big business but not the dollars that had escaped abroad, that is, nationalized the costs but not the profits that the "financial cycle" had generated internal concentrated capital. Thus, one of the most devastating consequences of the neoliberal model and the military dictatorship was the public debt which went from 8,600 to 46,000 million approximately. The legacy of dictatorship from the introduction of neoliberal model was then dismantling of national manufacturing equipment, increased unemployment, poverty and homelessness, income concentration, disappearance de una gran cantidad de pequeñas y medianas empresas y un aumento abrupto de la deuda externa y la fuga de capitales. Este modelo económico pudo ser instaurado a partir del terrorismo de Estado que generó el inició de la despolitización de la sociedad argentina.
Legitimación y profundización del modelo neoliberal (1983-2003): el retorno de la democracia implicó incipiente retorno de la política como eje ordenador de la sociedad argentina. Sin embargo, la legitimación y profundización del modelo neoliberal se tradujo en un alejamiento creciente de la sociedad en general y de la juventud en particular con respecto a la política. Despolitización y modelo neoliberal are two sides of the same coin.
In Argentina, Alfonsin's government started the path of subservience to the IMF began to act as representative of foreign creditors. Thus, the international body began to impose on Argentina, different business models for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with the debt and interest to creditors.
In this sense, the two redevelopment IMF structural reform programs for the economy and society in Argentina. The first was imposed structural adjustment program in the eighties radical government was cutting spending public to generate a fiscal surplus and enough so to pay the various departments of government debt. Put another way, the Alfonsin government reduced spending on education, health, social spending, infrastructure to use those resources to pay foreign creditors. Pay the debt with the hunger and poverty in Argentina. The eighties ended with one of the worst economic and social crisis of our history that was the hyperinflationary crisis of 1989 and involves the anticipated departure of President Alfonsin.
In this context, the IMF redouble the bet. According to the international body had the problem been that the reduction of public spending was not accompanied by a structural reform of the national economy. In this way, we won the nineties the Washington Consensus was characterized by fiscal discipline with a set of neoliberal policies such as privatization, trade liberalization, deregulation of markets and financial liberalization.
Menem's government along with the model that replicates the planchette Convertibility exchange of Martinez de Hoz was instructed to impose the policies recommended in the Washington Consensus. Then, this model was legitimized and deepened through various measures such as labor flexibility by the Alliance government led by the radical Fernando De La Rua. The new package of IMF crisis ended in 2001, but economic and social crisis in Argentina's history in terms of decline in output and in relation to increasing poverty and destitution that genre.
Since the crisis was outlined out of the crisis neoliberal designed by the IMF: duhaldista output. The Duhalde's economic plan was a maxi devaluation accompanied by a nominal wage freeze which resulted in inflationary process which led to a decline in real wages of workers with the objective of benefiting only the major exporters. The output of the neoliberal crisis of 2001 was a new transfer of resources from the salaried sectors (falling real wages) to the dominant sectors in this case, major exporters of agricultural and industrial sector).
We waited again desolation. We again expect more social and economic impoverishment, more depoliticization, more impunity. The feeling was that the degradation of Argentina was not final. However, popular resistance that ended with two dead from police repression resulted in the advancement of the elections and the triumph of an unknown: Néstor Carlos Kirchner took office in May 2003.
With thirty years of neoliberalism, economic dependence and depoliticization Kirchner broke. The construction of a re-industrialization model with social inclusion and income distribution were the main features of Argentina's economy since 2003. This requires two things. On the one hand, payment to the IMF to increase the margins of economic independence for the construction of the new development model. On the other hand, replace the policy at the center of Argentina to defend society from the grassroots of the new model. National and popular model politicization of society and Argentina are two sides of the same coin. For all this and more, thanks Nestor Cristina Force.
The author is an economist of the Study Group of National Economy and Popular (GEENaP) www.geenap.com.ar (Paco Agency Urondo)
0 comments:
Post a Comment