3 ms·
I looked into this and I don't actually see any sign that Argentina suffered any long-term decline in established GPD per capita. It had a few sharp breaks and
by aetherson 3y ago
I looked into this and I don't actually see any sign that Argentina suffered any long-term decline in established GPD per capita. It had a few sharp breaks and recessions that undid 10 or 20 years of progress. But all of the stuff about 100 years of decline in Argentina economy is based on counterfactuals about how they "should have" grown, not about absolute losses.
- twixfel 3y agoWell yeah most people are obviously referring to relative decline, I'm surprised you even needed that explaining to you, unless you thought that Argentina really might actually be poorer today in real terms than it was in the year 1900. > counterfactuals about how they "should have" grown No, they were growing a lot and extremely wealthy, then they chose to go down a low growth path. Growth is not some magical thing, as if they just stopped growing for no reason as you appear to be suggesting. The point is their growth trajectory changed for very particular reasons, which were mostly things in their control. I mean if in 100 years time the USA was the poorest country in the world but still richer than it is today in real terms, would you really go "yep, yep, nothing to see here, stop dealing in counterfactuals"? Obviously not.
- aetherson 3y agoThis whole thread exists because a person said that they thought that the UK was going to have a lower standard of living in the future than the past. I assume you will now go direct your indignation towards them.