3 ms·
> This does not describe Argentina in the early 1900s because the country's wealth was mostly from raw resource exports which are always unstable. At the start
by skissane 3y ago
> This does not describe Argentina in the early 1900s because the country's wealth was mostly from raw resource exports which are always unstable.
At the start of the 20th century, Argentina and Australia were in rather similar situations: southern hemisphere countries with mostly European settler ancestry, and an economy dominated by exports of agriculture and mining. And yet, across that century, Australia's economy just went up and up, while Argentina's stagnated (especially post-1950). Yes, Australia was also faced with instabilities from resource export prices, but it managed to weather them. Why?
The fundamental difference between Argentina and Australia is Australia had much better economic management. And a big factor behind that, is it also had much better political stability. Which could be (at least partly) due to differences in political systems (parliamentary for Australia, presidential for Argentina) and political cultures (British-derived vs Latin American)
- rgmerk 3y agoWhile it’s undoubtedly an oversimplification this short podcast covers some of the key differences: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/abc-news-daily/iyl-argentina-inflation/102718728 https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/abc-news-daily/iyl-ar...
- skissane 3y agoCompanion article covering the same ground in text format: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-13/how-did-argentina-end-up-with-100-per-cent-inflation-/102707204 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-13/how-did-argentina-end... I agree it is an oversimplification - yes, in 1951, Artie Fadden was making sensible (even if unpopular) economic decisions in Australia, while Perón was making foolish (albeit popular) economic decisions in Argentina. But the same pattern has been repeated many times since. If Argentina had learned its lesson from Perón‘s mistakes and chosen not to repeat them, it would be in far better economic shape today - arguably much closer to where Australia is. Instead, it has chosen to repeat them again and again and again