by 1913 Argentina was the richest country in South America and among the richest in the world, well Beyond France or Italy and on par with Germany, maybe even more. The decline of international trade and the political instability brought by the wars slowed down the amazing growth and locked Argentina in a cycle of political killings, dictatorships, boom and bursts. Without the wars, or with far shorter ones, could Argentina have mantained its wealth? will there be a war with Brazil, can the naval race continue? tell me what you think
how long can the Argentinian dream last?
- Thread starter Gancio The Ranter
- Start date
That's partly true, export of food was very important, but the industry was growing before the war, I don't see why this trend can't continue without the political instability of the 30s
FillyofDelphi
Banned
I can. Argentina's rapid growth in industry and resource extraction, despite not being particularly cost-competitive, was due to rather liberal terms on and abundant amounts of European capital investment: confidence in the payout from the economic growth feeding into itself alongside. When that flow dried up post-war and the European market both shrunk and was supplemented by overproduction in the Americas, they found themselves with a burst export bubble.
Is it really that hard to stay on the same trend with Can/Aus (if somewhat lower) if they avoid going into dictatorships etc mostly post WWII?
http://archive.economonitor.com/blog/2014/02/argentina-the-myth-of-a-century-of-decline/
http://archive.economonitor.com/blog/2014/02/argentina-the-myth-of-a-century-of-decline/
Last edited:
Well, not quite. The 1930 coup was partially due the 1929 financial crisis, up until then, governments have been stable since the 1890 crisis. It was followed by stable, if fraudulent governments, until 1943, but that coup had political rather than economical reasons behind it. Then we have 9 continuous years of Peron. It's after 1955 that military and constitutional governments follow in relative rapid succession but, as you see in the graphic, the 1960s and very early 70s were a period of economic growth. The last military dictatorship was stable until they've thoroughly trashed the economy and lost the Falklands War in 1982. Then we have 5+ rough years of Alfonsín, followed by 10 years of Menem. De la Rúa lasted two nasty years, but he was contributing to the economic collapse. The follow up to the crisis was instable, but after 2003, we get 12 continuous years of pretty much the same government.
I'd say economic instability and crashes tumbled governments, but the tumbling of governments didn't, in itself, create economic crisis.
What I think could do it(by no means is this completely correct, it’s just an idea I’m throwing out) is if during 1929 and the Great Depression, president weird-name implements successful economic reforms for the agriculture sector, a lot like what FDR did. Maybe reroute small streams from large waterways for irrigation systems, thereby increasing farming output, which is what Argentina’s economy is based on.
If that happens, it could just butterfly away the other coups, or lessen the effects.
I got another one:
If during ww2, Argentina makes the deal of “Give us the Falklands and we will continue to supply the Allies with food” and successfully gets back the islands, then the popularity of the regime would be boosted and a coup would be harder to popularly stage.
If that happens, it could just butterfly away the other coups, or lessen the effects.
I got another one:
If during ww2, Argentina makes the deal of “Give us the Falklands and we will continue to supply the Allies with food” and successfully gets back the islands, then the popularity of the regime would be boosted and a coup would be harder to popularly stage.
I genuinely don't know about the first one. My very general guess is that an increase in productivity, if at all possible, wouldn't happen quickly, it may not result in more exports to European countries as they turn more protectionist as a result of the 1929 and agriculture might not be able to employ a lot more people anyway. AFAIK, the agrarian export model was already hitting its limits by that date anyway. I might be wrong about this.
As for the WW2 thing, if Argentina doesn't sell to the UK, who else is buying?
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
in 1973-74, OPEC quadrupled the price of oil. Yes, 4-fold increase.Is it really that hard to stay on the same trend with Can/Aus (if somewhat lower) if they avoid going into dictatorships etc mostly post WWII?
http://archive.economonitor.com/blog/2014/02/argentina-the-myth-of-a-century-of-decline/
And the 1974-75 recession was at the time the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression.
(1982 was later worse, and 2008-2009 quite a bit worse still)
elkarlo
Banned
This it was and still is a commodity based economy. I guess it's too far to develop a lot of heavy industries . Maybe if it did, who would it sell to?
Both Argentina and Britain knew that Britain needed the food. If Argentina stopped providing and the soldiers couldn’t eat, how long could they last? Argentina could also add in some extra deals to sweeten it, such as a cheaper price on the food or even direct weaponry production and lend lease. With the last option, Argentinian industry would also boom, allowing a sort of industrial boom to occur. Argentina could become a major producer of other things.
EDIT: Why would Britain put the war at Europe at risk just for a few lousy islands down in the south Atlantic that are nearly empty of people and, as far as they know, barren of resources?
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
The author is saying:Is it really that hard to stay on the same trend with Can/Aus (if somewhat lower) if they avoid going into dictatorships etc mostly post WWII?
http://archive.economonitor.com/blog/2014/02/argentina-the-myth-of-a-century-of-decline/
‘ . . . it was the subsequent military coup of March 1976, which aiming at stamping out the Peronist Party and its followers (a “final solution” for Argentina, if you will), killed and forced into exile a significant number of Argentines (which among other things hollowed the previously relatively well-built basis of scientists mainly in public universities), started to dismantle the manufacturing base that was supposed to give the Peronist Party its loyal labor base, generated the debt explosion that led to the 1980s debt crisis, and spent a large amount of fiscal resources into different military adventures . . . ’
Wow, that’s some serious stuff.
So, in addition to a lot of people dying who didn’t need to, the late ‘70s and early ‘80s hurt overall Argentine science and manufacturing.
When reading from Wikipedia some interesting issues contributed to this (I know, I know...don't use Wikipedia): "The depressions of 1873–77 and 1890–91 played a crucial role in fostering the rise of industry: timidly in the 1870s and more decisively in the 1890s, industry grew with each crisis in response to the need of a damaged economy to improve its trade balance through import-substitution. By 1914, about 15% the Argentine labour force was involved in manufacturing, compared to 20% involved in commercial activities. In 1913, the country's income per head was on a par with that of France and Germany, and far ahead of Italy's or Spain's. At the end of 1913, Argentina had a gold stock of £59 million, or 3.7% of the world's monetary gold, while representing 1.2% of the world's economic output."
Sounds like "...a combination of the Panama canal opening in 1913/14 meant the South American economies declined, as investors turned their attention to Asia and the Caribbean." Then WWI hit and everything went terrible because exports were impeded by the European conflict and then foreign investment in Argentina came to a complete standstill.
Also, "The Roca-Runciman Treaty of 1933 gave Argentina a quota of the British market for exports of its primary products, but the discriminatory British imperial tariffs and the effects of deflation in Britain actually led to a small decline of Argentine exports to Great Britain."
So to make a play on this issue, you've got to somehow make the impact of the Panama canal and WWI go away, make the US Government not disregard their exports in the 20's, and find a different source of export partner (other than England). If you can do this, then you can avoid the series of dictoratorships that crippled the economy.
Sounds like "...a combination of the Panama canal opening in 1913/14 meant the South American economies declined, as investors turned their attention to Asia and the Caribbean." Then WWI hit and everything went terrible because exports were impeded by the European conflict and then foreign investment in Argentina came to a complete standstill.
Also, "The Roca-Runciman Treaty of 1933 gave Argentina a quota of the British market for exports of its primary products, but the discriminatory British imperial tariffs and the effects of deflation in Britain actually led to a small decline of Argentine exports to Great Britain."
So to make a play on this issue, you've got to somehow make the impact of the Panama canal and WWI go away, make the US Government not disregard their exports in the 20's, and find a different source of export partner (other than England). If you can do this, then you can avoid the series of dictoratorships that crippled the economy.
I think it's a matter of timing. Argentina doing that after Pearl Harbor is an invitation for American carrier groups to visit the country. Also, I don't think Churchill would trade land for food. But it's a dangerous gambit for Argentina: those who have to loose if Britain calls Argentina's bluff are the main supporters of the pro-British Argentine government of that time.
Yes, but you don't hear much about it because, while the military lost - in their own words - "the war of ideas", the dictatorship's economists didn't, except for a few years after the 2001 crisis.
I don't think the impact of the Panama Canal can be butterflied away - it's just too important. I'm also not sure if there is a need to go that much back in time.
Avoid the last military dictatorship and keep the economy in the hands of people capable of weathering the 1972 oil crisis and the Argentine GDP per capita would keep growing. Or even absent that, go back just to the 1990s and make sure most of the railway system isn't dismantled and the Argentine peso is never pegged to the US dollar. There will be a recession after the Russian crisis and the Brazilian devaluation, but it wouldn't be that hard. If Argentina avoids a default, it enters the 2000s with lower logistical costs, a reasonably educated population willing to enter a globalized economy and will be seeing a commodity prices surge on top of low interest rates it can take advantage of.
Last edited:
Without 1930 coup, Argentina would have been as rich as Australia or Canada. Letting Yrigoyén die in office in 1933 instead of instigating coup would have discredited any future coup attempts to install military juntas that would have imposed import-substitution industrialization by force and then, reversed it back abruptly to agri-export model by an another military junta.
Letting democratic Radical government passes through the Great Depression would have economically enabled Argentina dealt smoothly without multiple institutional interruptions by the military. With uninterrupted democracy until today, Argentina would have easily adjusted with any effects of global economic system crises like what happened in early 1970s and 1980s where in OTL, Argentina suffered institutional setbacks in adjusting with changing global economic realities back then like Rodrigazo by Celestino Rodrigo and Tablita by José Martínez de Hoz.
There are five POD options to prolong Argentine Dream:
Letting democratic Radical government passes through the Great Depression would have economically enabled Argentina dealt smoothly without multiple institutional interruptions by the military. With uninterrupted democracy until today, Argentina would have easily adjusted with any effects of global economic system crises like what happened in early 1970s and 1980s where in OTL, Argentina suffered institutional setbacks in adjusting with changing global economic realities back then like Rodrigazo by Celestino Rodrigo and Tablita by José Martínez de Hoz.
There are five POD options to prolong Argentine Dream:
- 1930 - Butterfly away coup against Yrigoyén.
- 1940 - Let Argentina join WWII under Allies.
- 1946 - Let Tamborini win over Perón.
- 1955 - Butterfly away coup against Perón.
- 1962 - Butterfly away coup against Frondizi.
- 1966 - Butterfly away coup against Illia.
- 1970 - Perón never returns and dies earlier.
- 1975 - Butterfly away Rodrigazo.
- 1976 - Butterfly away coup against Isabel Perón.
- 1980 - Butterfly away Iran oil crisis and US stagflation.
Butterfly ww1 away or barring that then make Argentina into a dominion of the Commonwealth.
People tend to forget that Australia and Canada were part of this "small" trade group and got all the benefits the US threw to the british too.
People tend to forget that Australia and Canada were part of this "small" trade group and got all the benefits the US threw to the british too.
But by the Cold War Canada was not only just next to the USA (so there is plenty of trade across the border) but also needed for NORAD while Australia was the bulwark of the American lead military alliance in the Southern Pacific. The USA doesn't need Argentina to defend from Soviet bombers nor it needs bomber bases here to kill its enemies, so it wouldn't really make a difference.