Politics Kirchner Rescued Argentinas Economy and help unite South America

[YenyLer]

I understand that the opinions about the Kirchner Legacy might differ among our community members. However, it's crucial to recognize the impact Néstor Kirchner had on Argentina's recovery during his presidency. When he took office in 2003, Argentina was emerging from a severe recession, comparable to the Great Depression in the United States. Kirchner's policies, although considered heterodox, proved successful in steering the country toward rapid economic growth.

The president faced challenges, particularly from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which had played a role in Argentina's previous economic collapse. Kirchner's refusal to accept the IMF's conditions, leading to a temporary default, was a bold move that paid off. Argentina subsequently experienced significant economic growth, lifting millions out of poverty.

Kirchner's legacy extends beyond economic achievements. He played a crucial role in consolidating South American independence, collaborating with left-leaning governments in the region. His efforts, along with his wife Cristina Fernández, the current president, contributed to the formation of institutions such as UNASUR and MERCOSUR, altering South America's trajectory.

Additionally, Kirchner earned respect for addressing human rights issues by prosecuting military officers accused of crimes during the 1976-1983 dictatorship. While his policies may not have garnered favor in some international circles, history is likely to remember him as a great president and an independence hero in Latin America.

This perspective was originally published by The Guardian Unlimited (UK) on October 27, 2010.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/kirchner-rescued-argentin_b_774966.html

 

[AnaliaJuel]

I respect that opinions about Néstor Kirchner vary, and it's evident that you hold a different perspective. According to your view, Kirchner's presidency is criticized for various reasons. Some of the points you highlighted include allegations of personal enrichment through the acquisition and sale of state-owned land, misuse of presidential resources for private purposes, strained diplomatic relations, failure to address certain historical issues, and perceived damage to institutions and the judicial system.
You also mention economic policies that impacted the cattle industry and the country's entrepreneurs, as well as concerns about crime rates and support for certain individuals considered controversial. Additionally, criticisms extend to financial expenditures on initiatives like supporting the Madres de Plaza de Mayo and maintaining a large government workforce.
It's clear that your assessment of Kirchner's presidency is shaped by a range of factors, and your perspective reflects the complexity of evaluating political figures and their legacies. Everyone views political leaders through their own lens, considering both positive and negative aspects.

 

[AshesMike]

For those who understand Spanish, here's an article about Nestor Kirchner written before he became "canonized" by death.

It's interesting because it explains how he was able to build a strong power base in such a short time.

**************************************
El gran temor de los Kirchner

Luis Majul
Para LA NACION
Miércoles 27 de octubre de 2010 | Publicado en edición impresa*


Un año antes de las elecciones para elegir el próximo presidente, Néstor Kirchner se enfrenta con el problema más grave de su larga vida política. Una complicación desconocida que no había tenido desde 1987, cuando inició su carrera como intendente de Río Gallegos.

El ex presidente se choca con la posibilidad cierta de perder los comicios y de ser investigado, condenado y detenido, acusado de delitos que van desde el enriquecimiento indebido hasta el haber ejercido la jefatura de una asociación ilícita. Se trata de un asunto que no fue todavía analizado con seriedad por su círculo íntimo porque nunca, hasta ahora, se había visto en la necesidad cierta de enfrentar el problema.

Kirchner pasó de intendente de Río Gallegos a gobernador de Santa Cruz en 1991. Fue reelegido en tres oportunidades, hasta 2003, año en que resultó elegido presidente de la Nación con el 22% de los votos, ante la deserción de Carlos Menem en segunda vuelta. Kirchner, mientras fue gobernador, fue acumulando cada vez más poder e implementó un sistema para garantizarse absoluta impunidad. Algunos ejemplos bastan para comprender cómo lo hizo.

Primero diseñó un sistema electoral que anuló a la oposición y transformó a la Legislatura de la provincia en una escribanía de la gobernación.

Después nominó un Tribunal Superior de Justicia a su medida y así evitó que investigaran su responsabilidad en escándalos de corrupción que hubieran servido para hacer caer a cualquier otro mandatario provincial. Otros dos ejemplos sirven para argumentar la afirmación: la liquidación del Banco de Santa Cruz con millones de pesos pasados a pérdida y el oscuro manejo de los fondos de las regalías petroleras que recibió la provincia.

Al mismo tiempo se aseguró, a través de la publicidad oficial y la persecución de periodistas, el acompañamiento de un sistema de medios que, salvo honrosas excepciones, no quiso o no pudo informar como se debe.

Es decir: con cada cambio de mandato logró que nadie cuestionara la legalidad de sus decisiones.

Pero ahora es distinto. "Ahora Kirchner no sabe cómo impedir que lo investiguen, lo juzguen y eventualmente lo condenen, porque jamás imaginó que se tendría que enfrentar a semejante situación", me explicó un importante ex ministro que se pasó buena parte de su gestión evitando firmar decretos y resoluciones que podrían colocarlo en el banquillo de los acusados en el futuro inmediato.

No sólo se fue asqueado por el sistema de toma de decisiones. "Kirchner decidía desde el precio del dólar hasta la ayuda monetaria a un concejal del conurbano", me dijo. También renunció alarmado por las infinidades de pequeñas y grandes oportunidades que existen en las secretarías, subsecretarías y direcciones para ganar dinero por izquierda sin que nadie se indigne demasiado. Desde el mecanismo de permisos de importaciones hasta los miles de subsidios que el Estado distribuye de manera discrecional y sin sentido común. ¿Cómo un hombre tan desconfiado y paranoico no se preparó como corresponde ante la alternativa de perder su libertad?

Una respuesta probable es que, hasta el conflicto con el campo y su brutal pelea con el Grupo Clarín, y en un exceso de confianza debido el continuo crecimiento de la economía y la parálisis de la oposición, Kirchner supuso que él y su esposa podrían gobernar durante varios períodos más sin el mínimo riesgo de ser investigados.

Otra respuesta posible es que el tiempo en el gobierno nacional no le alcanzó para modelar las instituciones a imagen y semejanza del experimento de Santa Cruz.
Los que fueron a ver a Kirchner a su oficina de Puerto Madero, en aquellos días de principios de 2008 en que "caminaba por las paredes" porque no encontraba su destino después de haber entregado la banda presidencial a su mujer, afirman que fue por esa época cuando se dio cuenta, por primera vez, de que corría peligro: "Ahora que estamos bien me voy a dedicar a juntar plata y acumular más poder. Es la única manera de impedir que vaya preso", me dijo un poderoso empresario de medios que le dijo Kirchner, una tarde en que lo visitó.

Después de las elecciones legislativas del 28 de junio de 2009, el ex presidente empezó a repetir, ante sus hombres de mayor confianza, que la culpa de la derrota no había sido del Frente para la Victoria ni de las candidaturas testimoniales, sino de los medios en general y de Clarín en particular. Y en un par de charlas íntimas le oyeron decir, de manera casi textual: "Si yo no lo meto preso antes, [Héctor] Magnetto me mete preso a mí".

Lo cierto es que su situación judicial futura podría distar de ser la ideal. En primer lugar, todavía hay abierta una causa por enriquecimiento ilícito que el juez Rodolfo Canicoba Corral podría desempolvar y reactivar. Abarca las declaraciones juradas del matrimonio de 2004 a 2007. Permanece archivada, a la espera de alguna novedad que amerite la continuidad de la investigación.

En segundo lugar, hay un grupo de peritos contables, abogados y ex fiscales que analiza la posibilidad de pedir la reapertura de la causa por enriquecimiento que cerró en tiempo récord Norberto Oyarbide. Lo pretenden hacer sobre la base de un polémico antecedente: el que ordenó que se volviera a abrir el juicio de la AMIA para investigar al juez Juan José Galeano.

En tercer lugar, está la megacausa que maneja Julián Ercolini y en la que al ex presidente se lo presenta como presunto jefe de una asociación ilícita junto con funcionarios de su confianza y una decena de empresarios que hicieron y siguen haciendo negocios con este gobierno. Este expediente contiene innumerables casos. Desde los oscuros negocios con Venezuela hasta el sobreprecio en las obras públicas a favor de un grupo de empresas "cartelizadas". A semejante panorama hay que sumarle la investigación sobre la mafia de los medicamentos y la oscura financiación de la campaña electoral de Cristina Presidente 2007. La semana pasada, en su primera declaración indagatoria, uno de los involucrados, Héctor Capaccioli, se encargó de dejar en claro, también ante Oyarbide, que su jefe político se llama Néstor Kirchner.

Las balas están picando demasiado cerca. "La manera más afectiva de meter preso a un presidente corrupto es investigarlo en serio cuando abandona el poder", me dijo un fiscal que lo denunció y que renunció a su cargo después de que le recortaran sus atribuciones.

© LA NACION

 

[KIwiJot]

luis majul writes books that end up worthless within 6 months. The cartoñeros make good money from people throwing his writing away, and that's the best thing Majul has done for the poor. He has no backing to his suppositions and is not respected within any real intellectual circle. He is a celebrity journalist, and a poor one at that.

 

[YenyLer]

I respect that opinions about Néstor Kirchner vary, and it's evident that you hold a different perspective. According to your view, Kirchner's presidency is criticized for various reasons. Some of the points you highlighted include allegations of personal enrichment through the acquisition and sale of state-owned land, misuse of presidential resources for private purposes, strained diplomatic relations, failure to address certain historical issues, and perceived damage to institutions and the judicial system.
You also mention economic policies that impacted the cattle industry and the country's entrepreneurs, as well as concerns about crime rates and support for certain individuals considered controversial. Additionally, criticisms extend to financial expenditures on initiatives like supporting the Madres de Plaza de Mayo and maintaining a large government workforce.
It's clear that your assessment of Kirchner's presidency is shaped by a range of factors, and your perspective reflects the complexity of evaluating political figures and their legacies. Everyone views political leaders through their own lens, considering both positive and negative aspects.

I apologize for any confusion, and I appreciate your clarification. It seems there was a misunderstanding about the source of the article. If you have concerns or disagreements with the content, reaching out to the author or the publication directly is a reasonable course of action. Engaging in a constructive dialogue with the original creators of the content allows for a more direct and effective exchange of ideas.

 

[CarlsonHurt]

I apologize for any confusion, and I appreciate your clarification. It seems there was a misunderstanding about the source of the article. If you have concerns or disagreements with the content, reaching out to the author or the publication directly is a reasonable course of action. Engaging in a constructive dialogue with the original creators of the content allows for a more direct and effective exchange of ideas.

Of course Mark Wesibrot is a well know lefty, supporter of Hugo and other like regimes, not surprising that his view was positive. I'm sure we will be able to read many perhaps less biased and balanced accounts of Nestor's activities in coming days.

 

[YenyLer]

Of course Mark Wesibrot is a well know lefty, supporter of Hugo and other like regimes, not surprising that his view was positive. I'm sure we will be able to read many perhaps less biased and balanced accounts of Nestor's activities in coming days.

Of course your comments are from a well known righty a supporter of dictators and their like not suprising your view is negative about this article.

Im sure that you will post more biased articles in the coming days

 

[AshesMike]

luis majul writes books that end up worthless within 6 months. The cartoñeros make good money from people throwing his writing away, and that's the best thing Majul has done for the poor. He has no backing to his suppositions and is not respected within any real intellectual circle. He is a celebrity journalist, and a poor one at that.

Your viewpoint is your own, and you're entitled to it, no matter how different it may be. Regarding the term, you're correct, and I appreciate the clarification. It seems my previous response contained an error in spelling. Thank you for pointing it out.

 

[AshesMike]

Here's an article about Nestor Kirchner
=====================================

Back to a vacuum

Oct 27th 2010, 16:47 by D.R. | NEW YORK

ARGENTINE political parties are so weak that most movements are simply named after their leaders. The hegemonic, ideologically amorphous Justicialist Party (PJ) is universally called peronismo after its long-deceased founder, Juan Perón. Since 2003, only one ismo has mattered in Argentina: the kirchnerismo of Néstor Kirchner, a leftist, populist Peronist. Although Mr Kirchner left the presidency in 2007 to his wife, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, kirchnerismo came to a close this morning, when Mr Kirchner died of a heart attack at 60.

Mr Kirchner exemplified the country’s caudillo-centric political culture. In the 1990s, he was the governor of Santa Cruz, a desolate Patagonian province of 230,000 people whose economy depends on public works, oil and gas. He ran it like a personal fiefdom, refusing to delegate even tiny tasks and overseeing every centavo of the budget.

He was barely known outside Patagonia in 2002, when Eduardo Duhalde, a Peronist boss who became president after Argentina’s economic collapse the year before, was looking for a successor to back in the next election. Mr Duhalde reluctantly threw his support to Mr Kirchner after all of his top choices rebuffed him, and the strength of his political machine propelled Mr Kirchner into a second round. Mr Kirchner became president by default after his rival withdrew from the run-off.

Once in office, Mr Kirchner promptly set about ruling Argentina as he had Santa Cruz. He reorganised the tax system to make provincial governors more financially dependent on the federal executive. He got Congress to let him reassign public spending at will, and give him veto power over judicial nominations. He nationalised a handful of strategic businesses. And he circumvented presidential term limits by having Ms Fernández succeed him, with the apparent intention of allowing them to alternate in power indefinitely.

As a candidate, Ms Fernández promised a more consensual and conciliatory style. But it soon became clear that the First Gentleman—who also became president of the PJ and of Unasur, a group of South American countries, as well as a congressman—was still calling the shots. Mr Kirchner routinely gave orders to her ministers, occasionally contradicting Ms Fernández’s own directives. He even found time to ring private businessmen and instruct them to lower their prices or sell their stockpiled dollars. He was widely expected to run for a second term as president—the third for kirchnerismo—next year.

The only thing that could stop Mr Kirchner’s will to power was his health. Micromanaging a country of 40m was a draining task, and Mr Kirchner was notoriously late to bed and early to rise. He had suffered from colon problems during his presidency. This year, his ailments grew worse: he had two operations to unblock arteries in February and September. Nonetheless, he maintained his bruising schedule of public appearances and behind-the-scenes management. This morning, in a meeting at his home near the stark southern Andes, he collapsed, and could not be resuscitated.

In most countries, the death of a presidential spouse would be seen as a national tragedy. In Argentina, it is a political upheaval. Ms Fernández is more than a mere puppet—she was an influential senator when Mr Kirchner was still an enigmatic governor, and was his closest adviser during his presidency. But thanks to her husband’s omnipresence, she has never delegated meaningful authority to her cabinet. In particular, she has never shown much interest in economics, and the government forced out its few independent voices on the subject long ago.

The first couple’s detractors are divided on whether the hard-line Mr Kirchner undermined Ms Fernández’s more sensible instincts, or whether she was never truly her own woman at all. If the former is true, then Mr Kirchner’s passing could lead to a moderation of government policies. Ms Fernández has long promised to improve Argentina’s international standing; stopping the manipulation of official inflation statistics, for example, would be a first step towards restoring the country’s credibility. Presumably, a nationwide outpouring of sympathy for Ms Fernández might give her cover to make much-needed decisions her husband might have vetoed.

On the other hand, if Ms Fernández was really just a figurehead, then the best Argentines can hope for is a year of political paralysis. Even some of the Kirchners’ closest allies seem to doubt her ability to govern by herself. “I don’t know what will happen with Cristina,” said Estela Carlotto, the head of Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, a widely respected human-rights group. “She’s all alone now in charge of the country.”

Mr Kirchner’s death also makes an already uncertain 2011 presidential race even more difficult to predict. Kirchnerismo always promised two for the price of one. If Ms Fernández does run for re-election, she will have to reassure voters that she can handle her husband’s old tasks of managing the budget and keeping the peace among Peronism’s warring factions. Moreover, many potential Peronist candidates who might have kept their ambitions in check for fear of Mr Kirchner’s wrath may now be emboldened. In particular, Daniel Scioli, who was Mr Kirchner’s vice president and is now the governor of Buenos Aires province, now seems much more likely to run.

Mr Kirchner’s economic legacy is complicated. Despite implementing a series of ill-advised policies that discouraged investment, Argentina’s GDP has grown rapidly since he took office, thanks to a natural recovery from the 2001 crash, surging global demand for the country’s farm exports and the strong performance of neighbouring Brazil.

The political impact of his rule, however, is more straightforward. Mr Kirchner filled a power vacuum not with institution-building but with his own tireless labour. Now that he can give no more, the vacuum will return.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/10/death_argentinas_ex-president

 

[CarlsonHurt]

The Economist piece I would say is a good synopsis. The next year should be very interesting.

 

[KevinNash]

Don't waste your time with these people Perry...they are blind, they were born blind since preconceived.

"In a country of the blind (Argentina) the one-eyed is king".

...and really he was the one who can see ahead to the future, a true patriot, not only to govern this nation for a privileged class who many pretends but for every class of Argentines.

"En un mundo de ciegos el "tuerto" fue y sera por siempre Rey"

Nestor Kirchner 1950-2010 Q.E.P.D my Ex-President​

 

[YenyLer]

From my perspective, having moved here within the last 5 years, I see things differently than some others. Personally, I find much more positive than negative in the legacy of Nestor Kirchner. One of the most significant aspects is the hope and self-confidence evident in many Argentines, which was virtually non-existent in the early 2000s, from 2000 to 2005. We should not underestimate the positive changes that characterize Kirchner's reforms, including wage improvements and better employment prospects for millions of Argentinians.

While people often talk about the Chilean and Brazilian Miracles, Argentina has outperformed these two countries in terms of GDP growth and workers' wages, which stand as the highest in Latin America. Notable reforms include pensioner reforms and unemployment subsidies, which are by far the most dignified in South America.

Human rights have improved for all minorities, and laws enshrining respect for human sexuality have been implemented, thanks to the Kirchners. Many now regard Argentina with respect due to various reforms in human and worker rights.

Certainly, Buenos Aires faces challenges such as increasing crime and high inflation rates, but we cannot attribute every crime or price speculation to the government, as international markets create many internal conditions. Of course, there are policies of the Kirchners with which I disagree, such as the intentional weakening of the peso, which has led to inflationary pressures, exacerbated by the rapidly declining American dollar. Like many here, I hope these problems can be improved in the near term.

In 2010, Argentina is a vastly different country than when I returned in 2004. The changes in such a short time have been commendable, and optimism in the economy is very high.

As for investment and foreign investment, a stance espoused by some readers, I find this argument to be quite ridiculous. I suggest traveling around Argentina and visiting various cities to see that there has been more internal investment in the last 5 years than in the last 30 years.

Towns and cities from Bahia Blanca to Salta have been transformed, and the face of Buenos Aires has revitalized, from Palermo Soho and Las Canitas to Colegiales, Almagro, and many other barrios. This city has boomed and is still booming, while most of the western world has slowed down. I recommend that all those who remain negative take a walk along Avenida Corrientes in Microcentro, Juano Manso in Puerto Madero, Baez in Las Canitas, Rivadavia and Medrano in Almagro, and Honduras and Armenia in Palermo Soho. These areas, just 5 years ago, were ghost towns with very few shoppers and people eating out sparingly.

The truth is easy to find if you go out there and explore it.

 

[AnaliaJuel]

better employment prospects for millions of Argentinians

This is the army of parasites and FPV militants I was talking about. We all pay them.

wages which are the highest of Latin America

Not beyond the Gral. Paz

Buenos Aires has its problems from increasing crime and way too high inflation rates but we cannot blame the government

Whom then? my grandma? All this propaganda like processes against the former dictators and human rights is not more than propaganda. Crmiminals have more human rights than working people, D'Elia can do whatever he wants, the same applies for Moyano. The dictators were judged (fairly so), yet a terrorist is Minister of Defence. No terrorist has been judged, they even become pensions from the government. Some of the desaparecidos wre having a ball in Mexico, Panama, etc. This is not justice. Justice should be applied equally to all.

I suggest that you travel around Argentina and visit various cities and you will clearly see there has been more internal investment in the last 5 years than in the last 30 years

Well, I never found the cities in the provinces as decayed as they are now. Mendoza, for example, used to be a proud clean, prosperous city. There is cheap building everywhere, no control of any sort. Some friends of the local caudillos are those who invest in the provinces (of course because they receive tax reductions, etc)

I suggest to all those who are still negative to take a walk along Avenida Corrientes Microcentro

A shadow of its former glory.

The best legacy of Kirchner is that he can not become president again...but wouldnt wonder if the peronistas try to make his mummy govern the country again

 

[CarlsonHurt]

This is the army of parasites and FPV militants I was talking about. We all pay them.

Not beyond the Gral. Paz

Whom then? my grandma? All this propaganda like processes against the former dictators and human rights is not more than propaganda. Crmiminals have more human rights than working people, D'Elia can do whatever he wants, the same applies for Moyano. The dictators were judged (fairly so), yet a terrorist is Minister of Defence. No terrorist has been judged, they even become pensions from the government. Some of the desaparecidos wre having a ball in Mexico, Panama, etc. This is not justice. Justice should be applied equally to all.

Well, I never found the cities in the provinces as decayed as they are now. Mendoza, for example, used to be a proud clean, prosperous city. There is cheap building everywhere, no control of any sort. Some friends of the local caudillos are those who invest in the provinces (of course because they receive tax reductions, etc)

A shadow of its former glory.

The best legacy of Kirchner is that he can not become president again...but wouldnt wonder if the peronistas try to make his mummy govern the country again

I appreciate your insightful post. One of Perry's points that you didn't address was the economic growth achievements of the government. While Perry focuses on a few years, it's important to note that Chile and Brazil have experienced sustained growth over decades. Additionally, there's a common understanding that economic growth figures are being exaggerated, much like how inflation is being downplayed. This manipulation is often seen as a strategy to garner political support for the regime.

Without delving into the sustainability of the current growth, it's noteworthy that it coincides with the highest inflation rate in the world. It's surprising to encounter individuals who seem reluctant to acknowledge these facts. It appears as though some posters are residing in an alternative socialist universe that remains unknown to the rest of us.

 

[YenyLer]

Dr Dawgy I suggest that you read my posts and you will see that I have disagreed various times with government policies in regards to inflation and also believe that one of the main problems of inflationary pressure have been in the intentional weakening of the argentine peso. There is no doubt that the government can do much more in this area.

I do not understand though the lack of realism in the posters here who must surely know that Argentina suffered the worst crash in its 200 years history just 10 years ago .To come from there to what is now with all its faults is a achievement that cannot be denied.

So many presidents are elected with false promises of economic improvement and increasing workers wages but for good or bad his goals in this area have been very welcomed by the majority of Argentinas inhabitants who do not inhabitat only Barrio Norte and some wealthy barrios.

The core base of Argentina is Peronist and now with the death of Nestor Kirchner this hand will be strenghthened.

I accept what I cannot change and live with the good and bad.......

 

[NickiNash]

I acknowledge that Argentina has shown signs of improvement since the economic crash. However, as Almagro points out, there was really no other direction to go but up.

You mentioned that Argentina boasts the "highest wages in Latin America." While this may be true, the significance of increasing wages becomes questionable when the cost of living is rising in tandem. The disparity between the wages of unskilled labor and skilled professionals, coupled with a deteriorating education system, diminishes the incentive to pursue higher education when being a portero can be more lucrative than being a doctor or any other professional.

Moreover, considering the financial gains that the Kirchners and their associates accumulated for themselves, one can't help but wonder what more positive changes could have been implemented with those funds. This aspect, among others, is why I find it challenging to support this regime. It's difficult to believe in the mission of "fixing" Argentina when there's a perception of corruption and a lack of moral clarity. One can't be partially corrupt or halfway moral – it's a binary distinction.

 

[earlyretirement]

My all time favorite of Nestor's transactions is the plot of land he conveniently arranged to buy in 2006 for $38,800 and then he was able to conveniently flip in 2009 for $1.8 million.

Let's keep things in perspective...... the couples annual income as President and Former President is only $136,000 US dollars a year!




http://en.mercopress.com/2010/07/09...s-20.6-in-one-year-totalling-14.5-million-usd

 

[Mikelgarden]

The passing of Nestor Kirchner is undoubtedly a somber moment, and I extend my condolences and wishes of strength to those closest to him – his family and friends.

However, when it comes to the swift canonization of Kirchner as a transformative statesman – the leader who spearheaded Argentina's economic resurgence, a champion of human rights, and a fighter against poverty – I find myself reserving judgment. His ascent to the presidency occurred during a tumultuous period when Argentina was grappling with social, economic, and political turmoil. Securing the backing of major trade unions, sometimes through questionable means, and benefitting from a lack of strong contenders, he clinched victory. It's worth noting that the country was in such dire straits that even a seven-year-old might have made some improvements.

From my vantage point in Argentina, it's evident that the situation didn't markedly improve during his presidency or that of his wife. The wealth gap widened, crime and corruption escalated, and Nestor, in an unconventional move, extended his influence by passing the presidency to his wife. Such a scenario might be expected in a less serious political landscape, perhaps likened to a banana republic rather than a nation with aspirations for genuine progress. The Argentine people deserve better, but they find themselves ensnared by a political and financial "elite" that benefits from a sizable portion of the population remaining impoverished and easily influenced. The unions serve as a crucial tool in maintaining this status quo, with corruption and crime becoming customary elements of their activities.

While acknowledging his potential successes on a personal level – as a son, brother, husband, and father – Kirchner's legacy as a politician, in my view, doesn't paint a picture of substantial progress for Argentina. In this difficult time, I hope his family finds the strength to navigate through their grief.

 

[AnaliaJuel]

Yesterday the Merval was up, Argentine bonds were up, the dollar was holding steady, and the country risk was down. A promising start...!

Promising, but painful for those married to the dollar, who had been counting on a big devaluation after next year's elections. Now, all bets are off.

 

[YenyLer]

Your comments show little knowledge about economics nor the facts on growth and real change . The proof of real growth is employment figures and wage rates and Argentinas performance in this field since 2003 is very impressive far surpassing Chile and Brazil .

Economy growths 8% average from 2003 to 2010

Unemployment in 2003 was 27 nowadays 7.9%. Regarding employment there is a tremendous amount of hiring going on atm and if you wish to work in Buenos Aires legally there is a lot of work . In 2003 it was a ghost town with very low employment . From then to now the difference is nothing short of incredible.

In 2003 only 55% of grand parents had a "private pension". Nowadays 88% of grand parents have a state pension.

Minimum wage In Argentina has increased 170% since 2003 . It is currently close to US $ 500 per month at 1840 argentine pesos.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100805-724718.html

Chile the country that you rave about and with over 20 years of growth has a far lower minimum wage than Argentinas at US $ 310 per month. Why have they not shared more of their wealth around to their citizens?
http://www.santiagotimes.cl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19047:chiles-minimum-wage-change-still-in-limbo&catid=1ther&Itemid=38

The Brazilian national minimum wage is adjusted annually. The minimum wage in 2009 was R$ 465 per month (which corresponds to R$ 23,25 per day and R$ 2,9 per hour).
In 2010 Brazilian minimum wage increased to R$ 510 per month (which corresponds to R$25,5 per day and R$ 3,18 per hour) If you consider how much more expensive Brazil is to Argentina this is a very low minimum wage .

The figures above for Brazil show that the mimimum wage in dollar terms set by law are just under US $ 300 per month .

As stated before growth rates mean nothing if there are no fundamental changes in the society and if you look at these figures above Argentina will come up close to NUMBER ONE in the world for change since 2003.