Argentina: If You Missed It

argentina's big problem was that it allowed its public sector to continue to grow at a ridiculous rate far faster then the private. that meant massive gov't expenditures which made servicing the debt that much harder.

also, keep in mind that the IMF is a lender of last resort, and therefore ONLY lends to countries when no one else will. in other words, its often called in to treat monetary sickness, it doesn't cause it. thats like accusing the doctor of causing a patient his fatal cancer.

and, if the IMF is in fact so horrible, why is the securing of IMF loans one of the 3 key economic plans of the new populist president?

jon, are you still here?

great comment: "what's wrong with the IMF??"

see: indymedia for the past 3 years

get the fuck out of here, troll

many of the reports on the IMF here on indymedia only look at the small micro level and neglect larger benefits for society, and indeed the world as a whole.

furthermore, many of them also show a profound ignorance of both economics and logic.

i listed three good arguments as to why blaming the IMF for argentina's current economic woes isn't a helpful thing to do, and rather then respond intelligently you retorted with some clap-trap nonesense.

congratulations

have you ever wondered if it is because some of us have jobs and lives and we dont have all day to sit here and argue with an idiot like you? i am not going to go and reference all the url's to answer your broad generalizations. why dont you go where you are wanted?

one would think that the speculative bubble's burst, massively declining stock option values, Enron, the energy deregulation fiasco, the implosion of Argentina -- in the mid-90's the market religionists wet-dream -- and falling real wages in this country over the course of the past 28 years would dampen jon's zealous belief in capitalism. but no. it's those pesky public deficits that are to blame. if jon thinks that rebellion would have been averted, or conditions made less intolerable, if Argentina had cut even more deeply into the social wage -- public health, pensions, education and the like -- than there's really no hope for him.

the following gives a decent overview of the situation in argentina, written months before the Argentines rose against jon's friends.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=96&row=1

IMF policies have continually placed entire countries in a straigtjackets, essentially holding them as economic hostages, in collusion with corrupt govts that don't give a hoot about their citizens(ie the US). the reason what's his name would continue with IMF is because he's a part of the scam, not because IMF is of any real use and benefit to the public at large. You've delivered an opinion, just like anti-Jon has with you in return. But your opinion is alighend with the mainstream, not particularly known for honest research and reporting excpet to the blind.

the rapid rise in living standards across the Third World, the fall of global food prices that makes it easier for the poor to eat, the increase in democratization and liberalization at an unprecedented rate, the real increase in political freedoms brought about by a decoupling of political power from economic power, one would think that because of all of these reasons people would strongly support capitalism, yet the prevalence of ingested paint chips in the developed world prevents that sort of intellectual rigor.

should argentina provide public goods? of course. every mainstream economist will tell you that. should argentina rely primarily on the public sector as the backbone of its economy as opposed to the private? most definitely not. that is the real issue here

nessie: the libertarian critique against the IMF can be summed up nicely with two words: moral hazard.

that then is an argument that i can accept, that the IMF encourages risky investment by always being there for cover financial losses. however, if the libertarians had their way, countries would merely be allowed to go bankrupt and fail instead of being allowed to service their debts, a proposition that even you would have to disagree with

aaron: here is a short excerpt from a longer CATO analysis
======
Is Argentina really the victim of laissez-faire? The country did go far in privatizing and opening up to trade and investment in the early 1990s. It also established monetary stability by fixing the peso to the dollar. The result was an average per capita growth rate of 6.3 percent until 1995, when the country felt the effects of the Mexican peso devaluation. But, as in much of Latin America, the reforms of the first half of the decade did not continue into the second half.

Reform fatigue was accompanied by a dramatic growth in the size of government. Argentinean economist Pablo Guido explains that in the past 10 years, the gross domestic product grew by about 50 percent, while public spending grew by about 90 percent. In terms of spending as a share of the economy, the size of government grew by 28 percent, and now equals more than one third of the national output.

The increase in spending is matched by a heavy tax burden. The value added tax is 21 percent (about three times that of most sales taxes in the United States) and the combined payroll tax has until recent months averaged about 43 percent (compared to 15.3 percent in the United States) and remains high. Taking into account income and other taxes that Argentineans face helps explain the high level of tax evasion, not to mention the discouragement of growth.

Bureaucracy has also helped strangle the economy, especially in the provinces, which have seen virtually no reform. The government of San Juan province, for example, spends 85 percent of its $783 million budget on the wages of its 30,000 workers rather than on services. According to the Fundación Atlas, a think tank in Buenos Aires, the cost of bureaucracy is killing the provincial economies. Public spending equals 84 percent of Formosa province’s economy, 71 percent of Santiago del Estoro’s economy, and 69 percent of the economy of Chaco province.

Regulation continues to be a problem nationwide. To open a business in Argentina, for example, requires 12 bureaucratic procedures, 77 business days and $2,100 in fees. In Canada, by comparison, the same operation takes 2 days, 2 procedures and $280. Argentina’s extremely rigid labor laws, a legacy of the authoritarian Peronist era, also remain unreformed. The consequently high cost of labor is directly responsible for the country’s chronically high unemployment rates that have ranged from 14 to 18 percent in the 1990s.
============

The things that Jon cites would, indeed, be nice if they were true. unfortunately plutocracies don't genuinely operate that way. The capital remains at the top. And democracy and freedom don't mean a thing without economic and political power. Now, why in the world would anyone think that those at the top, with their current lack of moral and spiritual evolution, would truly desire to share power and wealth.? They can't even get it together in the US, land of the free, home of the brave, and home of the homeless and a lot of poor.

God don't charge no rent , or for food.

Jon's been breathing too much bs fumes from the powers on high

the most telling snippet from jon's predictable moneytarian offering is the line blaming "the consequently high cost of labor" for unemployment in Argentina. shit, if it weren't for all those cumbersome regulations, wages could go down to their "natural" level and everything would be just swell! well, the boss class certainly would be pleased.

i don't doubt that their are bureaucratic inefficiencies in the Argentine economy but to blame them for unemployment -- a structural necessity for capital -- is utterly disingenuous. high unemployment has far more to do with the fact that with the peso pegged to the dollar and the dollar in the late 90's becoming really strong, Argentine exports were uncompetitive in world markets ta da ta da ta da.

let's take a look at Nicaragua. IMF austerity has been imposed their going all the way back to the allegedly socialist Sandinistas in the 1987. the world market price for coffee -- it's chief export -- has massively depreciated in the past year, in part due to the fact that the US has promoted it as a peachy development strategy in places like Vietnam. of late there have been mass lay-offs in the coffee fields of Nicaragua and there's endemic hunger in the country-side. (an aside: the bottom falling out from the world market price for coffee hasn't had any noticeable effect on the cost of a cup here in the Bay Area). What a development strategy!

the average daily wage in Nicaragua is approximately $1.50, yet unemployment is around 50%. how do you heartless, bean-counters explain that one jon?

Venezuela just finished paying off its debt to the IMF this past month before the riots and looting in Argentina began. Their revolutionary government doesn't expect to be borrowing again any time soon, and the current situation in Argentina has increased support for the newly-introduced (Dec. 10) economics laws directed against neo-liberalism and in favor of smaller and local business (as well as environment protection, yey!).

The Central Bank of Venezuela has also released the data for the past economic year saying inflation was slashed by half from the recent year and the economy kept growing, among other key social stuff like several hundred thousand more children able to make it to school and many other social services. All this though the current government inherited millions in past-due salaries, which they are dealing with far better than any past gov't.

About the IMF, I support what most anti-IMF peeps in here have said, it's true. The IMF and the World Bank are pure MAFIA. They only let you borrow if you will promote economic practices that will juice out profits, which would be the most secure way to pay back the loans, but always end up fucking up the social sector. <period

The problem in Latin America and most third world countries is and has been the institutions. They have never been runned by the people, only by "pilgrims", some entrepreaneur "settlers", hacienda and plantation owners, and all their decendants. < period (read: Zapatistas) It's not necessarily about equality, but about doing SOMETHING about the past inequalities in the institutions which have shaped third world countries. RESISTANCE & LIBERATION!! (okay, i think i'm quoting the Venezuelan vice-presidenta here).

Paz, Amor, Libertad, Venceremos!!

re: its a matter of degree.
is there some collusion b/w those who have economic power and those who have political power in a market system? of course.

but, how does this compare to all viable alternatives? the market is the best mechanism yet devised that separates these two forms of power and allows people to play them off each other, thus the markets are currently our best bet for human freedom.

aaron: of course unemployment is a part of a capitalist economy. not one economist will ever deny that. the issue here is whether this unemployment is higher then it needs to be, and what is causing it. Valquez from the CATO institute claims that a disprportionaly large public sector is essentially crowding out the private, and the losses of efficiency inherent in the public sectors is causing higher unemployment then argentina should "naturally" have.

nicuaraga and coffee: having never really researched into the two subjects let me venture a tentative hypothesis. nicuaragua specialized heavily in one commodity, and just got screwed by global market fluctuations in the price.

if unemployment is very high now, and coffee is seeing very low returns, then nicuaragua will then seek to specialize in other economic activities, so long as a free market exists and they are allowed to do so w/o undue gov't constraints.

as for the issue of latin american underdevelopment. some of it may be structural, but some of it may be cultural as well. starting in the 50's and 60's, both latin american and east asia had roughly the same development indicators and legacies of colonization. yet, these two areas took radically different development paths.

one of the biggest fallacies that so-called libertarians engage in is in seeing state control as antithetical to capitalism. the states role vis a vis capitalist accumulation can take various forms.

The state can simulate capitalist development writ large, as was seen in the USSR and China -- in China, for instance, the "communist" revolution vanquished the parasitic feudal class and imposed state-led development which built an integrated national economy (the state bureaucrats have, we have seen, found it relatively easy to do the switcheroo and become straight up private capitalists in no time -- only an apparent, as opposed to real, contradiction). Having established an integrated post-feudal system the state built the basis of capitalism. The agrarian revolution IS capitalism: this can be seen when one compares China today with India, which, never having had its "communist" state-led development, is still in a largely feudal agrarian arrangement which has impeded its ability to launch full-scale, integrated capitalist development like is now seen in China (with all its volatility as the state imposes increased dicipline, principally in the form of unemployment and destruction of social provisions, which has caused thousands of riots, strikes, and other forms of unrest, largely ignored by the US media).

in market economies the state -- aside from providing rapidly dwindling welfare provisions -- fulfills functions that capital needs performed but can not be performed reliably and/or profitably by jon's glorious market. in western europe this is more clearly the case than in america, where ideology often trumps the general interests of capital -- energy being a good example. but we see the state fulfilling all sorts of functions even here that capital couldn't exist without: mass transit, paltry as it is; the entire judicial apparatus which mediates disputes between business and enforces contracts etc; the cops; the military-industrial-complex; road building.... the list goes on: shit, even the internet was developed by the government.

i gotta go to bed, but, jon, seriously, you should read up on Latin America because you betray real ignorance on the matter. you can't talk about "markets" in ahistorical terms as you do and convey the realities of the situation. you can't talk about -- or understand -- nicaragua, for instance, without understanding the legacy of colonialism, US-supported dictatorships and mercenary forces and their role in the creation of a virtual single-export economy. you act we live in some market shangra-la in which each individual is potentially his/her own commodity producer who simply needs to pick themself up by the boot straps and it give it a go. the way you talk about these things is, frankly, insulting given the degrees of human misery that exist. i'd love to go down to the slums of Managua with you (with a video camera) and witness you telling the people there how benevolen capitalism is and how they gotta get a new export together. methinks you might get your fucking head torn off.

gawd, talk about straw-manning.

i've said repeatedly on this board, and i think even in this thread, that the gov't must supply public goods and intervene where there are market failures.

yet, you choose to completely ignore this rather critical point and choose to paint me as a pure market libertarian, of which only a handful actually exist in the world today (milton friedman for example, the uber-market economist, will also give a substantial role to gov't)

so all of this essentially negates the first two paragraphs of your post which were based entirely upon the false assumption that any level-headed person actually believes that markets can provide everything under the sun. again, almost no mainstream economist will believe this and only a free die-hard market radicals actually do.

as for nicuaragua, colonialism, mercenaries, et al.
pray tell explain why east asia, with all of these exact same problems, developed so spectacularly whereas latin america did not.

furthermore, i again take you to the more holistic approach to the international economy. there have been real and marked gains throughout the entire world in living standards and income. the world is a strikingly better place to live now then it was 50 years ago, thanks in large part to the ascendancy of market economics. isolated segments of poverty does not negate the benefits of the system as a whole, especially when compared to what the historical alternatives are.

so, your compassion for the world's poor is indeed commendable. but be careful not to undermine what has been the best road out of poverty thus far just b/c work is not yet over.

Jon, I'm sure you're aware of the World Bank's massive failure rate with "liberalising" third world economies right? The project is far from "not done" ... it is a dismal failure. But it is only a failure if you take the public, PR-oriented goals of the World Bank. The private goals of the World Bank --- keeping a firm grip on areas which could be swept by anti-capitalists at any time --- is sound. The same applies to IMF efforts towards the same goals.

What you fail to understand is that the World Bank and IMF are not democratic institutions. The debt accrued by Argentina's government is not democratic. People are seeking an end to poverty, but they are also seeking an end to totalitarianism, which is enforced worldwide through economic means (IMF/WB) and through violent means (the local gestapos that they support).

The PROBLEM, then, is the US Empire's influence and control over society in other countries. For instance, if the president of Ecuador had the ability to sway our presidential elections by backing one or the other, or if the president of Ecuador could say, "if this person is elected, we arent sending you the aid we promised" ... well, I dont think it would take Americans very long to feel like shit and demand a change. (well, actually, americans it would probably take years but in latin america people are little bit brighter)

The uprisings in Argentina point to this, as to the repeated riots and social unrest all over the world right now. As the capitalists try to smile and declare the Cold War over, millions around the world are mobilizing against them. And Jon cant figure out why. Hahahaha.

to jon:

first off, i agree to most of your views on the market, it must and will exist. it's how it's regulated (and this enormously includes politics, as you were mentioning i think) that tends to fuck everything up. de-existing/illegalizing it will not solve anything, not to mention no one's about to just want capitalism to end (i know i don't), but it's always up to who and how many (here come in "political institutions") are in control of the economics.

"east asia... developed so spectacularly whereas latin america did not." wow jon, is it your geography or your actual historical, political, and economic knowledge of this region that's way off?

besides Japan, Taiwan, and Korea (for a brief mythical period), just what other "spectacular" east asian country would you be referring to? with this argument you're intending to make, you might as well be a chinese nationalist that believes imperialist-sponsored Xiang Kai-Shek China was better off before Mao. some capitalist nationalist marketeers in Shanghai would agree, but the masses starving did not. plus East Asia also has an enormously larger population than Latin America, so this is not a very wise comparison... hmm... then again, look at "spectacular" Argentina, Japan, and Taiwan these days ;)

about nicaragua... the sandinistas did not intend to stay as some sort of banana mill to cuba or the soviet union, they got on the phone with countries and organizations throughout the world asking them to help them make a sustainable economy. heck, so many people went down there to help out, i've heard Bono from U2 almost got killed there. but the U.S., rather than sending its "beloved" peace corps, sent trained murderers loaded with weapons to destroy their economy--and they did just that. this is the similar fate of many other countries throughout Latin America, and even more, East Asia (read: Vietnam/Indochina War).

oh, btw jon, if i get the time and find it around here somewhere i will post the letter of resignation of the WB President during the late 80's, early 90's. in it you will see just exactly what kind of thugs institutions like the WB and IMF are, and this guy resigned specifically because of the policies by WB in Nicaragua and Central America--which were never seriously intended to help their people.

Paz, Amor, Libertad, Resistencia, Venceremos!!

anarchist, what are you talking about.

again, the IMF does not fuck up countries. it is a lender of last resort, this means that it only lends to countries that have ALREADY BEEN fucked up, and then tries desperately to remedy their situation. so, to merely point to states that received IMF aid, and then say that they failed as a result of this aid, is pure stupidity. granted, there are instances where IMF aid exacerbated the situation (russia is oftentimes held up as one) however it is plain dishonest to count every economic failure as a strike against the fund.

and i'm well aware the the IMF and WB are not "democratic" institutions in the sense of everyone having an equal vote. quite simply it is because not everyone contributes equally. that is a reality of life. big states would not contribute as much if they did not have a proportionate share of the decision making process.

as for writing off debt b/c it wasn't "democratic". a good idea in principle, and one that i may support, however it runs into problems in determining what states are and are not legitimate, and of successor states automatically claiming the prior state illegitimate in order to write off loans. a recipe for disaster unless a viable solution can be worked out (something that mindless street vandalism and stupid slogans will not produce by the way)

as for the IMF dictating gov't policies or elections, not quite. the fund simply says "if you want our money, you must take such steps as to give us reasonable certainty that you can pay us back".

private banks at the individual level do the exact same thing in the sense that they will only make loans with assurances of repayment. likewise, the fund expects the same. again, the fact that one of the new president's 3 primary goals is to woo more IMF money is a testament to the IMF's necessity in the world today, not for its destruction.

marselo: taiwan, japan, and korea have all shown truly remarkable growth. the "mythical" korean growth you describe may very well one day be memorialized. in 1950 korea's main export was wigs. its now a critical part of the international economy. quite an accomplishment.

furthermore, size does not matter. signapore is an economic powerhouse, yet it is essentially one city-state.

and again, no one denies that the IMF/WB have problems. the IMF in particular is the world's whipping boy and gets criticized from even mainstream economists for this and that. however, no one denies their necessity in the world today, and that is the critical thing. the fact that it makes mistakes does not negate its usefulness. for example, the UN is a series of one folly after another, yet few would seriously consider junking it.

as for the IMF/WB being there to promote corporate greed and american interests.

a rather amazin conspiracy then. both of them employ literally thousands of economists across the world, and always hire local economists and technicans from host countries as well as having them in their washington headquarters. on top of that the bank runs a successful fellowship program recruiting many idealist newly minted economists.

to silence all of them of some machievellian plan and only have 2, maybe 3 defectors is quite an accomplishment, is it not?

more likely more people are not speaking out against the so-called evil interests of the IMF/WB b/c such interests simply do not exist

"again, the IMF does not fuck up countries. it is a lender of last resort, this means that it only lends to countries that have ALREADY BEEN fucked up, and then tries desperately to remedy their situation"

Jon, do you even have a rudimentary understanding of what the IMF is? Even the corporate media knows that the IMF's track record is pure shit. They do not have one case which has shown that their draconian policies create the kind of investment situation that they desire. Why? Because the markets don't open because they are controlled by thugs, just like the monopoly on credit is controlled by IMF thugs. The facts of the matter are pretty clear: the IMF/WB does not exist to remedy a situation. It exists to exert debt control over a country and use structural adjustment programs to kill public services, environmental protections, etc. Basically a gang of capitalists comes into town and shoots the communist leftover dictator (or in some cases, the democratically elected socialist-flavor government, as in nicaragua).

"private banks at the individual level do the exact same thing in the sense that they will only make loans with assurances of repayment. "

Of course. Everything you describe can be summed up with one word: modern capitalism. And like it or not, people fucking hate it, they view it to be just as oppressive as any military-style dictatorship, and they are overthrowing it. Argentina is a perfect example, now that we have seen them loot the banks and loot the government and attack rich people. And they are not doing it in isolation --- Argentina Indymedia is right there and so are all the other groups which have international solidarity and support. They are the latest battle in the fight against neoliberalism and like it or not, we are winning. All these signs you see are of a system in trouble, not a system which works. Sorry Jon, you are fighting a losing battle.

"no one denies their necessity in the world today, and that is the critical thing. the fact that it makes mistakes does not negate its usefulness. for example, the UN is a series of one folly after another, yet few would seriously consider junking it."

What are you talking about? Check out http://www.abolishthebank.org/ for starters. Didnt you know that Indymedia and this entire movement is calling for the immediate cancellation of all 3rd world debt and/or the immediate destruction of the IMF/World Bank/WTO/FTAA/etc?

And the UN does have a function. Its food programs exist to feed the people starving under the IMF's capitalism. And the biggest reason they are failing is because someone with all this wealth being generated, not much of it can go to food programs and so hundreds of thousands of people die each year from hunger.

"both of them employ literally thousands of economists across the world, and always hire local economists and technicans from host countries as well as having them in their washington headquarters. on top of that the bank runs a successful fellowship program recruiting many idealist newly minted economists."

Again, the conspiracy strawman. Economists today are predominantly neoliberal. Certainly there can be socialist economists or what have you, but by and large (and anyone will agree with this) most of them subscribe to neoliberal schools of thought regarding economics. Do you really think the IMF or WB would have much interest in hiring someone who thought that they shouldn't exist? Or that all debt should be immediately dropped? And maybe there are people working there who think that, but they obviously dont have much influence. The viewpoint being expressed on this site would have fundamental conflicts with a mainstream economist's viewpoint on how life and markets work.

"more likely more people are not speaking out against the so-called evil interests of the IMF/WB"

Oh, and dont forget the widespread police repression of "speaking out" against anything. But that hasnt stopped the Argentinian IMF-loving government from being ousted, and when the Peronist came in and said that he would work with the IMF, he got ousted. And we shall see what happens --- reading Argentina Indymedia it sure seems like a lot of the protesters hate the IMF and bankers in general. The next major IMF/WB protest will be in DC. Pretty much wherever the IMF or World Bank hold a major conference --- anywhere in the world --- there is major fucking resistance. From Korea to Philippines to Seattle to Washington DC to Brasil to Switzerland to ... well, you get the idea.

Sorry Jon, maybe this is why you are so fixated on this site. You realize that there is something happening here which you dont really understand. And this arguing is your way of understand. I just wish you wouldnt be so mean about it.

Oh and dont forget the anti-capitalist World Economic Forum protests in NYC in January!

anarchist: again, it is you who does not understand the function of the bank.

macroeconomic instability is unfortunately a consequence of capitalism. the IMF does not cause this anymore then a doctor causes the cancer that he is called in to treat.

b/c of the IMF's very mission role as a lender of last resort it is only called in to treat the WORST of all possible patients.

the fund goes to countries in economic turmoil and offers them a bail-out package, which in addition to benefits (i.e. hordes of loans) also includes costs (imposed market rationality). at that time countries can either accept the terms, renegotiate the terms, or reject the terms.

as for modern capitalism under attack. not quite. look at argentina. when did most of the protests begin in earnest? right after the now outbound president placed severe bank controls on people's savings and restricted how much money they could withdraw. in other words, the impeding of the market is what caused much of this turmoil.


=======
And the UN does have a function. Its food programs exist to feed the people starving under the IMF's capitalism
=======

and the world bank is the world's largest external funder of education, social services, and HIV prevention/treatment.

the IMF supplies billions of dollars worth of loans to countries that could never secure such loans on the private market. in other words, the IMF acts much as the federal gov't does in supplying federal student loans to kids who most banks would feel uncomfortable lending to, or only would at high interest rates.

quite frankly, i'm willing to wage that most of hte mindless drones who riot in order to "bust the bank" don't even know any of these facts.

and by no means was i using a conspiracy strawman. you explicitly stated (or a previous poster) that the IMF funds are INTENTIONALLY designed to hurt the world's poor. market economics has for the entire course of its history been a liberal, progressive belief, from adam smith challenging the old aristocracy up to freidreich hayek taking on the inherent dictatorial nature of communism. so, it is absolutely unthinkable that thousands of economists trained in this liberal mode of thought that profoundly believes in progress would suddenly join up with an organization that according to you is expressely anti-poor

as for major resistance to the IMF/WB. so what?
quite frankly the anti-globalization crowd has yet to put forward a systematic alternative to the status quo short of the total overthrow of capitalism to be replaced by some amorphous anarchical collective or another vanguardist dictatorship. and, the so-called defects you hold up like joseph stiglitz for example are all calling for reforms and overhauls, not revolution.

"macroeconomic instability is unfortunately a consequence of capitalism. the IMF does not cause this anymore then a doctor causes the cancer that he is called in to treat."

No, it is far more than an "unfortunate consequence." Sitting in your Imperial home, you have the luxury of calling it that. Others who see the seriousness of what's going on call it what it is: the ultimate failure of capitalism and centralized debt. The IMF is only a name and face to a systemic problem.

"the fund goes to countries in economic turmoil and offers them a bail-out package, which in addition to benefits (i.e. hordes of loans) also includes costs (imposed market rationality). at that time countries can either accept the terms, renegotiate the terms, or reject the terms"

Well you have done a mildly okay job at describing what happens, but you leave out the critical details which Indymedia has well documented, as well as hundreds of other groups. "Imposed market rationality" means: forced relocation, destruction of sustainable traditional economies, destruction of environmental and labor protections, destruction of essential public services, support of death squads (i.e. Chevron, Coca-Cola, etc), and the list goes on and on. You may say that "people have a choice" but you ignorantly lump the populations of these countries with their governments, who are mostly likely just as corrupt and thuggish as their IMF counterparts.

"right after the now outbound president placed severe bank controls on people's savings and restricted how much money they could withdraw. in other words, the impeding of the market is what caused much of this turmoil."

Impeding the market, haha! Look at it this way. The government intervention is not what caused this. What caused this is a complete collapse of debt to the people who have power over this region. Much of it is public debt only because that is the institution in charge. Whether the receiver of that debt is a public institution or a private one, the impact is that a poor region of the world is enslaved in one way or another to a rich region of the world (a consolidation thereof, like the IMF).

Either way you look at it, whether the government intervened or not, you have widespread rioting and an attempt to overthrow debt which is a cornerstone of international capitalism. The common person could give a shit about public debt --- they just want to be able to live. The strong socialist history in Argentina should be a wake-up call to you.

"and the world bank is the world's largest external funder of education, social services, and HIV prevention/treatment"

Only to the extent that their terms of debt arrangement is the eradication of these programs.

"as for major resistance to the IMF/WB. so what?"

I guess it doesnt matter to you. But to people who just overthew their IMF-backed government, it means a lot.

As for your ridiculous assertion that capitalism is liberal ... are from 1810 or something? Get with the fucking modern age!! The trend of the future is mutual aid, collective collaborative not-for-profit organizations which are highly decentralized and non-hierarchal. Even the Rand Corporation knows this. You are sadly, sadly behind the times, Jon. Look at Chiapas, look at the anarchist networks in Europe, look at traditional mutual aid networks, look at modern networks like the internet ... you are living in a really old, really silly past.

Check out:
Argentina Solidarity Committee

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Argentina_Solidarity/pending