Cheapskate heaven
La Nación today published the results of a study of the most expensive 22 cities in the world. Buenos Aires has traditionally been on this list, so it was included in the study, even though it no longer qualifies as one of the world’s most costly cities. Some factlets:
Typical rent in Buenos Aires: $170/mo
Typical rent in Tokyo: $1,960/mo
Car rental in Buenos Aires: $25/day
Car rental in Oslo: $120/day
The article doesn’t go into exactly how far Buenos Aires has fallen in relative cost, but this information can be found online: The London-based Mercer consultant group releases annual rankings of the 144 most expensive cities in the world; Mercer ranked Buenos Aires the 23rd most expensive city in 2001, and the 133rd most expensive in 2002.
[I should note that Buenos Aires is only cheaper for those who have their money in something other than Argentine pesos. For those who live and work here, inflation has made everything more expensive.]
Most cities have changed places a bit since last year, bumping up or down a few notches like colleges in US News and World Report rankings. This year New York City was rated the 8th most expensive city in the world; last year it was 7th. In 2002, Hong Kong was the world’s most expensive city and Taiwan was 3rd. In 2001 Taiwan was most expensive and Hong Kong was 3rd. But dramatic changes of ranking like that of Buenos Aires are very rare. The only city to change its rank in a similar manner was Harare, Zimbabwe, which jumped somehow from 130th most expensive to 26th – virtually trading places with Buenos Aires.
I poked around a bit and found I was not the only one to comment on the relationship between the capitals of Argentina and Zimbabwe. As London’s Economic Intelligence Unit writes, “Argentina is in an almost similar economic crisis as Zimbabwe.” But “whereas the Argentinean peso has been allowed to devalue, the Zimbabwean government has doggedly held the Zimbabwe dollar peg to the US dollar despite inflation running at over 100 percent."
It appears they’re holding up Argentina as the example of superior economic policy – the first time I’ve heard that.
previously there was The Great Bowman
afterwards you have Mate
We used to be a middle class country. What did happen? There're more than enough explanations... I think that a good start point will be to revise our recent history, I mean, the Menem 10 years period. I belive we are now paying the price for those "años maravillosos" when we thought we belong to the "first world", hahaha, what a joke! what a pathetic reality!. [submitted on 07 Mar 03]
This intense and sudden disparity between foreign goods and "industria argentina" means that (for example) toothpaste made by Colgate IN ARGENTINA costs in pesos what you would expect toothpaste to cost. Toothpaste made in the USA costs, in pesos again, 3x more. The good side of this equation is that foodstuffs and general goods are still affordable for Argentines (the ones who still have jobs). The (imposing) bad side is that gasoline, medical equipment, technology goods, etc. have all basically been priced out of availability. [submitted on 07 Mar 03]
My point about rising costs was that there has been some inflation, but you are certainly right that it´s nothing like it could be (or like it is in Zimbabwe). Annual cost of living inflation stands at 22% now, while many if not most salaries are stable. So domestic stuff is more expensive, but not as much as it could be.
Milk prices, which are gov´t regulated, are currently in debate. There is a lot of pressure to raise them, but the gov´t just said they will delay the decision on the increase 90 days. I.e, after the election. We´re putting a story on this in tomorrow´s Herald.
Certain foodstuffs that are both sold domestically and exported have gone way up in cost. The Herald published a story in September saying that a 50-kg bag of flour had gone from 15 pesos to 68, and a bag of potatoes from 3-4 pesos to 26. In general, at that time, subsistence foodstuffs were said to have gone up 33% in cost since the devaluation.
But you´re right - more dramatic than the inflation is the ridiculous disparity between foreign and domestic goods. It´s as if, in US terms, computers suddenly cost $6000 and suscreen $25, while most other costs stayed the same. [submitted on 07 Mar 03]
Like Americans, do you think the News Network are lieing to the Amreican people?...and they are trying to convince all americans to support the war??....What i think is that this is true, and CNN, ABC...and all the bigest Networks are lieing a lot, and they had been doing since a long time.
I know that it does not have any relation with the Argentine Inflation, but i wanted to ask.
Chau! [submitted on 09 Mar 03]
I've talked to some journalists here about the 1991 gulf war, and they told me that oodles of journalists travelled to the middle east to cover the Gulf War, but found themselves far from the front lines without any way of recording the action. To get any good footage/photos, they had to get the military to transport them to where the action was. The military took only a few reporters a day, and if a reporter produced a negative story he/she wouldn't get to come back. So naturally everybody wanted to please the military, and there were virtually no negative stories on the US television.
I remember watching Patriot missiles blowing up Iraqui Scuds night after night on CNN for the 2 months of the war. The Patriot missile was a dream come true for the Bush administration - it was a great success at protecting US troops and Israelies, and it killed nobody. It was also the only thing to film. The Pentagon was able to put the focus on the Patriot missile (and thus also on the threat from the Scuds) instead of on the less palatable killing of Iraquis by US bombs.
The Patriot was a great success, except that it wasn't: After the end of the Gulf War, a 10-month review of the Patriot's performance concluded that the Pentagon's initial estimate of the Patriot's success (80%) was a bit off. Here's a quote from testimony to the US House of Representatives summarizing studies of the Patriot's success:
"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)
That's right: it is possible that a Patriot missile NEVER intercepted a Scud. Two reasons for this were first that the Patriot was designed to blow up planes, not missiles, and second that Scuds were so erratic in flight that they were unusually hard to hit. Read more about the matter on the center for defense industries website: http://www.cdi.org/issues/b...
I have never felt so deceived by the US media as when I read about this - in a small note buried in the middle of the New York Times. I doubt many people ever heard it.
So, in answer to your question, the Bush administration will do everything they can to give news about the war a positive spin. In 1991 they were able to control the media pretty effectively. The media may be smarter now, and the internet may open discussion up somewhat, but it's likely the picture will be pretty much the same. I'm still a bit surprised if there was no coverage of violence at the protest, since relatively independent local news networks should have been present, but since I wasn't there, I really don't know. Maybe all the local stations are part of national media giants. [submitted on 11 Mar 03]
But, do you think the Media really do it becouse is controlled?.
Don´t you think that mybe is half and half?...half, controll of the goverment, and half truly support to the war?...I don´t know wich could be the real reason, but for shure they are not been objective.
And i think that many Americans, correct me if i´m wrong please(i dont know a lot of americans), are very ignorant about this subject, many people think that in Irak, there is only fanatic killers living in the middle of the desert with out electricity, cars...and bla, bla...and with a gigantic hate to USA.
And this ignorance is diligent for the goverment, and manteined (and in part created) by the Media.
I understund your fears, but what i dont understund is why so many people trust so blindly in the Media and in the goverment.
I´m sorry to say you this but i really hate your Goverment when they are so unjust in their Foering Policys, not talking only about Irak (becouse Saddam is not a Saint, of course). But it is like, now America had become in the new empire, with no one in the world to balance the inequality, and put some stop to the excess. There is always some war, some place to send the soldiers...
Well, Jeremy thanks for your reply, and keep going with your blog, it´s very good!....and..how is going your life here in Argentina?..getting some of our manners??
Chau!! [submitted on 11 Mar 03]
Here in the U.S. there is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction with our government and the media. I watch the BBC news on TV every night, and its coverage is very different from what I see on ABC news. The problem, I think, is not that the government controls the major networks. Big corporations own the networks. I think General Electric owns NBC, and GE has huge government contracts to build military equipment. So, it's all pretty crooked, and we feel sort of helpless to do much about it. But people are waking up, and we are starting to take back our democracy. There is a lot of action on the Internet and in the streets. We who want peace (and I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans want peace) are greatly encouraged by the groundswell of people all around the world who are also acting for peace. I don't think the world has ever experienced a time like this before! Keep the faith! CCP [submitted on 12 Mar 03]