The world through Cavallo's eyes
(I have had so many things to say lately and so little time to write.)
Quickly: I saw Domingo Cavallo speak a few days ago. Guess who he blames for the mess Argentina is in? Himself? Menem? The IMF? No: Cavallo pointed the finger directly at George Bush II.
The idea is simple, really: Bush the first made friends with Argentina and pressured the IMF to support the nation. Clinton continued the policies of his Republican predecessor, and so the government of Argentina took this as a sign that both US parties were committed to propping up their country and the global market in general, bailing out countries like Russia, Mexico, and Argentina as necessary. Cavallo took note of how that Republicans in Congress protested the US’s Mexico bailout — but at the time he dismissed it at simple partisan bickering. Then came “Bush 43.”
![[bush ruins everything]](http://unglued.org/nucleus/media/2/20030912-ruins.jpg)
Cavallo had 2 answers to the question, “do you wish you have done anything differently?” The first was the explicit answer: “No.” The second was more or less implicit: he would have trusted Bush 43 less.
Impressively, Cavallo spoke almost without bitterness. The only hint of anger came out when he read former US Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s comments criticizing Argentina as the country neared crisis in 2001. Cavallo saw these comments as totally disingenuous. “They made an example of us,” said Cavallo. In his view, the US was so concerned about the “moral hazard” problem (by this I presume he means nations tempted to take any money the IMF offered them) that they were willing to sacrifice the people of Argentina to make a demonstration. “They showed a real lack of care for the people of Argentina,” he said. (Well, duh!)
Cavallo spoke with a nostalgic tone of voice as he outlined what he seemed to see as the collapse of the Washington Consensus, at least with regard to US-Argentine relations:
This, according to Cavallo, was a disaster. So was the decision by the Duhalde administration to devalue the peso. And everything the current administration in Argentina is doing.
What would Cavallo do if he ran Argentina? Well, it’s not clear. His vision for the future seemed somewhat stuck in the past. His last words:
@IDIOMA@
(Recién tengo tantas cosas para decir, pero casi nada de tiempo para escribir.)
Rápidamente: Hace pocos días, asistí a una charla que dio Domingo Cavallo. Adivinen a quien él echa la culpa del quilombo donde se encuentra ahora Argentina? A si mismo? a Menem? al FMI? No: Cavallo apuntó su dedo directamente al Señor Bush II.
Realmente, la idea es bastante sencilla, según Cavallo: Bush primero se hizo amigo de la Argentina y presionó al FMI para que apoyara a la nación. Clinton siguió con las políticas de su antecesor , y el gobierno de Argentina tomó esto como una señal de que ambos partidos políticos de los EEUU estaban comprometidos a apoyando Argentina y el mercado global en general, dando plata a países que tenían problemas como Rusia, México, y Argentina como necesario para lograrlo. Si bien cavallo notó la protesta de los republicanos en el congreso estadounidense, lo tomo como una simple riña partidaria interna.
Cavallo tenía dos respuesta a la pregunta “te gustaría haber hecho algo diferente?” La primera era la respuesta explícita: “no.” La segunda era más o menos implicita: “no debí haber confiado tanto en Bush 43”
Me dio una sorpresa, pero Cavallo hablaba casi sin amargura. El único indicio de rabia surgió cuando él leía los comentarios de la Secretaría del Tesoro criticando a Argentina mientras el país se acercaba a crisis en 2001. Para Cavallo, esos comentarios eran simplemente falsos (tenemos una palabra mejor en inglés para cuando alguien dice algo, pero debe saber mejor: “disingenuous”). “Nos usaron para hacer un ejemplo,” dijo. Desde su punto de vista, EE.UU. estaba tan preocupado sobre el problema de “peligro moral” (supongo que este significa que las naciones tenían la tentación de aceptar cualquier plata que les ofreciera el FMI) que tenía que sacrificar la gente de Argentina para hacer una demostración. “Mostraron una ausencia de sentimiento para la gente de Argentina.” (Bueno… eso no es ninguna sorpresa.)
Cavallo hablaba con un tono de voz nostálgico mientras describía lo que aparentemente le parecía el derrumbamiento del “Washington Consensus,” por lo menos con respecto a relaciones argentinos-estadounidenses:
Esto, según Cavallo, era un desastre. Tanto como era la decisión de la administración Duhaldista a devaluar el peso. Y como todo que hace el gobierno actual.
Qué haría Cavallo si el manejara Argentina ahora? Bueno – no es claro. Su visión para el futuro parece un poco pegado al pasado. Sus palabras finales:
Quickly: I saw Domingo Cavallo speak a few days ago. Guess who he blames for the mess Argentina is in? Himself? Menem? The IMF? No: Cavallo pointed the finger directly at George Bush II.
The idea is simple, really: Bush the first made friends with Argentina and pressured the IMF to support the nation. Clinton continued the policies of his Republican predecessor, and so the government of Argentina took this as a sign that both US parties were committed to propping up their country and the global market in general, bailing out countries like Russia, Mexico, and Argentina as necessary. Cavallo took note of how that Republicans in Congress protested the US’s Mexico bailout — but at the time he dismissed it at simple partisan bickering. Then came “Bush 43.”
Cavallo had 2 answers to the question, “do you wish you have done anything differently?” The first was the explicit answer: “No.” The second was more or less implicit: he would have trusted Bush 43 less.
Impressively, Cavallo spoke almost without bitterness. The only hint of anger came out when he read former US Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s comments criticizing Argentina as the country neared crisis in 2001. Cavallo saw these comments as totally disingenuous. “They made an example of us,” said Cavallo. In his view, the US was so concerned about the “moral hazard” problem (by this I presume he means nations tempted to take any money the IMF offered them) that they were willing to sacrifice the people of Argentina to make a demonstration. “They showed a real lack of care for the people of Argentina,” he said. (Well, duh!)
Cavallo spoke with a nostalgic tone of voice as he outlined what he seemed to see as the collapse of the Washington Consensus, at least with regard to US-Argentine relations:
In a few words, just as the “Bush 41” Administration facilitated Menem’s Adminstration to embrace ideas in line with a “New World Order” led by the USA, “Bush 43” Administration offered President Duhalde’s government the arguments that would result in the abandonment of those ideas and the restoration of the Peronist Paradigm that dominated Argentine political and economic thinking between 1945 and 1990.
This, according to Cavallo, was a disaster. So was the decision by the Duhalde administration to devalue the peso. And everything the current administration in Argentina is doing.
What would Cavallo do if he ran Argentina? Well, it’s not clear. His vision for the future seemed somewhat stuck in the past. His last words:
I have no doubt that the revival of the “New World Order” idea of 1990 – that is the determination by the US to exercise its leadership within the context of multilateral institutions and commitments – would be a far superior solution for every nation in the world. So, I have not lost the hope that the US will rethink its current style of leadership in international affairs and will reassume its more promising “New World Order” approach of the 1990s.
@IDIOMA@
(Recién tengo tantas cosas para decir, pero casi nada de tiempo para escribir.)
Rápidamente: Hace pocos días, asistí a una charla que dio Domingo Cavallo. Adivinen a quien él echa la culpa del quilombo donde se encuentra ahora Argentina? A si mismo? a Menem? al FMI? No: Cavallo apuntó su dedo directamente al Señor Bush II.
Realmente, la idea es bastante sencilla, según Cavallo: Bush primero se hizo amigo de la Argentina y presionó al FMI para que apoyara a la nación. Clinton siguió con las políticas de su antecesor , y el gobierno de Argentina tomó esto como una señal de que ambos partidos políticos de los EEUU estaban comprometidos a apoyando Argentina y el mercado global en general, dando plata a países que tenían problemas como Rusia, México, y Argentina como necesario para lograrlo. Si bien cavallo notó la protesta de los republicanos en el congreso estadounidense, lo tomo como una simple riña partidaria interna.
Cavallo tenía dos respuesta a la pregunta “te gustaría haber hecho algo diferente?” La primera era la respuesta explícita: “no.” La segunda era más o menos implicita: “no debí haber confiado tanto en Bush 43”
Me dio una sorpresa, pero Cavallo hablaba casi sin amargura. El único indicio de rabia surgió cuando él leía los comentarios de la Secretaría del Tesoro criticando a Argentina mientras el país se acercaba a crisis en 2001. Para Cavallo, esos comentarios eran simplemente falsos (tenemos una palabra mejor en inglés para cuando alguien dice algo, pero debe saber mejor: “disingenuous”). “Nos usaron para hacer un ejemplo,” dijo. Desde su punto de vista, EE.UU. estaba tan preocupado sobre el problema de “peligro moral” (supongo que este significa que las naciones tenían la tentación de aceptar cualquier plata que les ofreciera el FMI) que tenía que sacrificar la gente de Argentina para hacer una demostración. “Mostraron una ausencia de sentimiento para la gente de Argentina.” (Bueno… eso no es ninguna sorpresa.)
Cavallo hablaba con un tono de voz nostálgico mientras describía lo que aparentemente le parecía el derrumbamiento del “Washington Consensus,” por lo menos con respecto a relaciones argentinos-estadounidenses:
En pocas palabras, exactamente como la administración de “Bush 41_ facilitó a la administración Menem abrazar las ideas del “Orden Nuevo del Mundo” encabezado por los EE.UU., la administración de “Bush 43 ofreció al gobierno de Presidente Duhalde los argumentos que resultaría en el abandono de los ideas y la restauración de la paradigma peronista que dominaba pensamiento argentino sobre la economía y la política entre 1945 y 1990.
Esto, según Cavallo, era un desastre. Tanto como era la decisión de la administración Duhaldista a devaluar el peso. Y como todo que hace el gobierno actual.
Qué haría Cavallo si el manejara Argentina ahora? Bueno – no es claro. Su visión para el futuro parece un poco pegado al pasado. Sus palabras finales:
No tengo duda que el renacimiento de la idea de “Orden Nuevo del Mundo” de 1990 — es decir la determinación de los Estados Unidos de ejercer su liderazgo en el contexto de instituciones y comisiones multilaterales — sería una solución muy superior para cada nación del mundo. Entonces, no he perdido la esperanza de que los EE.UU. repensará su estilo de liderazgo actual en affaires internacionales y reasumira su postura de “Orden Nuevo del Mundo” de los 1990s.
previously there was one year in buenos aires
afterwards you have resolutions kept
Cavallo remarked, interestingly, that the “Peronist Paradigm” ruled argentina until 1990, when he became economy minister and the “Washington Consensus” ruled instead. Here he is conveniently rewriting history, leaving out the murderous 1976-1983 government he was a part of — which is widely regarded as one of the first neoliberal experiments. He would reply, somewhat ingenously, that the reforms of that era were limited compared with those of the 1990s, and hence were still a part of the . It is quite true that the 1990s reforms were far more drastic, but it does not make the 1976-83 regime any less neoliberal (or any more “Peronist”, as he says). WWII was much more destructive than WWI — but that does not make the first war any more peaceful.
The Argentine government in the 1970s systematically hunted, tortured, and killed almost all Argentina’s dissenting voices, paving the way for Cavallo's team in 1990 to sell off the Argentine economy without much fuss. The United States has “its own ways of making people disappear”, and is continuing detach its people from the economy without having to kill so many first. Cavallo's being taken seriously as an economist is an example of how far down that road we already are.
at http://www.hemi.nyu.edu/eng... NYU students give a good summary of his accomplishments. [submitted on 15 Nov 03]
Still, it's true that he uses a fair bit of sleight of hand in both forgetting the non-Peronist economics in that period and also his own role in them.
Based on other things he said, I think Cavallo meant to imply “anti-US” when he said “Peronist,” but that point is certainly not unassailable, either.
I'm not sure whether I agree that it's wrong to take Cavallo seriously as an economist. Most people seem to think he's smart and that his perspective is at least worth hearing. I don't know. I do agree that the “liberal” free-market ideology is accepted by most all the bright-eyed, bushy-tailed Harvard students I encounter like it's God's own truth. Or at least like the only reason to oppose neoliberal capitalism it is an ideological one. This strikes me as a head-in-the-sand approach. Time will tell. [submitted on 15 Nov 03]
We have to be aware that the power of what economists do means putting life-and-death decisions in their hands. This means that they should BEGIN with the proposition that first and foremost we make sure everyone has food, shelter, and humane working conditions — i.e., that they don't die. Most economists (Cavallo not excepted) start from the ends-centered proposition that some people must be sacrificed for future prosperity.
With a bit of research into the people enforcing the need to “tighten our belts” (ie, that more children need to go hungry), you'll find that NONE of them will suffer the brunt of this economic adjustment. This is not a small point.
The economists at Harvard (where Cavallo trained) and elsewhere can continue debating theories, experimenting with more-or-less neoliberal policies, waiting for “time to tell” — but many people do not have the luxury of comfortably waiting to see what “works.” It is with these people in mind that we should judge an economist, and by that measure Cavallo fails miserably. [submitted on 16 Nov 03]
2. it's also possible to make a big damage in short time, and Cavallo doesn't have problems to do that. while president of the Central Bank in the end of the military goverment he was the responsible of nationalising the private debt. that means that the debts from companies as Sevel (Macri) Techint, Perez Companc, Loma Negra (Amalita Fortabat), newspapers La Nacion & Clarin, etc. put all their debt to the rest of the argentines, trought a plan designed by Cavallo. so, he is quite responsible since the begining.
3. it's clear that without killing all the disidents the instauration of this neoliberal regime wouldn't have been possible. the military regime was necesary to create the kind of “democracy” we have now. [submitted on 17 Nov 03]
And i still don´t understund why he is teaching in Harvard.
Well, i should not be so surpirsed, becouse he never betray to USA at the end. [submitted on 20 Nov 03]
sobre la deuda externa y cavallo (un poco). [submitted on 29 Nov 03]
I´m a student of economy too, and my opinion is based on economics facts.
I had study all the policies and decitions of his period, and what i can not understund is how he didnt realise that he was taking Argentina to a hard landing. [submitted on 12 Dec 03]
The problem with Cavallo is that he always thought as if the people (in Argentina) were a group of students to teach... and not people with problems to survive (get a job, eat some food, etc).
In other words: he lived in a fantasy. [submitted on 04 Feb 04]