Argentina in Chaos After Another President Quits

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) - Argentina reeled on Monday from the second resignation of a president in just over a week, as bitterly divided politicians clashed over who would next lead a country plagued by riots and recession.

After violent street protests and a battle within the ruling Peronist Party led Adolfo Rodriguez Saa to suddenly quit as interim president on Sunday, depressed Argentina found itself adrift with no consensus over how to end the chaos.

Eduardo Camano, head of the lower house of Congress, found himself with the hot potato of Argentina's provisional presidency after the Senate chief also resigned. But Camano can only head the country for 48 hours before Congress must name a new interim president, according to the Constitution.

He said a legislative assembly of both houses of Congress was being called for Tuesday at 2 p.m., to choose a new interim leader either until new elections within 90 days or until the next scheduled elections in 2003.

One powerful Peronist governor called for an emergency "government of national salvation," while another urged elections for a new president "as soon as possible."

But the non-stop political tumult raised questions about whether Argentina is governable at all as the crumbling middle class grows increasingly restless in its protests of widespread corruption and a ruthless recession now in its fourth year.

Rodriguez Saa, appointed just a week ago by Congress to lead until elections set for March 3, quit after stomping on the toes of Peronist Party barons who accused him of trying to delay or cancel the vote to cling to power longer.

His fate was also sealed by thousands of demonstrators who took to the streets on Friday night to protest strict curbs on bank deposits and his appointment of a cabinet many believed was rife with corruption.

The protests turned ugly, leaving a dozen police injured after clashes in front of the presidential palace. Looters also broke down the doors of Congress, set small fires and pushed couches and statues down its front steps.

"I'm not going to be the president who continues the old Argentina," Rodriguez Saa said in a televised address to the nation on Sunday. "This selfish, petty attitude leaves me no alternative but to present my resignation."

Television images showed a very small group of protesters gathering outside the presidential palace early on Monday, but they appeared to be easily outnumbered by police in riot gear and expectant news photographers.

In his short term in office, Rodriguez Saa stopped payments on Argentina's foreign debt, setting up what would be the biggest sovereign default ever and consolidating Latin America's third-largest economy as a pariah in world markets.

Rodriguez Saa was Argentina's third president this year. Violent protests that killed 27 people forced Fernando de la Rua to resign as president on Dec. 20 only half way through his four-year term.

"What people want more than anything is a government," said presidential hopeful Carlos Ruckauf, governor of Buenos Aires province, the country's richest and most populous. "Argentina immediately needs a government of national salvation."

Peronist powerbrokers said Rodriguez Saa's plans for a new currency and promises to create a million jobs sounded too ambitious for a man only slated to stay in power for three months.

Right before Rodriguez Saa took office, one Peronist spokesman had described him as a "guy without many enemies in the party." But that label soon vanished, and key party leaders skipped an emergency meeting he called for Sunday afternoon.

Rodriguez Saa said as he quit that the snub by the Peronist governors was the last straw for his caretaker government.

"He never consulted us on any measures that he took," said Jose Manuel de la Sota, another Peronist governor with presidential aspirations. "The people should elect their president, and the sooner the better."

Argentina's next leader must decide what to do with the dollar-peso currency peg, which economists say is on the brink of collapse. Help from foreign governments is not expected since most believe Argentina's problems will deal no more than just a glancing blow to the world economy.

Still, worries over Argentina were cited for sluggish stock trade in Britain early on Monday. In emerging markets like South Africa, however, traders played down fears of a contagion like the ones sparked last decade by Mexico or Russia.

In his first public comments since resigning, De la Rua issued a brief statement calling for "national unity."

In a front-page editorial on Monday entitled "Seriousness and grace are needed," La Nacion newspaper political analyst Joaquin Morales Sola wrote that "the opportunism of the Peronists made it possible for Argentina to continue spiraling into the abyss."

Many demonstrators over the weekend said they were worried that Rodriguez Saa's plan to alleviate a cash crunch by issuing a new third currency could spark runaway hyperinflation.

Many of those who took to the street early on Saturday demanded the end of unpopular caps limiting Argentines to $1,000 in cash per month from their bank accounts, put in place a month ago to halt a run on the brittle financial system.

But economists say lifting the cash limits would spark certain collapse of many Argentine banks short on funds.

This e-text of the posthumous 1993 collection of essays, "The Wisdom of Henry Hazlitt," is made available by The Henry Hazlitt Foundation in cooperation with The Foundation for Economic Education. The Hazlitt Foundation is a member-supported 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission is to make the ideas of freedom more accessible. Please visit our flagship Internet service Free-Market.Net: The world's most comprehensive source for information on liberty.

Chapter 30: Uruguay: Welfare State Gone Wild

--From the April 1969 issue of The Freeman.

If there were a Nobel prize for the most extreme or worst example of the welfare state (and if such outright communist states as Russia and China were made ineligible), which country has done most to earn it?

The decision would be a hard one. Among the outstanding candidates would be Britain, France, Sweden, and India. But the British case, though the most familiar, is certainly not the worst; it is the most discussed and most deplored because of the former eminence of Britain in the world.

The tragedy certainly reaches its greatest dimensions in India, with much of its 500 million population always on the verge of famine, and kept there by an incredible mixture of economic controls, planning, welfarism, and socialism, imposed by its central and state governments. Moreover, India has always been a poverty-stricken country, periodically swept by drought or floods resulting in human misery on a catastrophic scale, and it is often difficult to calculate just how much worse off its governmental policies have made it.

Perhaps the most dramatic example of a country needlessly ruined by "welfare" policies is Uruguay. Here is a country only about a third larger than the state of Wisconsin, with a population of just under 3 million. Yet that population is predominantly of European origin, with a literacy rate estimated at 90 percent. This country once was distinguished among the nations of Latin America for its high living standards and good management.

Uruguay adopted an elaborate state pension system as early as 1919. But its major troubles seem to have begun after March 1952, when the office of president was abolished, and Uruguay was governed by a nine-man national council elected for a four-year term, six members of which belonged to the majority party and three to the leading minority party. All nine were given equal power.

What is so discouraging about the example of Uruguay is not only that its welfare programs persisted, but that they became more extreme in spite of the successive disasters to which they led. The story seems so incredible that instead of telling it in my own words, I prefer to present it as a series of snapshots taken by different firsthand observers at intervals over the years.

* * *

The first snapshot I present is one taken by Karel Norsky in The Manchester Guardian Weekly of July 12, 1956:

Uruguay today offers the sad spectacle of a sick Welfare State. It is living in a Korean boom-day dream.... No politician comes out with the home truth that this country's wide range of welfare services has to be paid for with funds which have to be earned. Demagogy is used as a sedative. The result is that the foreign payments deficit is increasing, internal debt soaring, wage demands accumulating, prices rising, and the Uruguayan peso rapidly depreciating. Nepotism is rife. Now one in every three citizens in Montevideo, which accounts for a third of the country's 3 million inhabitants, is a public servant, draws a small salary, is supposed to work half a day in a Government office, and more often than not spends the rest of his time doing at least one other job in a private enterprise.... Corruption is by no means absent....
The foreign payments deficit has been running at a monthly rate of about 5 million pesos. The public servants are asking for a substantial increase in salaries. The meat-packing workers are on strike for higher pay and a guaranteed' amount of a daily ration of four pounds of meat well below market price....
No politician here can hope to get a majority by advocating austerity, harder work, and the sacrifice of even some of the Welfare State features.

I should like to pause here to underline this last paragraph, for it illustrates what is perhaps the most ominous aspect of the welfare state everywhere. This is that once a subsidy, pension, or benefit payment is extended to any group, it is immediately regarded as a "right." No matter what the crisis facing the budget or the currency, it becomes "politically impossible" to discontinue or reduce it. We will find this repeatedly illustrated in Uruguay.

* * *

The next snapshot I present was taken by S. J. Rundt & Associates of New York nearly seven years later, in April, 1963:

In one of his first statements the new President of the National Council admitted that Uruguay is practically bankrupt.... He made it pretty clear, however, that the country's welfare system of long standing will remain more or less unchanged.
The 'social laboratory of the Americas,' Uruguay has launched a legislative program which goes much further toward the complete 'welfare state' than any similar plan in this hemisphere.... The government grants family allowances based on the number of children; employees cannot be dismissed without proper indemnification; both men and women vote at the age of 18....
An elaborate and all-encompassing state pension system was introduced as early as 1919. Financed by payroll deductions of 14 to 17 percent, which must be matched by employers, a pension is available to any Uruguayan at the age of 55 after 30 years of work, or at 60 after ten years. At retirement, the worker draws his highest salary, plus what has been deducted for pensions.... Employees obtain free medical service and are entitled to 20 days of annual vacation with pay. The government takes care of expectant and nursing mothers.
The overwhelming expenses of a super-welfare state (where nearly one-fifth of the population is dependent on government salaries) and the uncertain income from a predominantly livestock and agricultural economy have left their marks. Today, Uruguay is in severe financial and fiscal stress....
Inflation is rampant.... Local production has declined sharply. Unemployment has risen. There are many severe strikes. Income from tourism has fallen off markedly....
So far as exchange controls and import restrictions are concerned, Uruguay has tried them all....
In an effort to prevent an other buying spree in 1963, the new Administration decreed an import ban for 90 days on a wide array of goods considered nonessential.... All told, the ban applies to about one-third of all Uruguayan importations.... The smuggling of goods, mainly from Brazil and Argentina, has become one of the foremost headaches of Montevideo planners....
Capital flight during 1963 is estimated at between $40 million and $50 million....
The budget deficit in 1961 nearly doubled to 210 million pesos. The situation turned from bad to worse in 1962 when the Treasury recorded the largest deficit in 30 years.... Press reports cite a red figure of 807 million pesos. The Treasury is said to owe by now nearly 700 million pesos to the pension funds and roughly a billion pesos to Banco de la Republica. The salaries of public officials are at least one month behind schedule....
Labor costs in Uruguay, the Western Hemisphere's foremost welfare state, are high. The many contributions toward various social benefits -- retirement, family allotments, sickness, maternity, accident, and unemployment insurance -- vary from industry to industry, but the general average for industry as a whole is at least 50 percent of the payroll. In some sectors, the percentage is much higher....
Social unrest is rising.. .. Widespread and costly strikes have become the order of the day. As a rule, they involve demands for pay hikes, sometimes as high as 50 percent.

* * *

Our third snapshot was taken by Sterling G. Slappey in Nation's Business magazine four years later, in April, 1967:

Montevideo -- Two hundred imported buses are rusting away on an open dock while Uruguayan government bureaucrats bicker with each other over payment of port charges. The buses have not moved in nearly four years.
Scores of men listed under false female names receive regular government handouts through Uruguay's socialized hospitals. They are listed as 'wet nurses.'
At many government offices there are twice as many public servants as there are desks and chairs. The trick is to get to work early so you won't have to stand during the four to six hour work-day that Uruguayan bureaucrats enjoy.
It is rather common for government workers to retire on full pay at 45. It is equally common to collect on one retirement while holding a second job or to hold a job while collecting unemployment compensation. These are a few of the facts of life in Uruguay -- a nation gone wild over the welfare state....
Between 40 and 45 percent of the 2.6 million people in this once affluent land are now dependent on the government for their total income. These include youthful pensioners' who have no great problem getting themselves fired or declared redundant, thereby qualifying for large retirement benefits....
At any given moment eight to ten strikes are going on, in a nation which until fifteen years ago called itself the Switzerland of Latin America' because its people were so industrious, busy, and neat. Montevideo is now one of the world's filthiest cities outside the Orient. The people have so little pride left they litter their streets with paper and dump their nastiest garbage on the curb....
Besides controlling meat and wool production and supplying meat to Montevideo, the government also entirely operates:
Fishing; seal catching; alcohol production; life and accident insurance; the PTT -- post office, telephone and telegraph; petroleum and kerosene industry; airlines; railroads; tug boats; gambling casinos; lotteries; theaters; most hospitals; television and radio channels; three official banks; the largest transit company....
In 1950 the Uruguayan peso, South America s most solid coin, was worth 50 cents. During a six day period last February, the value of the peso slumped from 72 to the $1 to 77.
Cost of living went up 88 percent in 1965. During 1966 the increase was something like 40 to 50 percent.
To keep pace the government has increased its spending, ground out more paper money and lavishly passed out huge pay raises -- some as high as 60 percent a year....
One fiscal expert diagnoses Uruguay's troubles as English sickness' which, he says, means trying to get as much as possible out of the community while contributing as little as possible towards it.
Until President Gestido took over, Uruguay had been ruled for fifteen years by a nine-member council in a collegiate system of government. It was idealistic, unworkable, and rather silly from the start. It quickly fragmented, making the government a coalition of seven different groups. Every year a different member of the council took over as president, or council chief.
The collegiate system was a Tammany Hall patronage-type of group. Instead of each party watching the opposition, all took care of their friends and got their cousins government sinecures.
The western world has rarely seen such patronage, nepotism, favoritism.

* * *

The return to a Presidential system brought hopes that Uruguay's extreme welfarism could now be mitigated. But here is our fourth snapshot, taken by C. L. Sulzberger for The New York Times of October 11, 1967:

Montevideo -- Contemporary England or Scandinavia might well take a long southwesterly look at Uruguay while murmuring: 'There but for the grace of God go I.' For Uruguay is the welfare state gone wild, and this fact, at last acknowledged by the government, brought about today's political crisis and the declaration of a state of emergency.
This is the only country in the Western Hemisphere where the kind of democratic socialism practiced in Norway, Labor Britain, or New Zealand has been attempted. Alas, thanks to warped conceptions and biased application, the entire social and economic structure has been set askew. Here charity begins at home. One out of three adults receives some kind of pension. Forty percent of the labor force is employed by the state. Political parties compete to expand a ridiculously swollen bureaucracy which only works a thirty-hour week....
The cost of living has multiplied 32 times in the past decade. Gross national production has actually declined 9 percent and this year will take a nose dive....
Instead of having one President, like the Swiss they elected a committee and, not being Swiss, the Uruguayans saw to it the committee couldn't run the country. The result was a system of self-paralysis.
Anyone can retire on full salary after thirty years on the job, but with full salary worth one thirty-second of its worth ten years ago, the pension isn't very helpful. To compound the confusion, trade unions make a habit of striking. Right now the bank employees refuse to handle government checks so neither wage-earners nor pension-receivers get paid ....
This was a needless tragedy. Uruguay has proportionately more literacy and more doctors than the United States. It is underpopulated and has a well-developed middle class....
Uruguay should serve as a warning to other welfare states.

* * *

Our fifth snapshot was taken by S. J. Rundt & Associates on August 6, 1968:

The mess continues ... and seems to perpetuate itself.... The government is getting tougher and Uruguayans more obstreperous. The powerful and sharply leftist, communist-led 400,000 member CNT (National Workers Convention) is on and off 24-hour work stoppages in protest against the lid clamped on pay boosts by the price, wage, and dividend freeze decreed on June 28.... The currently severe six-month drought has brought a gloomy brownout, after a 50 percent reduction in electric power use was decreed.... The near-darkness helps sporadic anti-government rioting and terrorist activities. A leading pro-government radio transmitter was destroyed by bombs.... Train service has been severely curtailed and at times no newspapers are published.... Last year there were 500 strikes; the dismal record will surely be broken in 1968....
Of a population of around 2.6 million, the number of gainfully active Uruguayans is at the most 900,000. Pensioners number in excess of 300,000. Months ago the unemployed came to 250,000, or almost 28 percent of the work force, and the figure must now be higher....
The government closed at least three supermarkets and many stores for having upped prices, as well as such institutions as private hospitals that had violated the wage-price freeze decree. But despite rigid press censorship and Draconian anti-riot and anti-strike ukases, threatening punishment by military tribunals, calm fails to return.

* * *

Our sixth and final snapshot of a continuing crisis is from a New York Times dispatch of January 21, 1969:

Striking Government employees rioted in downtown Montevideo today, smashing windows, setting up flaming barricades and sending tourists fleeing in panic. The police reported that one person had been killed and 32 injured.
The demonstrators acted in groups of 30 to 50, in racing through a 30-block area, snarling traffic with their barricades, and attacking buses and automobiles. The police fought back with tear gas, high-pressure water hoses and clubs....
The striking civil servants were demanding payment of monthly salary bonuses of $24, which they say are two months overdue.

* * *

These six snapshots, taken at different intervals over a period of twelve years, involve considerable repetition: but the repetition is part of the point. The obvious reforms were never made.

Here are a few salient statistics to show what was happening between the snapshots:

In 1965 consumer prices increased 88 percent over those in the preceding year. In 1966 they increased 49 percent over 1965. In 1967 they increased 136 percent over 1966. By August, 1968 they had increased 61 percent over 1967.

The average annual commercial rate of interest was 36 percent in 1965. In 1966, 1967, and August 1968 it ranged between 32 and 50 percent.

The volume of money increased from 2,924 million pesos in 1961 to 10,509 in 1965, 13,458 in 1966, and 27,490 in 1967.

In 1961 there were 11 pesos to the American dollar. In 1965 there were 60; in 1966, there were 70; in early 1967 there were 86; at the end of 1967 there were 200, and after April 1968 there were 250.

Uruguay's warning to the United States, and to the world, is that governmental welfarism, with its ever-increasing army of pensioners and other beneficiaries, is fatally easy to launch and fatally easy to extend, but almost impossible to bring to a halt -- and quite impossible politically to reverse, no matter how obvious and catastrophic its consequences become. It leads to runaway inflation, to state bankruptcy, to political disorder and disintegration, and finally to suppressive dictatorship. Yet no country ever seems to learn from the example of another.

"Wisdom of Henry Hazlitt" Home Page | Next Chapter

This e-text is made available by The Henry Hazlitt Foundation in cooperation with The Foundation for Economic Education. The Hazlitt Foundation is a member-supported 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission is to make the ideas of freedom more accessible. Please visit our flagship Internet service Free-Market.Net: The world's most comprehensive source for information on liberty.

The Henry Hazlitt Foundation
401 N. Franklin St., Suite 3E, Chicago, IL 60610
(312) 494-9433, fax: (312) 494-9441
info@hazlitt.org, http://www.hazlitt.org/

B.,

Excellent observations.

Yet I think we are not doomed, because we are curious to know how things work.

Though we find plenty of inattention to maintenance, there are still plenty of people who make things happen, every day.

I still roughly estimate that one third of the people will bitch and moan, one third of the people will sit on the fence ... but come down off it to help, the enduring third of the people.

The trick is in maintaining a public education for the purposes in which the expression was intended by our founding fathers; and that is, to not waste the benefits of failure analysis of our [and their] ancestors' struggles.

True, we (the U.S.) may not last, but overall, we have not exactly returned to the bronze age (though I can hear from y'all, the temptation to get witty, here), upon our failures since the Greek democracies.

We have learned some things for which we would write a slightly better Constitution, wise to how the lawyers, et al, I am sorry to say, would work their way around the principle that government be limited by enumeration of its powers.

We could have a few better phrases, perhaps more firm.

But especially, we could have a better example of our exercising a "free press" for its prime objective, to protect the people from bad, excessive, intrusive, etc., government.

I had by most standards, a very high-quality high school education. But neither there, nor in college, were the principles of constitutional construction illuminated beyond the pop-favorites of whatever few features in The Federalist Papers, which the prof. happened to want ALL the Constitution to "mean." Such prof.'s and departments were all dead set on establish THEIR version of [re-]"interpreting" the Constitution --- and certainly not the Founding Fathers'.

In the same instant, we live in a world of great imagination, and then none at all.

We have been taught that we must have guns OR butter; but examination of the argument shows that we must BALANCE guns AND butter.

We have been taught that many things social, do not work, without government force. And there, is where we really are at odds with "the left."

Because we are told, by them, that we cannot affect improvement in general, for we are hindered by our Constitution; and instead, the "Contemporary Constitution" according to them --- which is more accurately extra-Constitutional space where we find most of socialism and them --- is the place to "move forward."

In the fix of the lights of our modern media processes, who may oppose "the left's" arguments, spends almost no time doing anything but reacting to positions of the left, in hopes of maintaining some dialog.

Ironic it is, that actually it is "the right" which seeks to maintain some closeness and understanding of "the left's" position, though disingenuous "the left" most certainly is.

Yet we have hardly exhausted any of the tools with which we can demonstrate how we can accomplish great things while limiting government.

One example, we have lived through: We went for generations, without our individual right to keep and bear Arms being a day-to-day target on the wish-list of socialists' engineering a decline of the democratic-republic. That is because, for the most part, generation to generation, we imparted the serious nature of our responsibilities as citizens. Joanie, I believe, knows this very well, and probably can recall many of the particulars of care and instruction by which her late father imparted to her, not only his expectations, but our ancestors.

I have seen racing crews pack up and go home, thinking that we pretty much know what we're going to know. And the next time, somebody shows up a the track with something new. Or so it seems.

Because what they have looks new, but is actually a better application of an old principle.

Which gets me back to maintenance.

We advance because we have learned that there is, maintenance.

It gets almost no "play" and often is not glamorous. But it does keep things running, and it is conservativism.

Liberals may go on re-inventing the wheel, but it is conservatives who will maintain it, refurbish it, or make a new one ... on the principle.

I would say that our Constitution lives because our culture of Liberty lives on through the continuation of our American Heritage and worthy tradition.

Find a liberal who fancies his/or/her/or/it-self in lockstep with Lenin and denegratingly critical of our American Heritage. Almost always, you'll also find they fancy themself to be a conniseur (sp?) of cultural understanding and tradition ELSEWHERE around the world; and so, the fact is, they DO APPRECIATE tradition. Rather, it is against America, that they work, and for socialism, to relieve them of some angst under their saddle. Their inability to be honest about their true political intent, matching their inability to really explain that angst.

And probably, the thought of doing chores --- maintaining the foundations of Liberty --- quite scares them, as just more day-to-day labor "for somebody elses' benefit."

But what I see are a people who would be unhappy, because the discipline required to face the struggles of day-to-day life, even in a free country, is something --- IN THEIR EDUCATION --- which they missed, dismissed, and in some cases will refuse opportunity, no matter.

Because socialism is not about fixing anything; rather, it is about all of us being perpetually in need, but especially of the socialist ruling class [of the moment, whoever of them is alive at that moment, in their wars against each other].

Well, nearly always down some corridor, of even the darkest hall of socialism's power, there's some guy or gal who actually does know how to change a light bulb and has quite some experience with what is and what is not a good light bulb. And that guy or gal, is who makes things work.

And pretty soon, word gets out, and more people fix what needs fixing ...

Which is what allows us to truly move forward.Well, who flocks around the world, to socialism? Does Russia have people sneaking in to be free? Or does Red China? Or does Cuba? Where are all their millions of illegal immigrants?

So what is so great about America?

We make things work because we are free to make things work; while socialism is about limiting peoples' freedom to make things work.

And for all the promises of the upper-muckety-mucks on "the left," people prefer that things work.

To wit: socialism "wins" when it manages to convince people that nothing works and there's no use in trying [anything but socialism].

Well, sorry, but that's utterly the opposite of the American Spirit of '76, which is the nature of an American and those who very much wish to be.

I must confess that my statement, "We only have the rights we defend as long as we are able," is not merely a bit of wisdom. Again, I understate and am perfectly comfortable with it.

God Bless you all in the new year.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.