British ships banned from docking in Buenos Aires

[Velasco]

If you want to criticize the jingoistic Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the chauvinistic Telegraph is not the best choice. Clarence inaugurates my ignore list. It's a pity.

[Velasco]

It's the oil, of course, but also the British and Argentinian national pride. Both disgusting issues but, yes, the current population in the islands in overwhelmingly British.

[Velasco]

So basically, just like last time.  A distraction to make the population forget they have a sh**tty govt.

Indeed the Cameron-Clegg is not a good one. Telegraph needs to distract its readers. Jesus, if this is a serious way of discussing affairs...

[Velasco]

It's a beautiful comparison: Huffington Post and Iran's Press TV. It says all.

I cry about Telegraph because the British conservative papers from The Sun to The Telegraph, including The Daily Mail (and I'm missing someone) are well known for being populist vehicles of the worst British jingoism.

I don't like Cristina Fernández at all. Even her critics in Argentina say that the Malvinas issue is a distraction, but you are missing the point if you think that the records of the last Argentinian cabinets are an absolute s***. Argentina is far better now than it was 10 years ago, despite its politicians. What can you say about the horrible economic records of the British Conservative-Liberal government? Maybe the Telegraph wants to keep the focus on the futile measures and statements of the Argentinian President because the issues are going too bad at home? Jesus Christ.

[Velasco]

This may be outdated, but the UK is overpreforming in its region as far as I can find here: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2089264/UK-growth-outstrip-continental-rivals-euro-crisis-comes-head-2012-IMF-say.html

Argentina seems like it is also barely oustriping its neighbors here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/pdf/text.pdf and thats with offical numbers that we know for a fact are doctored. Yeah, its previous governments were pretty godawful, but that doesn't justify the actions of the current one.

Well, Dereich I'll link you more recent news from the same media:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1616085/Economy-watch-How-long-Britains-recession-last.html

The article is dated on July 2012 and tries to explain the reason why British economy returned to recession and how long it will last. Maybe not too much outdated. On the other hand UK is not in the Eurozone and the comparisons may be biased. Also, it's not the same if you compare the last UK economic development with Greece and Spain or if you make comparisons with Germany. The UK economic growth figures are worse than the US ones and almost everybody around here says that the latter is not going too well.

About Argentina, its economy seems to be in serious troubles if we talk about inflation figures, for example. Anyways, in the opinion of some economists and against the opinion of the international financial institutions, Néstor Kirchner (a person that I disliked) apparently adopted the correct measures to solve the Corralito crisis in the begining of the last decade. Certain Nobel Prize has interesting opinions about the Argentinian recovery. An example:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/down-argentina-way/

Finally, I´m not trying to justify anybody. I regarded Cristina Fernández as "jingoistic" and her measures in the Malvinas issue as "futile". You quoted my last post, so...

The thing that really piss me off is that some posters before you seem to believe that British jingoism has a moral superiority over the Argentinian. I dislike both. On the other hand if someone wants to start a serious debate about the Falklands, an obviously British biased media is not a good choice in any circumstance. That's all.

[Velasco]

Jesus, feel free to agree or disagree. Krugman is one of the few establishment economists that talks in favour of the measures adopted in Argentina in the early 00's and the country actually recovered, despite the recriminations of IMF and other institutions. If you want my opinion, Lula is above Kirchner in my list of preferences, at least at a personal level.

It's not as if the beleaguered first term of Thatcher's didn't benefit enormously (and was pretty much saved) by the Falklands (see here, for instance), so as you rightly say - jingoism and electoral self-interest swing both ways.

Fortunately the Thatcher days will never come back. Cristina Feranández must be a jingoistic and a demagogue, but she's not an idiot like Videla. I suppose that Cameron isn't foolish enough to expect such idiotic moves.

[Velasco]

OK, I wasn't sure (it was early in the morning) about if you agreed or disagreed. Feel free to agree with Krugman, then. About cooking books it's useful to keep in mind the former ND government in Greece and the subsequent disaster when PASOK replaced them in the office and the tricks were revealed. The Troika memorandum and the Europe's stagnation are sad stories. In my opinion the Lula's records in Brazil are undeniable and Kirchner made the correct decisions in the past decade, although in social policies the Lula's achievements are clearly superior. Add to this that Lula is more likeable and have less authoritarian ticks than Kirchner.