Economists from various camps will differ, but we should ask them “What is the tipping point (percentage) of excessive dependence on FDI (foreign direct investment) and of government spending on debt service? How are these relative to GDP growth and GINI (income and wealth) distribution?” It seems that economic monopolization was driven both internally (large landowners, corporate and government elites) and externally (trade, processing/manufacturing firms and governments of Great Britain, Spain, US).

Excellent. I learned so much from this lecture. Argentina is an amazing country and I wish it and its people the best.

Confflating the Wall Street Crash and The Great Depression is not very helpful. Canada's banks were secretly bankrupt during the G.D., barely surviving on "discreet government support". If USA "Lend-Lease" had not been passed when it was enacted, the Canadian government itself would have also been close to WW2 bankruptcy by mid 1942. Argentina has far too many people on the left and the right who prefer to chase mirages and worship delay when prompt painful measures could forestall being much more severely injured later. They have plenty of company when it comes to ignoring those very obvious, slow moving, economic train wrecks.

The Argentinians simply didn't see the sea change in the global economy. Industrialize and technologize or die. They are now simply not able to catch up. And to go with it, there is constant capital flight as well as intellectual flight. The beneficiaries of both are the industrialized Western nations.

In my opinion a point overlooked by this interesting British historian is the fact that the Pinochet's regime was capable not only of reforming the grounds of the Chilean economy, but also of laying the foundations of stable political institutions which were the pillars of Chile's prosperity during 30 years. On the other hand, the Argentinian military regime did not build solid institutions for the future of Argentina.

The problem was, by which I agree, dependence on foreign investment and foreign bonds, coupled with the appropriation of much of the land by the oligarchy. Perfect... Now, when a regime comes in trying to change that economic matrix it is also wrong.... The culprits are Perón or Getulio Vargas... Very sad not to mention the state crimes committed by the military dictatorships that tried to implement (and failed miserably) neoliberalism, with tens of thousands of thousands of dead and disappeared, all backed by the States. .. Another thing. Those doctors that you says "coming back", if their families would remained in Europe, wouldn't have had any opportunities to go to university, which in Argentina is free. In short... A very poor vision of Argentine history.

Re Advert: Two front wheels, one rear is necessary for stability!

42:59 - All this Peronese rhetoric about work sounds a lot like an infamous slogan found on an infamous gate somewhere in northern Europe: Arbeit macht frei (work will set you free.) 🤔

Very informative lecture.

Excelent lecture. Argentina had never been really rich. Rich "stancieros" (land owners) and foreign-based meat exporters had the real money and did not reinvest in

It's really hard to try to listen when it sounds lite someone is smacking into the mic. Wish the audioengineer had cleaned up the recording in post production

What is completely missing from this lecture, as from way too many lectures, articles, books, and so forth, is the major role that the British defeat at Buenos Aires all the way back in 1807 (during their invasions of the Rio de la Plata) played in a. allowing the oligarchy-inclined land tenure system to continue unimpeded and b. having the British government pivot instead to strictly economic influence in subsequent dealings in Latin America (except the joint British-French naval blockade of Buenos Aires in the late 1840s) such that the British play a more extractive role than in their settler colonies like Canada or Australia. Had the British won in 1807, it's extremely likely that Argentina (including Uruguay) would itself have turned into a settler colony along Canadian or Australian lines. Argentina wouldn't have had a militarized oligarchic autocracy, it wouldn't have over-relied on foreign capital, it would have had higher domestic savings, and the capital and loans would have been in the hands of the national and provincial governments, not in the hands of the British and other foreign governments. A lecture like this, which frequently compares real-life Argentina to Canada and/or Australia, screams for a connection with the British (mis)adventure of 1806 and 1807.

Professor Dalton ignores the obvious. Argentina was one of the richest nations in the world until WW2 and, at that time it had lots of British investment. After that, Peron got rid of the British and the Argentine economy plummeted. The foreign capital was needed for growth.

If some countrys become extremly sucessfull some others have to be the losers!

What does the speaker consider to be the "inter-war period"? Argentina's GDP has been on pretty much the same trajectory since the 19th century. US, Canada and Italy took off on a different trajectory just after WWII.

One minute and he says Argentina one of the richest country in the world. No we weren't. There were no industries, no navy, no army, no infrastructure, no nothing. We produced grain and meat for England. That grain and meat was transported in English trains, manufactured in English or American companies (like Swift) and send to England on board of an English vessel. That's it.

36:28 Gen. Getúlio Vargas did create the labour legislation we still have and it was inspired by Mussolini's Carta del Lavoro from 1927. It was put into law in 1943 when Brazil was already part of the Allied Powers in WWII. Vargas headed the 1930 Revolution (a power takeover through political means) and ruled until 1937 in a democratic fashion but then started the Estado Novo (New State) that lasted until 1945. The New State was the bloodiest and most ruthless dictatorship we ever had. The difference between the Argentinian and Brazilian cases is that Vargas did revolutionize the country and the State: he greatly diminished the large land owner's power and started a real industrialization process (with the help of Franklin Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller); he also built the State infrastructure creating the institutions like the National Institute for Geography and Statistics (IBGE), the scientific research funding institution and, most importantly, the Electoral system with secret vote and a Electoral Tribunal. When Vargas became president in 1930, Brazil was a phony democracy but when he left we had all the institutions needed to hold fair elections. Vargas was later elected president in 1950 - a presidency that faced strong opposition since before the president elect was sworn in. The situation got so extreme that we ran the real risk of a civil war but Vargas found a way out: on August the 24th, 1954, after asking his heart surgeon son to show him where exactly was the heart located in the chest, he put a bullet in his heart. He killed himself, the opposition and the risk of a civil war. The most important public administration college in Brazil is the Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV).

What has happened in argentina is currently happening in canada, usa.

UK has never had agricultural reform and its very heavily ologarchic. In fact British say this tight control of the farmland made people migrate to the cities and trigger industrialization. So now this is bad for other countries? Almost 100% of countries that had smallholders are wretchedly poor today, its the exception and not the rule that smallholder countries like the US were successful.

Brazil's monopoly of natural rubber production started to end in 1900 when the UK started to produce it in Malaysia from seeds smugled decades before that. The rubber producers are known here as "Rubber Barons" and the English translation fits because they were also Robber Barons - they robbed from the workers here and from their buyers - and that's what lead Britain to adapt the tree to a different environment.

Why is the description so scary in terms of big companies controlling more and more in the developed world?

Learned yet biased historians. We listen but us unlearned yobs wonder why Far Right always gets lumped with Fascism. Surely mutually exclusive; far right Capitalist is no friend of government authoritarian Fascist. Or maybe, as a recent Harvard leader explained; it depends on Context.

The US supported the military regimes of Argentina, Chile Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay?

The Teatro Colón (Columbus Theater) is the best opera house in the world according to Leo Beranek's "Concert Halls and Opera Houses" 2nd edition, 2003.

Why putting Latin America on the title just to talk about Argentina? Latin America has many countries and ir very large.

French intelectual influence...... that's the trouble with "Latin " América

He has not mentioned the role of the Catholic church and the resulting overpopulation of urban areas .

Great analysis, interesting and factual. As an argentinian I found your take full of some very interesting remarks and data. Thanks so much.

Independence of Argentina was on 1816, not 1810...

Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this informative content cheers Frank 😊

has any economist described themself as 'neoliberal'? No

19:12

Corruption

Chile, Argentina and Uruguay are still the best latin american countries and the only ones that may one day become developed countries

The movement of why ? many Italians went to Argentina, the USA, is poorly documented. What I saw in 2024 in Italy , from my point of view, is that expulsions has greatly enriched the heirs who are now in 2024, masters of Italy. For example, having a surname ending in O was poorly considered between 1900 and 1944 in Italy, see how far the exclusion went...

Dogma, ignorance, half truths and plain lying. But yep, ¡ Viva Milei !

the CIA thats what went wrong

What went wrong to Hispanic America? 1939-1945 that went wrong.

Full of prejudices and incorrect information. Blames foreign ownership of capital and global commerce integration for the failure of Argentina when it was the key for its success back in 1860-1930. Then justifies the fascist policies of Peronism. Apparently he learned Argentinian history by reading The Guardian or El Pais or other leftist leaflet.

Europe went wrong with Latin America

This man is a Britain hater . He blames his own country for the failures of every country on earth . The real reason Argentina has failed is that it sells base products with low margins . Argentina should have processed the products before export ,giving more employment and better profit margins . .The butchery and packaging should;d have been done in Argentina ,

A historian who thinks that genocide occurred in Australia really isn't much of a historian at all. What a disgusting, disgraceful slander.