Neoliberalism

Peron transformed Argentina’s economy, social structure and political culture in ways that continue to shape Argentina to this day. On the other side, Peron’s political actions as well as his legacy cannot be characterized easily, he was a politician who provided for the masses as well as being supported by them while still being in various ways the president of an authoritarian regime. What were both Peron and Castro’s economic goals, and how do they differ from each other?

Following the Civil War, a second industrial revolution in America brought many changes to the nation’s agriculture sector. The new technologies that were created transformed how farmers worked and the way in which the sector functioned. Agriculture expanded and became more industrial. Meanwhile government policies, or lack of them for a while, and hard economic conditions put difficult strains on farmers and their occupation. These changes in technology, economic conditions, and government policy from 1865 to 1900 transformed and improved agriculture while leaving farmers in hardship.

As the capitalists continued their corruption, “the wealthy class became wealthier; but the poorer class became more dependant. The gulf between the employed and the employer was growing wider” (Document A). Similarly, many actions performed by these capitalists, contributed to the sorrowful lives of many farmers, who were struggling to survive.

This led the financial system to became worthless and millions of citizens to become poor. In Chile, Pinochet “imposed an economic system that seemed successful at the beginning, although it benefited the capitalists while it maintained the labour force under an iron fist” (Doc 8). In other words, the economy that Pinochet, the non-Communist leader that the U.S. supported, implemented created a huge gap between the very rich owners and the very poor workers. However, under normal circumstances Chile would have been able to create an independent economy that didn’t cause such a division between the upper and lower classes.

As the nation industrialized, farmer’s work became overshadowed by the newly industrialized economy. Farmers believed they should receive enough money to produce crops and provide for their family (Study.com). Monopolies threatened farmers abilities to get their

At the turn of the 20th century, the United States had become the leading industrial power in the world, due to 19th century technological advances which escorted America out of an agrarian based economy and into the industrial revolution. However, this period of transition made life increasingly difficult for American farmers. For example, improvements to America’s railroads presented a competitive advantage to large crop producers while placing family farmers at a substantial disadvantage. Furthermore, the prices of crops such as cotton, once the keystone of America’s agricultural economy, were falling which made it more difficult for farmers to survive. Consequently, farmers were forced to mortgage their property. Although some of the farmer’s complaints about life in the early 20th century, such as national monetary policy were unjustified, railroads and other consequences of the industrial revolution posed serious threats to the way of life for farmers.

Many foreign policy makers in the western hemisphere and other developing countries often behave as if capitalism and democracy are inseparable. Nevertheless, there are some scholars that argue that the relationship between this political and economic systems are not complicated. Democracy and the market economy are two systems that are closely intertwined and mutually reinforcing or weakening. Since both of them are related to freedom. If one of these systems is strengthened , the other also strengthens and weakens if one weakens the other. Most Latin American countries, including Nicaragua have struggled to establish a democratic political system and have a capitalist economic system, since this so called “capitalism” is hierarchical,

Start of the twentieth century it seemed like El Salvador finally establishes a viable government and began building an economy (Background, 2012). Then, the economic crisis of the 1930s occurs and the international markets plummeted and so did El Salvador. Externally, El Salvador was not a huge contender in global markets, but internally the social, political and economic environment in El Salvador was becoming tense and in 1932 the peasant workers in the rural countryside raised up against the land elites (Benavides, 2008). The

One of the main conflicts that arose in Cuba was the rapidly declining economy. Cuban farmers lost all of their land and were forced to work on much smaller plots given to them by the state. Because of this, the agricultural production decreased, which brought down Cuba’s economy with it. In Marc Frank’s Cuban Revelations, he says “Some 70 percent of the land in Cuba is owned by the state, making it the largest unproductive landowner in Latin America when Raul took over” (116). The Cuban government began filtering things on the news to make the people believe different things were happening around them than what actually was happening.

Ruggiero writes, “Ironically, the very day that Castro returned to Cuba, he grandly announced his desire for agrarian reform. While the reform sounded moderate, and its phrasing was moderate, it was radical in its intent” (Ruggiero Pg. 86). This new Agrarian reform would go on to destroy American farmers who had invested years, time, and money into the Cuba land and economy. Ruggiero also writes, “Under the Agrarian Reform Bill U.S. and Cuban sugar mills were stripped of their cane fields and no foreigner could acquire farmland in Cuba or inherit in. Nearly 200,000 peasants were to receive this land” (Ruggiero Pg. 86). This reform came with two clauses for the peasants who wished to own land. One they could never sell or mortgage the land, and secondly peasants were to grow the crops approved by the National Agrarian Reform Institute. This reform alone began to shape the controlling dictator’s policies that Castro would

Individuals and parties sought and found reconciliation with institutions that marked a new way of political peace. The new political and economic institutions channeled economic growth in Colombia during the twentieth century. As it was discussed previously, monetary and fiscal policies during most of the new century were marked by prudence, creating an adequate macroeconomic balance to sustain that growth.

In the past forty years, neoliberalism has infiltrated global health and its distribution as a defining ideology. Arising out of an economic model based upon supply and demand and minimal governmental control, this free-market approach appealed to healthcare initiatives based upon predictions of increased democracy, sustainability, individual agency, and efficiency (Keshavjee, 2014). Dr. Salmaan Keshavjee formulates a compelling argument, contesting the effectiveness of such a program in Badakhshan. While his powerful account addresses the intellectual and political momentum gained by neoliberalism and the drastic proliferation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that led to catastrophic results, he neglects to thoroughly explain the

Demystifying the workings of capitalism is often dismissed as a holdover of more vulgar understandings of Marxist politics. However, considering the ubiquitous and multilayered forces that define control, this unraveling of dominant processes in increasingly important. In exploring youth politics in France, Deleuze notes,

     Agriculture has changed dramatically, especially since the end of World War II. Food and fibre productivity rose due to new technologies, mechanization, increased chemical use, specialization and government policies that favoured maximizing production. These changes allowed fewer farmers with reduced labour demands to produce the majority of the food and fibre.

This financial crisis was not a sudden event; in fact this crisis has its roots dug deep into the long history of a turbulent Argentine economy. In terms of growth, in the early twentieth centaury, Argentina could boast of outperforming most Latin American nations. More over, as The Economist reports, by 1913 Argentina was among the world’s ten richest countries, ahead of even France and Germany, with an annual average growth of 5% every year over the previous three decades. However, after the First World War, the Argentine economy faced a steep decline and by 1989 the country’s inflation rate went soaring high (Figure 2)