Please nuke this place and be done with it

>what is australia

Why hasn't this part formed their own little Norway?

Attached: sdsd.png (1000x1071, 1.46M)

that would be comfy, why didn't you do it?

We developed a much stronger industry than you over the years. Mercosul even demands that we would transfer car factories to your country so we can sell them to you. This is mostly bullshit mased on marxist determinism. Having industries in your country is of strategic importance to develop technology, especially war-time tech and make weapons, but it doesn't make your population more prosperous.

No

I must know what Argentinian chicks taste like first (by fucking them)

>chicks
>taste like
You make it seem like you're interested in their poultry

> what is Chile

It just keeps collapsing
elespectador.com/economia/la-economia-argentina-esta-cayendo-en-recesion-articulo-808478

a South American country

I've been hearing about Argentina collapsing my whole life to be honest

>what is Australia
>what is New Zeland
>what is Norway

and it's true all the times you hear it.

>> having industries in your country doesn’t make your population more prosperous

It surly does. You will have a bigger middle class and less unimployment. Chile and Brazil have both Industries and are the wealthiest Nations in Southamerica. The problem in Brazil is the corruption and the beaurocraty.

There's really no reason why Argentina shouldn't be a world power with a GDP similar to France t b h.

There's no need to nuke it when we can throw all Argies into the ocean and annex it.

>Nuking hectares of arable lands
Just get a foreigner to help you with your economy or just get annexed by Chile.

For one thing, it's too geographically isolated from major world trade/shipping routes.

They make it sound like its Argenzuela though, and it's not the case, far from it

this, we should close the panama channel

>Chile and Brazil have both Industries and are the wealthiest Nations in Southamerica
Argentina's is still a more of a middle-class country than Brazil, with more wealth per capta. Employment can also be anything you want. It's no different to have your counntrymen work on a factory than on anything else as long as it is productive. Factories are given such importance because it is associated with last century's progressive and scientific ideals, but building industry hasn't made argentina richer than it was relative to the rest of the world when it had none, for a variety of reasons.

Argentina has also tried to industrialize the same way Brazil did back in the 30's. There's nothing magical about creating industries through government intervention or protectionism. It's not good or bad, it's just not a magical way of creating wealth. They were a wealthier country before because they exported most of their agricultural produce in a time where these were worth a lot more (19th century). Then after the great recession they went through a variety of different economic models, mostly technocratic ones lead by fascists and socialists but even had a neoliberal phase. Nothing made them as rich as contemporary western europe. It's complicated.

lol

That’s epic

It's been collapsing for 30 years now.

So far...

Why is still either on the #1 or #2 countries of Latin America ranked first in pretty much every possitive ranking?

Because every other place in Latin America is just an absolute shithole, meaning that being mediocre is still God-tier in comparison.

Why don't they do it better then? Sound pretty easy to be first world...

Okay this is epic

Attached: Argentinanukemap.png (1293x884, 369K)

Please don't nuke Mendoza and Rio Grande that's too close to home.

Rosario and Buenos Aires are the only places in here that deserve to get nuked.

not feasable without falklands aka svalbard

mendoza is ours, dont touch it!

What made Brazil succeed while Argentina failed?

>Brazil
>succeed
What? Brazil has pretty mediocre growth, akin to most 3rd wolrd countries. Argentina is a special case of a country that was comparable to western europe until the 50's or so, and steadly declined since then.

Attached: argentina.png (640x299, 142K)

Didn't Macri save Argentina?

Brazil seems to the economically stronger of the two right now.

I guess I should've specified successful by South American standards?

No one can save Argentina. They don't want to be saved.
>right now.
Obviously. It's a much bigger country with a greater population. I was talking about comparable living standards, in which argies were first world tier until around the 60's or 70's.

I guess Venezuela made people think of latin american countries "colapsing" as literally becoming garbage filled dumpster fires.

Argentina collapses every couple of years the same way Greece does: it's a country with reasonably generous welfare filled with arrogant cunts who think they are the greatest gift to the fucking universe, except they can't pay their debts and don't want to give up on anything. Then they finally voted a suppsed neolib into power to balance their atrocious joke of a budget and he barely made any progress because the Argies don't really want to change anything. This is what I meant by "they don't want to be saved". They don't even klnow what economic system they really want.

However, much like Greece, it's still a liveable country with a reasonable standard of living. I wouldn't mind living there over Brazil or even Chile. I'd sell all my posessions and become a monk before being forced to live in Venezuela though.

pls don't touch my country.

too many italian immigrants

Peronism is a virus that can't seemingly be eradicated from Argentine political culture.

CHI

Shit. I was considering moving there.

Attached: kaon_decay.jpg (1538x1021, 234K)

Capitalism doesn't work, what a surprise.
this will end at some point, maybe not in our lifetime, but it will end.

>Capitalism doesn't work
But you've never tried it. You've been running on Peronism for 80 years and haven't tried anything else.

>being this 12
just google capitalism, you clearly don't know what it is.

You should google "competent management". Clearly an alien notion in your country.

>this retarded ad hominem
it's ok to be a child m8
no need to be angry.
just please tell me, when was my country under any economic system other than capitalism?
capitalism doesn't work, it's a fact.

>angry
lmao I'm not the one with the imploding economy.
>when was my country under any economic system other than capitalism?
When was any other country not run by capitalism under your standards? The USSR? Because that worked great for everyone involved.

imploding economy? USSR?
can you please stay on topic?
you said that Argentina hasn't been under capitalism for 80 years.
you clearly don't know what you're talking about, got angry because you were called out on it, and chimped out like a little mongoloid with ad hominems and strawmans

> ad hominems and strawmans
Right. I called peronism "not capitalism" because it's just an empty, centrist "third way" populist centrist early 20th century ideology. They themselves didn't see themselves as particularly pro-capitalism, but as something between capitalism and socialims. Peron was a fascist.

But you're obviously some manner of marxist whose political compass is limited to not capitalism x capitalism so this isn't something I could argue with you so I just threw the USSR there for laughs. Don't worry about it.

it's not something you can argue because you don't know the most basic concepts of what you're trying to argue about.

Capitalism is a socioeconomical system where the means of production are privately owned, allowing for wage labour and accumulation of wealth.
Socialism is a socioeconomical system where the means of production are collectively owned, there's no private property.

Peronism is still capitalism because it doesn't seek to collectivize the means of production, it's a socialdemocracy, literally Capitalism.
simple as that.

but yeah, you can dismiss anything you want under the basis of "ambiguous definitions" when you're retarded.

>it's not something you can argue because you don't know the most basic concepts of what you're trying to argue about.
And I'm sure you do marxist friend. I was 17 once so I know how you feel.
>Capitalism is a socioeconomical system where the means of production are privately owned, allowing for wage labour and accumulation of wealth.
Plenty of socialist ideals had no intentention of completely eliminating private property, and just wanted it regulated by the community as a whole. This is a very myopic view of a marxist who thinks all socialists began and ended with Marx's and Engles theory on capital.
>Peronism is still capitalism because it doesn't seek to collectivize the means of production
It doesn't allow capitalists to be particularly independent from the State, in the way a more liberal state would. It's steep opposition of market capitalism made it very indistinct from other socialist republics in practice.

But of course, you may insist that national socialists were just fucking around by branding themselves socialists, or that socialist factions like the fabians conveniently not exist. Sure. But always keep in mind that if this is your standard for capitalism and socialism, you are effectively criticizing a system by implying another system that has never been implemented is better, even though whenever it was attempted it never materialized and it ended up with even more capitalism.

the fact that you think only marxist go by the actual definition of socialism makes me not want to talk to you anymore, since you're too retarded.
nevertheless, here's my last answer:
>if this is your standard for capitalism and socialism, you are effectively criticizing a system by implying another system that has never been implemented is better, even though whenever it was attempted it never materialized and it ended up with even more capitalism.
demonstrably not true.
not gonna school you here but socialism has been tried and it was successful.
what makes socialism "fail" is foreign sabotage, obviously by capitalist superpowers.

>the fact that you think only marxist go by the actual definition of socialism
The definition of socialism that was cornered by particular groups of socialists that monopolized the term. Liberalism was considered left-leaning during the french revolution too, but fuck it the socialist internation says everyone is right wing but them so I guess that's gospel.
>what makes socialism "fail" is foreign sabotage, obviously by capitalist superpowers.
Ah, of course. The last resort of the marxist. Sure, the USSR had a subversive intelligence agency that was as bent on sabotaging capitalists as the CIA. Obviously, it had enough resources, landmass and population to create something that would be leagues above the US in terms of social development. But of course, it was just TOO noble and good, not willing to steep so low as to fight those evil bourgeoisie bullies who fought so unfairly.

If just only they made more gulags, we would all be living in a big, happy socialist paradise right now.

>keeps talking about the USSR
you're too retarded.
have fun.

>gets triggered when the USSR is mentioned
Why are you retarded tankie commies so fucking gay about your failed states? Should I have used cameroon rouge as an example instead? Either defend your murderous genocidal empires and tell me about how it was sabotaged by the evil americans, or don't be so upset whenever someone reminds you that they existed.

Attached: tankies.jpg (251x200, 12K)

Gracias a pelotudos como vos es que estamos como estamos hace 80 años.

Saludos