"Latin America needs to diversify its exports - away from oil, iron, soya, meat and the like - if it is to grow sustainably. Unfortunately, as the region has focused yada yada guess the rest it's easy continues here"
Today in the FT, guest blogger Kevin Gallagher gives us the old chestnut about "The Chinese Threat", but this time from a LatAm angle. The story is not new and it goes without saying that the classic line of thinking, the one about how LatAm must diversify and add value to exports and how it's key to sustainable growth and how without it we're all gonna die etc etc, yep that one's front'n'centre:
This bullshit really gets my goat. Not the theory behind it, mind you, because economics being a social science is always up for debate, there are no empirical answers and opinions (as long as they're backed up by research and logic) are welcome. Nah, the thing that pisses me off about this is that people like Gallagher who bemoan LatAm's lack of added value growth, wag their little fingers at the overwhelming exposure to primary material and commodity exports and give countries like Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador a stern piece of their mind on these occasions are the very same economorons that cheer and laud the economic progress made by Chile since the early 90s, a GDP growth totally dependent on primary exports that has....errr....has....well, like...err....made for 20 years of successful and sustainable growth in the country.
It's the freaking hypocrisy of these dumbasses that sticks in my craw. So Mr Gallagher, accept this week's coveted award for yourself and all your two-faced colleagues who trot out their monotonous balderdash on LatAm macro:
I feel better now. DYODD, dude.