Why Argentina?

I need some help here, dear readers. If you could, explain to me the attention that La República is getting in the angloparlante press (I admit that I don't follow the presse, Press, stampa, or even the prensa outside of América.)

We're a relatively small country with little impact on the world stage. The government at Buenos Aires comes in 3rd or 4th in influence even here in South America.

So why the sudden scrutiny?

The admittedly "tin" parts of my hat started to buzz a little with the widely reported "bloodbath" in the Argentine bond markets over the Kirchner creativity with inflation figures.

There's no way the Yanq would last a day as a bond trader... but even a dope like me would have dropped RA bonds like a hot potato months ago when the K's started in to tweakin'. That the crash and/or it's reporting would come during election week here was having trouble passing my smell test... but I let it slide.

Now comes "THE RETURN OF PRICE CONTROLS" by Newsweek columnist Daniel Gross in today's Slate.com. My crap-detector always goes off when any headline or article contains any variations on the phrase "cry for me"... but I let that slide too and started reading the article.

Lo and behold, (after a blurb mentioning "moonbats led by Hugo Chavez") three countries are profiled in the piece: #1 Argentina, #2 Russia, #3 China.

I'm not sure Argentina even deserves to be included in a discussion of price controls (have YOU felt any controls on the prices you pay?) but #1 ARGENTINA?!? Very interesting. What gives?

Mr. Gross starts off by mentioning this country's economy expanding faster than almost any other for the last five years in a row... and the resulting inflation that came with it. He goes on to say,

"President Néstor Kirchner, eager to pave the way for his wife, Cristina, to succeed him and wary of taking the tough fiscal steps necessary to contain inflation, has taken cues from northern neighbors Venezuela and the United States."

...but he never mentions what cues he is talking about. If anybody can help me understand what he's referring to, please do.

He does, however, point to "price controls on energy" and cites an Economist story from back in June. But the Economist doesn't mention price controls:

"During Argentina's 2001-02 economic crisis, the government forcibly converted all energy tariffs from dollars to pesos, representing a cut of nearly two-thirds in their real value. Since then, only a handful of modest increases have been permitted, resulting in energy prices that are some 40% lower than those in neighbouring countries."

Maybe the Econ is too intelligent to apply the term price controls to the measures taken here during that cataclysmic period. 40% lower energy prices also sounds like something of an achievement to me... how 'bout you? What would the country look like today if you took that 40% away?

But he points to one more price control (before, again closing with the universally-known creativity with inflation figures and the zinger: "now Cristina Kirchner is going to have to clean up her husband's mess." (Forgive my obvious ignorance at thinking that every Argentine president for the past 24 years would love to have had "her husband's mess" to clean up.)

Last year, as the New York Times reported, Kirchner "sought to persuade producers and stores to agree to voluntary freezes on prices of hundreds of products, including sugar, flour, noodles, bread, shampoo and pencils."

He also says that those attempts at voluntary persuasion "didn't work". Come on! Somebody hep me, hep me please! Where's the price controls and why do we deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Russia and China?

Is the article simply a poorly written one or is it pointing to some importance that Daniel Gross can't bring himself to mention?

(full disclosure: The Kirchners have seriously damaged my family's ability to make a living during the past 4 years... I have no personal reason to defend them.)