24 votes

Argentina Freezes Food Prices "To Break Inflation Spiral"

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Argentina announced a two-month price freeze on supermarket products Monday in an effort to break spiraling inflation.

The price freeze applies to every product in all of the nation's largest supermarkets — a group including Walmart, Carrefour, Coto, Jumbo, Disco and other large chains. The companies' trade group, representing 70 percent of the Argentine market, reached the accord with Commerce Secretary Guillermo Moreno, the government's news agency Telam reported.

The commerce ministry wants consumers to keep receipts and complain to a hotline about any price hikes they see before April 1.

Polls show Argentines worry most about inflation, which private economists estimate could reach 30 percent this year. The government says it's trying to hold the next union wage hikes to 20 percent, a figure that suggests how little anyone believes the official index that pegs annual inflation at just 10 percent.

Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20958959/argentina-freezes-pric...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Congress was to never have the authority to emit bills of credit

The goal of eliminating the fed would not give congress the power to print money (aka bills of credit), rather it would only give them power to coin silver and gold and to regulate the value thereof.

The power of money creation would be with people in the marketplace (mining and other transactions) and not with govt. we do not want to trade the fed for a govt ran fed, even though they are basically one machine now. Debt/inflation seems to have no check on what either of them does. The fed wont do what's right and neither will the govt. they are of one mind. Just one comes with debt and inflation and the other comes in the form of pure inflation.

Not entirely correct...

The first correction is eliminating the Fed wouldn't "give them power to coin silver and gold etc."

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress that power. They still have it. They control the Mint; and that's why they can make the popular gold/silver U.S. Eagle coins (which Ron Paul worked to bring back).

Next, it is absolutely the responsibility of Congress to control money. The key thing to remember is that the Constitution says the States can make nothing but gold and silver legal tender.

That means Congress is perfectly capable of making something like the dollars we have now, and back them with gold/silver if desired. The States could then make that legal tender. However, Congress could remove that gold backing too, but the States would no longer make the notes legal tender. Instead the value would only come from whatever the free market gave, which probably wouldn't be much without gold backing.

The reason Congress gave over control to the Fed is so nobody can be accountable. Congress is directly accountable to the people, since we can elect or kick people out of office if we're not happy. But with the Fed messing up the money nobody can do anything because they are an independent body.

That's what I said...

Did you not read it? I said eliminating the Fed would not give congress the power to print money, but only to coin and regulate the value thereof. Of course they still have that power, no one is arguing that here. You said nothing different than I did. That power lies with congress, which is what I said. I was correcting him in saying congress doesn't have the power to print "money." That's all...whether the fed is eliminated or not, they don't have that power, which is his concern.

Your 4th paragraph makes no sense. Congress cannot print money...they can only coin money by taking metals and striking them accordingly. It was never a part of their job to print money of any kind...they are to only coin money with metals currently in existence to prevent a continental type inflation. The articles of confederation allowed congress to print money, but due to the disasterous continental, they took it out of constitution as we know it today.

Banks (emphasis added) previously issued silver certificates in lieu of carrying around gold and silver back in the day. These certificates were not truly money, but represented money and could be redeemed in money (gold & silver). Congress never printed certificates then until they started going crazy and gave the treasury the power to do so, and then the fed, at which point they went crazy along with govt. As proven in history, allowing congress to even print certificates is highly inflationary and will not limit them in any way to over issue certificates so they can have more money than they really do. They do not and did not originally have that power. So up vote my comment again since you downgraded me for being "wrong", even though I said what you said I didn't say, please :)

Yes

I read what you said. I'll quote it exactly:

"The goal of eliminating the fed would not give congress the power to print money (aka bills of credit), rather it would only give them power to coin silver and gold and to regulate the value thereof."

Bold emphasis mine. Read what you wrote. You said essentially the goal of eliminating the Fed wouldn't give congress X power, rather it would give them Y power.

That is not correct. Eliminating the Fed wouldn't give Congress any new power. The only power Congress has comes from the Constitution, and eliminating the Fed doesn't change that. The only thing that can change the Constitution is proper amendment.

So what I tried to point out is Congress already has power to coin money today, even with the Fed in existence, because the Constitution says so.

Next, yes, Congress can "print" money. Read the Constitution word for word. It says Congress has power to coin money. It does not say "by taking metals and striking them accordingly". That's what you say. Congress can coin money and regulate the value thereof. That means they can make a coin with whatever they want in it, whether it's all copper, or all silver, some silver, some gold, or if it's only paper too. The catch comes in Section 10 of that article which says the States can't make anything but gold or silver legal tender. So the requirement of gold or silver applies to the States, not Congress.

It may sound confusing, but what the Founders set up was brilliant. It allows flexibility while still protecting Americans with sound money. Effectively it allows for competing currency. Ideally, what Congress would do is coin money out of gold and silver, exactly like they do now with U.S. Eagle coins. The States could then make those federal Eagle coins legal tender. That would be constitutional, and Americans would happily use them I'm sure. At the same time Congress could coin other types of money, WITHOUT any gold or silver anywhere to be found, for example, like copper pennies. The key is that the States couldn't make those copper pennies legal tender. Americans would be free to use them and assign any value to them desired, but those pennies wouldn't automatically benefit from having value from the court system (for payment of debt). So, in effect, the pennies might be completely worthless, or the free market might give them value because there were a fixed number of them, for example.

Before I'm done...

You're splitting hairs. After this, I'm done defending myself against your strawman arguments. You're like a journalist in mainstream media twisting everything the way you want it to sound. Besides if you want to split hairs, "The States could then make those federal Eagle coins legal tender." THEN MAKE? But the states already have that power! But gold/gold eagle is already legal tender! Stop being ridiculous dude.

Secondly, read up. I'm currently reading an extensive summarization of Pieces of Eight by Dr. Edwin Vieira called "The US Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline" by Michael Rozeff. It's free...check it out. There's a huge difference between coining and printing money. Coining deals with metals. Printing means paper. They are completely different. Congress has one power and not the other.

Oh! Speaking of the Constitution...it says nothing of "printing" as a legal form of money creation. In fact, there was a distinct differentiation between printing (aka emitting bills of credit) and coining, which the constitution prohibited states from doing both and it only gave congress the power to COIN. Not print. There's a big difference. Article 1 Section 8 is a list of specific things congress can do and section 10 is a specific list of what States cant do. Notice, that bills of credit cant be issued by states and also is not listed as a power of congress. You are wrong again.

Ps...a free people can exchange whatever currency they want. The state must accept silver and gold in payments of debt. That's all. And if worse comes to worse, a creditor has to accept gold and silver in payment of debt, unless a contractual arrangement/agreement was made otherwise. This was not regulated.

And shoot...since you're in the business of splitting hairs, you still retain that power yourself! Just like you tried to call me out for not saying "they have always had that power." And just like you failed to say States already can legally accept gold and silver coin. Just like you forgot to say, gold has always been legal tender....you have always had the right to freely exchange what you please as an exhange of goods for goods (gold, salt, a cow for refigerator if you want) or goods for services (gold, silver, or a favorite tool for roof patch up job). You can choose your own medium of exchange as long as the other person will take it.

So are you done splitting hairs? Knowing you so far, I doubt it.

OK

First of all calm down. Don't take things so personally. This is simply an exchange about information, what is correct and what isn't. If there is something I'm wrong on I'll gladly admit it. You should feel the same. In fact there is one correction of my words I'll make below, but first to your points...

As for splitting hairs, no I wouldn't call it that. My goal is to be accurate. I'm not trying to twist anything, which is why I quoted exactly what you said.

So you're response is to try and apply the same to me. I'm all for it. Let's see your charge. You say "then make" referring to States making gold/silver eagles legal tender. Yes, what I said is correct. Gold and silver eagle coins are NOT currently legal tender. If you think they are try to start paying for your groceries using them, or start a business for products accepting them. You will be liable for capital gains taxes. Ron Paul mentions this once when he grills Bernanke (I'll find the clip if you like). If gold/silver eagle coins are legal tender you wouldn't be liable for capital gains taxes. So, yes, I did mean to say States could "make" them legal tender. I'm not being "ridiculous".

Second point, regarding your comments on printing and coining. Good job! Here I agree with you, and this pertains to the correction I need to make. Yes, you are correct, coining by definition deals with metals. So, Congress can coin metals. I agree Congress can't "print" notes or issue bills of credit. So you are right there. However, notice that the type of metal used is not specified. That means Congress could coin any type metal, not be limited to gold and silver. For example, they could coin copper pennies, or zinc pennies. As I said they could coin as many of these (I referred to it as "printing") as they wanted, and also "regulate the value thereof" meaning call them pennies, dollars, whatever. Again, the catch is that while Congress could make as much Federal "money" as they wished, the States could only make gold and silver coins legal tender. That limits the people to sound money in legal payment of debt as ruled by courts. If people also wanted to use the copper/zinc pennies in the marketplace they are free to do that.

Lastly, I need to correct what I said about gold backing of paper notes. Upon reflection I don't believe States can make a gold certificate legal tender. The reason is because that's the slippery slope of how we got into our current mess. Dollars once had gold/silver backing, but that got gradually reduced until there was no backing at all, yet the notes still carry the stamp "legal tender". The exact wording of the Constitution says the States are not to make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of debts. That means a paper note representing gold or silver is not sufficient. It must be an actual gold or silver coin.

Dude...you come across real arrogant

The whole start of this is was made for nothing and addressing something that wasnt even part of the conversation. No one cares...I sure don't anymore. Try fixing the way you address people. Your "accuracy" is for naught and was made to only make you sound "smart". It had no place otherwise. Hence, why you have negative feedback and myself, positive. I was going to rebut everything you just said, because you are more or less wrong and are just pontificating, theorizing, and putting forth strawman arguments, but you're decidedly not worth my time, because you will always be "right".

Read that book I mentioned and you'll see why.

As for

arrogance, maybe ;)

I suppose I could be called worse. As for "no one cares" that may or may not be the case too, but it's in case anyone does that is the reason I strive for accuracy. Again, as I said, if I'm wrong on something I'll gladly admit it. This site has a lot of influence. People read it and form opinions, weighing them against other information they have. That's why I believe it's important to strive for accuracy, and why I have no problem admitting when I think I'm wrong.

On the other hand you seem to think this is more about who is right or wrong. That seems to be the difference between us. I'm after facts regardless where they come from. Lastly, I wouldn't set too much store by up or down votes. They come from people who think a certain way at a certain time. To think that is always going to reflect what is right is naive. If you have counter arguments I suggest making them rather than excuses. Of course, that's up to you.

As I see it... You write well.

Adhered mostly to facts. Did not stop to badger. Just did it in stride... so it would seem to an innocent.

Those poor souls that allowed money printing may be grateful they were not bitten by a real angry badger. Shucks. You ain't even drawing blood.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Ron Paul states clearly, "End the Fed."

One man said it. Wrote. Published it. Campaigned for the highest office in the United States of American on it.

The reason the Fed was created was self interest. The American Bankers Association created it. They benefit from it.

Congress capitulated. Many a sordid tale. Please learn what happened the eve before Christmas eve... late at night, December 23, 1913. Was Congress on Christmas recess? Who was inside the Capitol that night? Anyone sign the register? Anyone take roll? Anyone count votes? Anyone sign anything?

"Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse?"

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Oh

believe me, nobody is more for ending the Fed than I am (they may want to end it as much, but not more).

I didn't say not to end the Fed. I was merely pointing out that nobody needs to end the Fed for Congress to have power to coin money. Congress already has that power as given by the Constitution, whether the Fed exists or not.

The problem is nobody is holding their feet to the fire to control our nation's money. Of course, nobody is holding their feet to the fire to control our nation's debt either.

Rhetorical: Hold feet to fire, result is toasted feet.

1792. Shock of shocks! Anyone off the street may mint US coin. Submitted by Mark Twain. 08/15/2012

If a gold or silver smith holds a fool's feet to fire, the result is toasted feet. No measurement value. No mint value. Pleased to hear facts surrounding the matters of which I write. Did you know:

  • The US Mint opened w/ near zero precious metal to coin?
  • The US Mint started minting coins out of gold & silver metal brought to them by folks wishing to turn their metal dust into coin?
  • The first coins minted by the US Mint were made of gold & silver brought by Americans off the street.
  • The US Mint minted as a service for no charge. This was the way the US Minted opened for service.

Gold miner minting gold & silver coins - to pay dividends in kind! Submitted by Mark Twain 08/18/2011 Anyone can mint coin.

Denominating in Dollars is restricted. "Legal Tender" privilege Turf. The Fed protects its monopoly over Federal Reserve Notes. Frowns on competition.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Cyril's picture

Thank you for the relevant feedback.

Thank you for the relevant feedback.

Some complement in turn:

The Central Bank in France is also controlled by the government... or rather, the government plus the bunch of E.U. bureaucrats who work with them.

The Federal Reserve in the U.S. is a private club who only happens to have the hobby of experimenting "live" with an entire country and people's economy (and others, who accept their fake money).

They are arrogant mad pseudo-scientists mixed with DOWNRIGHT THIEVES AND LEECHES who call themselves "economists".

Fact is, they only "work" for themselves by planning years ahead how the sweat and blood of millions of people is going to be translated into near zero interest rates magic formulas, in the spreadsheets they masturbate themselves with.

Never mind the pain, misery, distress, and horrors they create and enjoy watching on their buddies' "news". They can still stack on their gold any time they see fit, anyway.

A U.S. president, conveniently A FRAUD himself, is only a pawn for them. But the pawn also has the guns big enough to protect their miserable souls, granted.

They need to stop and repent.

"Bear."

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Thank you for sharing this emalvini.

Thank you for sharing this emalvini.

(side note: lol. with fonzdrew and others looks like we're pretty busy doing homework, currently, in the golden state ;)

More seriously:

I believe it's very important to alert ourselves and fellow Americans on this. Yes, we all ought to WATCH OUT when inflation hits food harder and harder, in an accelerated fashion. That's the sign of things only starting to go "really south", economically speaking...

I had shared another not-so-old video a while ago on the same topics:

http://www.dailypaul.com/264085/how-and-why-exactly-american...

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

price controls lead to

price controls lead to shortage. basic law of real economics

lawrence

Freezing prices of goods is

Freezing prices of goods is going to make more super markets go out of business because they can't keep up with competition ... delivering less supply to consumers because businesses won't be able to stay above water.

A cap on revenues will surely close a lot of businesses ... as supermarkets don't make a huge profit margin.

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

grocery prices U.S. vs. Argentina

We have dairy price support in the US, which I do not understand, and I'm sure all of the people on WIC and food stamps does something to mess with the free market price of food here in the U.S., definitely the federal gov't intervenes a lot in our food prices (aside from inflation)

Food prices increasing does

Food prices increasing does not cause inflation but is rather the result of inflation. Freezing prices will not help inflation.

Instead of "breaking the inflation" this will result in shortages.

...

Argentina is being isolated and punished

For re-igniting the debate on the Falkland islands.

It has nothing to do with anything else.

Seriously?

Do you think this idiot is qualified to run a country by dictate? She's Obama with 40 fewer IQ points.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilan...

She, like Obama, are evidence of how stupid the masses are. There is no political solution because morons will always vote for the cult of personality. The only recourse is agorism.

Watch Argentina closely. They are our future.

Telegraph, great paper, solid story

And I quote "But as a new trade war appears to be on the horizon, is Kirchner attempting to muddy international relations simply to cover up problems closer to home, and what does it mean for the 120 UK companies which have operations in the increasingly isolated Latin American country?"

It's an economic war. England holds more brute force equity and global trade ties, but Argentina holds the raw resources and the English companies are at her mercy.

Your linked article only solidifies my hypothesis.

Another very telling quote in your article:
But amid guidance from the Foreign Office that the “British Government has no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and surrounding maritime areas,” the mood among investors continues to strengthen.

In the week following the disclosure of the letter from the Argentine government to various UK and global banks involved in the industry,

the chairman of one of Falkland Oil and Gas’s biggest shareholders dismissed the legal threats as “bizarre and ridiculous”.

David Hudd, chairman of Falkland Island Holdings, which owns a range of businesses on the islands and has a 4.4pc stake in Falkland Oil and Gas, said: “Argentina has never relinquished its claim over the Falkland Islands, they are just making more noise about it now.”

Can you see my point now?

I believe your logic is inductive

You are starting with a hypothesis that the "NWO", or some such, is painting Kirchner as a marxist crackpot as cover for their imperial conspiracy to wreck their economy.

I'm not buying it. Not after the pension confiscations, the price controls, the money printing, the nationalizations, the censorships, the statistical lying, etc. All those things are self-inflicted by their crackpot leadership.

NWO? Why are you spouting some crackpot theory now?

I said "trade war" quite clearly. I also said "England has more allies and equity". You are bringing up the NWO, not I.

The EU will undoubtedly back the Brits against Argentina regarding the Falkland Islands, just as it happened back in the 80s.

Why reach for some inane conspiracy theory when you can just open a history book?

Argentina's leaders will be painted poorly by the Brits of course, since most national newspapers of pretty much any country are by their very nature nationalistic and patriotic.

Also just as it was in the 80s.

Only thing different is that in the 80s it was conservative crackpots, this time it is liberal crackpots running Argentina.

Okay then

Then replace "NWO" with "EU" or some other acronym. Does the EU have a stake? Sure? can they hurt Argentina? Sure. But Argentina's disaster is largely self-inflicted.

Self inflicted only because they re-opened the Falklands debate

CIA stats on Argentinian GDP growth:

http://www.indexmundi.com/argentina/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

The US would kill to have that kind of growth rate. The shit hit the fan only this past year when Argentina decided to challenge the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

Prior to that Argentina's economic growth has been quite robust since 2002.

Numbers don't lie.

Now just don't go conspiracy theory on me and claim most mainstream economists are wrong and that GDP growth isn't a heavy indicator of a healthy economy.

Nice debating with you btw, so hard to find good debate what with the interweb being so trollish.

20% inflation

Hard to get a grip on real GDP with 20% inflation. But if it's any consolation, I would root for Argentina in a Falklands War II.

B.S.

Argentina is a progressive's wet dream gone wild. The government went off the hook with socialism. They confiscated private wealth, pensions, enacted price controls, nationalized private businesses.. And now people (usually recovering progressives) are surprised that their currency is destroyed and they live in a police state. Get real.

Sorry. Can't blame the evil empire for this one. Blames resides squarely on the Kirchner leftists.

Some countries which have done as you described

Have very good economies. Don't get sucked in to the false left/right paradigm.

The Nazis did much the same thing in Germany (I'll avoid the moral implications since it is not pertinent to the case at hand), and the economy was literally on fire.

Bolivia and Venezuela did much the same thing to a lesser extent and certainly they have much stronger economies than Argentina, despite foreign machinations.

the Paradigm

You're correct, the "Paradigm" is not "left v right". But it certainly is "statism v liberty"

Bolivia and Venezuela are statist basket cases with rampant inflation and expanding government oppression. Hitler took power at Germany's economic nadir. There were massive idle resources and labor there. There was no place for Germany to go but up.

Argentina is "statism" run totally amuck. As the economy collapses, the state desperately presses harder and harder with confiscations, crackdowns, controls, and redistributions thus accelerating the collapse.

Argentina is America's future regardless of the democrat or republican statists in charge.