Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Economy of Argentina

Official stats

You can't seriously display official statistical data from the INDEC on this page. At least show a range that spans between the official figures and the ones produced by independent research. Also, if the intention is to stick to official data, unemployement should be updated to just 6,78%... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.165.182 (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty %

Poverty % needs to be revised, or at least there should be a statement pointing out that that number is based in official estimations, which are not real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.52.44 (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article format

Wouldn't it be better to change the intro to match the other articles in Wikipedia? Most have their rank of GPD nominal followed by PPP. This one starts by stating as the third largest in Latin America. Also it says it has a relatively high quality of life and GDP per capita. The source link shows Argentina as 46th in HDI. There is no rank of GDP per capita on that source. The link to the GDP per capita shows Argentina at best, ranking 50. So, it seems misleading to use the term "high". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.161.146 (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gini coefficient

I've adjusted the Gini coefficient figures to (consistent) data from reliable secondary sources, albeit less “optimistic” than the tertiary source quoted before the amendment. Such sources are the World Bank and INDEC. The below-0.4 figure previouly cited probably comes from using a different calculation methodology, based on per-capita income adding households, instead of adding population. Since poor households tend to have more members than richer ones, that figure is somewhat misleading. Before changing it again, please discuss it here. Thanks! Cinabrium (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you acknowledge that Argentina’s income equality is second only to Canada in the American continent, according to the Gini coefficient. Are you afraid to recognize that there is more income inequality in the USA than in Argentina?--Rivet138 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be helpful to argue the finer points of economic statistics with somebody who posted here two years ago. The figures will have changed since then.
Have you got a reliable source? (IE. not INDEC). bobrayner (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least that’s what this Wikipedia table states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality --Rivet138 (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should use data from the World Bank. The gini index of 43.6 in 2011 seems more reliable than the dubious values from INDEC since they only include urban areas in that report. I changed it to use gini coefficient data from the World Bank Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Puerto Madero is mostly a residential area and those buildings of the previous image were actually residential buildings, so the pic wasn't suitable, unlike the picture of the Central Bank. Anyway, a pic of the Retiro neighborhood (where's located the financial center) would be more advisable.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.216.6.110 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC032%7cArgentina&source=1%7CITC Market Access Map) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Argentina. Visitors can easily look up market access information for Argentina by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Independent sources would be very welcome. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More neutrality problems

Sherlock4000, please stop the whitewashing, lying about sources, and personal attacks. Eventually, articles on Argentina will reflect what reliable sources say; the sooner you stop reverting, the sooner that day will come. bobrayner (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still at it after 3 years? Those are op eds full of highly debatable opinions that you are pushing as fact. The previous paragraph, as you know full well, already covers the legal dispute - which, besides, has become irrelevant by now for Singer's purposes of collecting his 1600% payout (a market value offer still stands, of course, which would mean a handsome 300% payout). In any case, those op eds add nothing to the section but your personal opinion and malicious tone. Nothing even worth discussing - least of all after 3 years of putting up with your editorializing. Good chatting again. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have created something with a bit more balance. And no, two papers who repeatedly publish attack pieces about any country that goes even slightly against their worldview aren't WP:V. Citing a couple of opinion pieces from sources who already have a very marked political stance and passing them off as fact isn't referencing; it's a mocking people's intelligence out of shear desperation to maintain one's own ideological veil in tact. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bobrayner, if you're going to remove referenced material and undo any attempt at neutrality by re-inserting unreferenced material and POV claims like "Argentina refuses to pay its debts" (as well as re-adding an expired vandalism tag) then I suggest we get a third party to resolve this dispute. I have in good faith tried to keep the main points of the POV you are trying to push whilst balancing the opinions with those of the Argentine state and vast majority of the mainstream (non-loony City of London) press. As I'm not familiar with the process, it might take a while but I will seek someone to resolve this dispute. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on neutrality

I want to draw the attention of active editors towards the edits of a few particular users pushing a very right-wing POV in articles related to the Argentine economy such as this one, or ones to do with YPF and Vulture funds, etc. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I would welcome the involvement of other editors, who could perhaps explain to SegataSanshiro1 that it's OK to cite reliable sources such as the economist and FT; that when multiple reliable sources contradict what the Argentine government says, we don't have to repeat the Argentine government's line in wikipedia's voice and remove any dissent; and that it's not racist to try mitigating the problem of nationalist POV-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard found that we should cover what other sources say, rather than just what Argentina's government says, when the two diverge. Sherlock4000 and socks repeatedly reverted such attempts, but that editor is now blocked. SegataSanshiro1, if I tried to update the article to reflect what reliable sources say, in line with the consensus on WP:RSN, would you revert on Sherlock4000's behalf, or would you permit those improvements? bobrayner (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems that Bobrayner's clearly defined ideology also affects his memory and interpretation skills since what he has said directly contradicts the edit history which is open for all to see. Since every point I have made to this editor has failed to get through the thick layer of free market fundamentalism that clouds his reason and finds its way on almost every edit he makes to this encyclopedia, lets take it point by point so it's easier for him to digest:
  • Contrary to what these publications like to claim, not every Argentine has a mural of President Kirchner on their wall. The chances are that, in our private lives, many (if not most) of the editors oppose the current government (myself included). Contrary to Bobrayner's beliefs, we are not all some militant guerrilla pygmies attempting to carry out the will of the Dear Leader. Even the most anti-government newspapers such as La Nacion and Clarin take a stance which completely contradicts that of Bobrayner, or are they also agents of Kirchner in this editor's paranoid conspiracy theory-ridden delusions?
  • Just one look at the edit history shows that this editor is clearly the one attempting to push POV by recycling the unreferenced and very loaded rhetoric of an unregistered IP user. Then, when prompted by myself to attempt to find a reference, simply re-added the same material but with some more loaded rhetoric in the form of highly dubious opinion pieces attached.
  • I then amended this material, leaving the "dissent" in place, but adding a slew of other references which directly contradict the op-ed smear pieces. This edit ensured that criticism of the government remained in place (along with Bobrayner's opinion pieces) whilst putting across the mainstream view on the topic (which is not the same as in these two sources; sources which appear to be the only reading Bobrayner is capable of doing).
  • This edit was yet again reverted, the other sources removed and put back to the original IP editor's opinion, supported only by the opinion of a couple of opinion writers in the City of London.
  • Aside from the clear POV shown by this editor (in this article and many, many, many others), the complete lack of acknowledgement of the multiple sources cited which contradict this POV in this case are a clear demonstration as to who is pushing POV and who is simply ensuring that sections of this article (and other Argentina-related articles exposed to Bobrayner) no longer reads like the collaborative work of Milton Friedman and Katie Hopkins.
This is a gross misuse of sources by this editor, attempting to include only a tiny fraction of sources from one side of the political spectrum whilst ignoring all others, even those fiercely opposed to the POV he claims I am trying to push. Using Bobrayner's criteria for sources (just citing The Economist and FT over and over) as a standard for Wikipedia, I shudder to think what every article related to countries which aren't Western Liberal Democracies would look like since The Economist repeatedly smears any country which opposes its view of the world as it has done many times in the past (Russia, Venezuela, Argentina, Greece). SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I attempted to do and what you subsequently reverted. Apparently only those two sources are reliable in your eyes. The academic literature, other newspapers, TNO and NGO sources you removed were clearly garbage since they didn't agree with your POV. The question should be will you allow anything that isn't The Economist, FT or Bobrayner? And please don't include me in a dispute you are having with another editor, I'm not interested in your Freudian inferiority issues. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll overlook the strawmen for now. Let's focus on content: SegataSanshiro1, if I tried to update the article to reflect what reliable sources say, in line with the consensus on WP:RSN, would you revert on Sherlock4000's behalf, or would you permit those improvements? bobrayner (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already improved the article using reliable sources, which you are AGAIN failing to acknowledge. The question should be if you were to "improve" the article, would this mean again removing all sources which aren't The Economist or FT? And why are you now accusing me of putting across informal fallacies when this has been your pattern of behavior from the moment you touched this article?

I see issues in both your edits and Shirlock4000's edits, which is why I attempted to find a neutral position. Unfortunately, re-reading that section of the article it appears that much of this seems to have been lost in the pointless edit warring between the two of you. If the article could be reverted to this version by a user with rollback rights and you stopped attempting to push your POV then we would have nothing further to discuss. Similarly, I would like to see this article improved, but by members of Wikiproject Argentina or people with an academic background in the Politics, History and Economics of Argentina, not yourself. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobrayner's edit starts saying that "The Argentine government refuses to pay it's own debts". That's a bit misleading. It refuses to pay some debts, but still pays others. It may be better to clarify that it did not pay to a group of holdouts, which led to a selective default. Besides, "own debts" is a redundant remark, the external debt is always the country's own debt, it can hardly be a country paying (or refusing to pay) the debt of some other country. Cambalachero (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as government statements shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice, neither should the simplistic summaries of Global North newspapers/magazines. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the proposed edit says that the current controls on the operations with foreign currency are caused by the 2014 default. That is not correct, as those controls were first established in 2011. And "its own citizens" is also a redundant remark. However, the article should say something about those controls anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of errors are present throughout the article, mostly due to the "the simplistic summaries of Global North newspapers/magazines" as Hroðulf says. Ideally, there should be a large re-write of the article using predominantly academic journals and books (paying special attention to the ideological leanings of the author), rather than newspapers and magazines, considering the Argentine economy is such a highly politicised issue and almost every publication out there either has vested interests in presenting the information in a certain way or simply does so for systemic reasons. I am happy to collaborate with other editors in doing this so long as any facts which contradict the "facts" published in the City of London press aren't reverted as being "government propaganda". SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite proposals may help, but I imagine most editors will be happy simply if phrases like "Argentina refuses to pay its own debts" are avoided, and instead specific noteworthy dissent is listed.
Academic papers may help (though as SS1 says they have their own leanings), but views from major creditors, industry commentators, central banks and think tanks may help too. In my opinion, secondary sources (such as review articles) usually help cut through editor disputes.
What is the specific dissent with how the government describes its funding? Is it about the description of bonds issued before 2001 ('odious', 'unconstitutional' or 'illegitimate'), the proposed description of currency controls ('strict' is a bit vague) or is there dissent about the actual amount of debt that has been unilaterally rescheduled, or about the magnitude of 'successful' debt rollover ?
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This FT article is paywalled (argentine bond rally anticipates cristina's departure): please post relevant brief quotations --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the recent edit war removed a couple of citations so I'll move them here instead. One from a left-wing magazine, and one from Wall Street.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more that using credible peer-reviewed academic journals which specifically focus on Latin America (such as Journal of Latin American Studies) would help cut through the systemic bias and highly polarised nature of not just this article, but also the vast majority of these articles on Latin America (which currently look like they are half-written by Goldman Sachs interns typing sentences in between taking lines of cocaine). These types of publications (along with books by respected authors in the field) should be used as a basis, while then dissenting views and those of the government can be added to show opposing views that go against the mainstream.

All the questions you have just raised are essentially the main issues which need better clarification and context in the article. For example, the nature of "odious" debt and why in certain newly democratised South American countries the debt was de-legitimised, while in Argentina it was legitimised following the collapse of the National Reorganisation Process (hence causing part of the dispute between the two parties). Likewise, the currency controls lack context and in an Economic article should be framed within the context of Import substitution industrialization and the inflationary tenancies of Keynesianism vs the instability of Neoliberalism (Colin Crouch would be a good source here) which have both defined the Economy of Argentina since 1983, otherwise these simplistic statements from both the government and free-market interests have no real meaning (which further demonstrates the need for academic sources).

I think the ideal situation here would be for a few editors to collaborate from the appropriate wikiprojects on improving this article (I would happily do this), and discuss specifically what needs to be improved in terms of information and countering systemic bias. Perhaps if such a collaboration is successful then it can be replicated in other relevant articles which are currently plagued by edit wars between free market fundamentalists like bobrayner and "nationalists" on the other side. That said, a clear distinction between trying to add a nationalist POV and simply attempting to makes articles less Eurocentric (while adding a Latin American perspective) should be made - I think this has been Bobrayner's main problem and has just made editing extremely partisan, causing otherwise good editors which could contribute in such a way to "lose it" as a result of his antagonism. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe those are the sources which I added and the editor in question removed. This is why I was asking for a user with rollback rights to revert to that edit (which also removed the "Argentina refuses to pay its debts" sentence). I think that version of the page would serve as a better basis to work on and improve. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand rollback. I am a rollbacker, but I can't help: the tool is not for content disputes, and it can only revert one user's edits.
Actually any editor can go back: simply click 'Edit source' or 'Edit' while viewing the old revision.[1] You should make sure you have an edit summary.
These are the changes you would reverse [2]. I wouldn't recommend it unless you also fix the vague/NPOV phrase "economy to crumble slowly". Perhaps also restore the quantification of the profit Singer has in mind.
If there is consensus to take that path, then perhaps the most important benefit would be to restore this explanation, which I think otherwise is not discussed "court orders have prevented the state from making payments to the vast majority of creditors it considers legitimate, causing a technical default and effectively locking the country out of the international credit markets."
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still fairly new with Wikipedia. I was under the impression that it simply reverted back to older versions. In that case, I support that with those additional two clarifications you have pointed out (which I also consider important). One thing which I have noticed now is that the inflation figures got updated somewhere in all the mess, so would make sense to keep those.
On a more minor note, somewhere in there for some reason the currency units were all changed from "US$" to simply "$" - though in most cases I assume Wikipedia uses the simple $ sign, in this case it does actually make sense to use "US$" since the symbol is the same as the Argentine Peso. However, I am sure other editors will know what is more appropriate in this instance.
Your suggestions have my support, and if there is consensus, then I volunteer to go ahead and make those changes. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was invited here randomly by a bot. This is not a well-formed RFC and has little chance of bringing about consensus. I recommend interested parties read the policy on RFC's and restart, with special attention on formulating a neutral request statement. I also suggest you create a separate Discussion subsection so the main "comment" section is just statements by participants without dialog. Jojalozzo (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was also invited by a bot and would also like a list of the major points of dispute clearly indicated, please. EllenCT (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was invited by a bot too and I strongly agree with Jojalozzo and EllenCT. --Fox1942 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, SegataSanshiro1 removed independent economic estimates, saying they were unsourced. So, I added a bit of content and some independent sources on Argentina's problems with economic estimates. I hope that helps. However, there are still some other areas where our article toes the current government's line rather than reflecting what reliable, independent sources say. bobrayner (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

peso pegged to the dollar

It's my understanding (see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/opinion/paul-krugman-ending-greeces-bleeding.html?_r=0) that the peso is no longer pegged to the dollar. How-ever, I couldn't find any mention of the switch that apparently took place over a decade ago. Kdammers (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The next paragraph to the part that mentions that says that the Peso was devaluated and floated. That means that the fixed exchange system used up to that moment was abandoned. Cambalachero (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"However, economic statistics are subject to manipulation by the government."

It doesn't make much sense in that introductory context.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.115.69 (talk) )

Of course it doesn't, but the UK is rampant with highly ignorant, illiterate, xenophobic trolls who use Wikipedia as a platform to mask their inferiority complexes and impose their warped ideology upon the world as they have for centuries now. There's no use in trying to instil any common sense here, just let the right-wing loonies take over knowledge with their deluded fantasies as much as they have public life, culture and the human psyche. No point in fighting it, we're all clearly doomed as a species anyway. I suggest that people wanting to read serious information on this topic and others (rather than redacted pages from The Economist) seek academic resources, journal articles, books, etc. The slimy tentacles of the free market should still have a fairly loose grip on academia for at least a couple more years. Maybe people could even memorise books for when society is ready to rediscover them. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Economy of Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Economy of Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Largest sector

At least on first reading, the text seems to be self-contradictory: Is manufacturing or agriculture the largest single contributor to the GDP? 87.247.51.13 (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory text is political and faulty.

It seems to me that the description of Argentina as one of the most closed economies in the world and also as "an" developing country might come from an angered supporter of the government being in power before the current one. I'm asking for a revision of this article. Kim Goddard Jr (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Developing" country?

Is it correct to describe a country as developing when it yo-yos in wealth and has been on a path of relative decline for a century? I just looked up the definition of "developing country" on Wikipedia and Argentina does not meet them on many criteria. Nor does Russia, also classed as "developing". I would define both countries as developed, but middle-income. I note that the main text for Russia never uses the term developing.

It these a different term we could use?

Marchino61 (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BestofLAandBay (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jumanaabdelgadir, Forcedtoeditforclass.

— Assignment last updated by Forcedtoeditforclass (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communist bias

What is this? Who wrote this?

"However, the economy declined during the military dictatorship from 1976 to 1983 and for some time afterward. The dictatorship's chief economist, José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz, advanced a corrupt, anti-labor policy of financial liberalization that increased the debt burden and interrupted industrial development and upward social mobility. Over 400,000 companies of all sizes went bankrupt by 1982, and neoliberal economic policies prevailing from 1983 through 2001 failed to reverse the situation.

Record foreign debt interest payments, tax evasion, and capital flight resulted in a balance of payments crisis that plagued Argentina with severe stagflation from 1975 to 1990, including a bout of hyperinflation in 1989 and 1990." --95.24.60.75 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this link was deemed as unnaceptable: https://www.goo. gle.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/CR/2024/English/1ARGEA2024002.ashx&ved=2ahUKEwinu92d98WKAxU29bsIHQ_GFCQQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1gj_tTydnlFSSJhVCx9x9Z

[remove the spacing] It leads towards a paper from the IMF detailing their data on argentina. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Economy_of_Argentina