[petewarden]

What surprised me about the article was that I didn't see much 'capitalist drum-beating'. His argument is that the performance of Argentina versus the US can be entirely explained by education levels. Schools are typically provided by the government, and the idea of universal education was initially regarded as a radical one, often associated with early socialists.

I'm not sure if I agree with the hypothesis, but I'd rather hear a specific counter-argument. Your condemnation seems more suited to a rebuttal of the typical 'Argentina is poor because it's socialist' idea.

[diego]

The problem with the argument is that it doesn't explain Argentina's performance when compared to all the countries with worse education levels (which are the majority).

[confusedcitizen]

In fact, he does mention Peron's protectionism being a root cause (along with depression and wars) for Argentina's financial woes today. He states that protectionism, regulation, large state enterprises (which are anti-capitalistic themes) have never been 'particularly good for growth'.

I feel he does start of with the capitalistic premise. Only later is education hypothesized as a major culprit.

[petewarden]

The key phrase is 'But why was Argentina's public sector so problematic?'. Other countries have thrived despite similar policies, what he argues is that lack of education led to poor implementations of them in Argentina.

I wouldn't disagree that he's starting from a standard narrative, but his argument doesn't require those causes as premises to explain Argentina's lack of growth.

[sethg]

Perhaps education makes the difference because a literate population can more effectively hold its government to account. Consider the proliferation of rabble-rousing newspapers, associated with every political stripe, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centures in the US.