They've been in full-tilt Peronist/Populist mode for a while now, sadly. It can also be viewed in their interesting policies with the Falklands (in which they've been winning the diplomatic fight. The only country that offers flights to Stanley in all of South America is Chile, now, effectively ending short or even medium-range flights to the islands).

Of course the Wall Street Journal won't like Cristina Kirchner, they are one of the most pro-corporate journals out there. Argentina had to default on her debts during the last crisis despite being the poster child economy of the IMF and have since moved away from being corporate friendly (i.e by kicking US debt creditors into touch) something the WSJ would of course take issue with even though Argentina has largely recovered from the mess the IMF helped put it in. This has put it at odds with the US and hence she get's demonised.

And Kaz your understanding of classical Keynesian is one sided. Yes it caused stagflation but it also caused massive economic growth, one of the largest egalitarian growth the world has ever witnessed. The current financial crisis was caused by the Milton Friedman neo liberal economic school of thought (of which the WSJ was a proponent) and is way worse than the stagflation that occurred under the Keynesian model.

And Government intervention has always existed. Even over the last 30 years under the neo-liberal finance based making money out of money economic model. Governments always pay for the risk by investing in the hi-tech sector by funding programs whether it be at MIT or Lockheed Martin. Once the risk is mitigated then eventually the profits can be privatised by various competing companies and sold to the public as 'choice'. But the initial risk is always paid for by the State (i.e taxpayers).

Why any country would want to side with countries like Venezuela whilst antagonising the USA and especially the UK is honestly beyond me. How was Argentina doing before Kirchner came along?

Like Badassbab said, not well. They had to default in, i think, 1997, from which they've never properly recovered due in part to predatory IMF practices. It's understandable that they'd lean this way, but they are taking it a good bit too far.

Nah, the current financial crisis wasn't caused by monteism, it was caused by government incompetence in both policy and regulatory fields.

They pushed a housing bubble with their policies while employing regulators who didn't want to do their jobs.

Which is why there have been zero prosecutions for the GFC compaired to the Savings and Loan Scandels.

Also... Keynsian economics didn't cause that growth... that much should be obvious by paying attention to what caused the growth.

Keynsianism just kinda happened to be around at the time.  The US had a HUGE trade advantage when Keynsianism became popular, which was essentially WW2 GREATLY expanded free trade among nations... and the US happened to be the one major western nation that wasn't the victim of prolonged bombings campaigns on production facilities.

It's how you handle crisis where they differ.

Classic Keynsians thought stagflation was impossible because the increased government spending that would fight off unemployment.

As for the WSJ... I wouldn't call them pro monetarists, so much as, full of people who do buisness stuff for a living.  Though, you can find that information basically anywhere.

Argentina is in some serious trouble.  I mean... people have resorted to buy the US Dollar.... illegallly... for stability.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-argentina-economy-idUSBRE87912G20120810

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/16/2851968/argentinas-economic-fiesta-is.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hRzFlkm6XCM9Mp6DPCWdJ0QI5Dog?docId=CNG.2cdeadde2fa665c108b13bb0cc6f1283.431

wow all this economic stuff is complicated and confusing, how does anyone understand it?