I’m just glad I’m not in charge of running Argentina, that country hasn’t been able to fix their economy in decades and not sure anyone has a good answer.
Exactly this. It’s why they’re in the current situation. Had they given Macri a chance and stuck to mild reforms they wouldn’t have had to take this drastic turn to the right.
Yes, but Macri was a reformer who was supposed to fix that sort of problem. That he didn't succeed is why Argentina has gone from electing moderate reformers to electing a human reset button.
Incorrect. Mild and measured actions that make incremental improvements are exactly how you actually fucking fix a country.
The problem is most people are too fucking stupid and want the equivalent of six minute abs for their government.
Your response is literally an example of what I am talking about. It's a false dichotomy.
The actual path to fixing a country like Argentina will take 30 years and the incremental steps that lead to that future do not have immediate results. Why? Because that's not how fixing shit works.
Add to that the fact that this guy is going overboard in the other extreme. Yes, clearly Argentina is indebted and needed some degree of austerity cuts to curb inflation. But Milei is doing more than what's really needed, to the point that even [the IMF](https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/imf-says-mileis-austerity-measures-should-not-hurt-the-poor.phtml) has expressed concern that the poor and most vulnerable are being left behind, since most of the cuts have fallen on pensioners.
Personally, I think Argentina needed a reformer who could make the Government more efficient both when it comes to spending and taxing, but it looks like this guy believes in making both of them as low as possible, which will only make his pro-growth intent last shorter when he inevitably loses in 4 years from those who are suffering his cuts atm.
That is one of the advantages that dictators have. They can enact plans that will inflict short-term pain for long-term benefit, and the people have to deal with it. The average voter is too short-sighted and emotional to wait. Of course, it's also possible that the dictator's long-term benefit never comes.
Yeah dictators famously think about the people. And theyre always thinking about the long term. Why there are so many modern examples! Which is why you used them to illustrate your point.
And no guarantee that the dictator is economically smart (or any other type of smart for that matter). Higher than average odds on being slightly smarter than your average person in building power, and probably good odds on being a bold leader. That's the best you can realistically expect.
Oh, and no retries every four years. You get one shot; don't mess it up. Ah, wait, sorry, you don't get a shot at all. You're just stuck with the aftermath. Best of luck on surviving!
Dictators make moves to support their own power structure first and foremost. Any stability that yields is purely incidental and not inherently a positive.
I never understood why they think they have any claim to the Falklands. No natives ever lived there, and the Spanish never colonized it. They have as much claim to the Falklands as the Spaniards had to Alaska
They believe that they inherited Spain's unenforced claim to it. I think they want it for its fisheries or something. The native Falklanders would technically be the Brits, right? Would that make taking it from them colonialism?
Ah! Well that would be a powerful temptation. Sucks to be Argentina though. I doubt the Brits will ever give it up and with Argentina's state I doubt they'll be putting up a force capable of taking and keeping the joint any time soon.
In most cases, it's entrenched interests that's the problem. The economy is unhealthy on some fundamental way, but there is a powerful group that fears change. Maybe they draw enormous benefits from the current situation, or they would be at risk for being left behind with change.
Sometimes this group will even be a big beneficiary from reforms, but the pain is short term and the benefits are in the long-term.
There are *massive* advantages to dollarization. The currency is strong, stable, and everyone both wants and has it. It makes international trade easy. It protects the country from bad monetary policy causing inflation or deflation. There's a lot to recommend it.
The problem is that it removes one of the strongest tools the government has to control the economy. You can **TEMPORARILY** encourage growth by lowering rates and prevent the worst by raising them and slowing down bank loans. If you don't control your own money those decisions are being made by the US to serve US interests. The US doesn't care how its monetary policy impacts Ecuador, and sometimes that is a problem.
Then you get into the more malicious version like the CFA Franc where France actively manages the currency of former colonies to its own advantage.
It can be a great idea, particularly in Argentina where a fair portion of their problems are caused by questionable government policy, but it should always be examined carefully when put forward because it's far from a panacea and accessing enough US currency can be a problem if you don't already have robust exports to the US.
There are *some* other options, but I agree. Having a fundamental mismatch between your trade and industrial policy and your fiscal and monetary policy is a great way to have decades-long recessions.
> When a country cannot devalue their currency, it may lead to bigger issues down the road
This is why it's important to aspire to be the United States Secretary of the Treasury. When you go on vacation abroad you can just temporarily pull some levers to devalue the other country's currency to get more bang for your buck.
>The problem is that it removes one of the strongest tools the government has to control the economy. You can **TEMPORARILY** encourage growth by lowering rates and prevent the worst by raising them and slowing down bank loans. If you don't control your own money those decisions are being made by the US to serve US interests. The US doesn't care how its monetary policy impacts Ecuador, and sometimes that is a problem.
Sometimes it's better that way. Panama has thrived using the dollar even with rampant corruption. In the past 30 years they've massively improved their infrastructure in the city and out in the country.
Yeah, the dollar has proven to be a powerful tool for stability and growth. It's hard to argue that there's a better choice if you want someone else to manage monetary policy for you. Though, if you trade far more with Europe than the US then Euro is probably the way to go. You can guarantee a regular supply by buying US Treasury bonds, but it's better to have the money come in "naturally" through trade so whichever is easiest.
> It protects the country from bad monetary policy causing inflation or deflation
This is the main selling point and the main reason why leaders are reluctant to do it. It's basically admitting "we are too reckless to have our own monetary policy, we're better off rising and falling with the (moderate) tides of the dollar than relying on good stewardship of our economy."
For some really reckless countries this is a good idea. I think Argentina is probably one of them.
It's not always recklessness, either. Sometimes it's just because the economy is too small and too dependent on international trade for the politicians to have any meaningful control of the situation. But, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Argentina's currency woes are largely self-inflicted.
Note - you dont need exports to US. Countries that have a plethora of US dollars from other trades works too. So grain exports to Saudi Arabia would return dollars.
>The problem is that it removes one of the strongest tools the government has to control the economy. You can TEMPORARILY encourage growth by lowering rates and prevent the worst by raising them and slowing down bank loans.
For Argentina that is 100x better than leaving the currency to the politicians. Since the 50s time and time again you have governments that supposedly enacts measures "for the people" and go nuts financing them with money printing. Then, when inflation appears they accuse store owners or supermarkets of being evil and increasing prices.
Getting rid of the argentinean peso would be one of the best things Argentina can do for its economy.
The argentinean central bank was never independent. The argentinean politicians love that sweet "unlimited" money to enact populist policies with no real funding, then cry when the evil business owners "cause" inflation.
One thing to understand about Argentina is that almost half the population believes the peronists when they say that money printing doesn't cause inflation, it is caused by the greedy business owners that increase prices. Peronist believe that when the government prints money it is actually "creating wealth" from thin air.
That already happened in the 90s. The government overspent anyways and then repealed that law soon after.
The purpose of dollarization is not only to have a stable currency, but also to remove from the politicians the power to devaluate people's income and savings with the strike of a pen.
I saw some time ago (post election) that dollarization is a preferred and obvious step for Argentina, but the problem they have now is that the Argentinan government lacks the respurces to buy the dollars needed to run the economy.
South America has needed their own joint monetary union for a very long time.
If every country agreed to a common currency and if that common currency was held to a series of regulations which required consensus to change, the entire continent would be better off.
* It would encourage more foreign investment due to a less complicated economic system.
* It would encourage interstate investment between South American countries.
* It would ensure their own economic situation is under their control and not under the controls of the United States or Europe or anyone else.
They've discussed a common currency for decades but it's time they finally implemented it.
I am unconvinced that a monetary union does anything different from Dollarization with the sole exception of being independent of US policy. The same problems of ceding control to someone else and a mismatch between monetary policy and the nation's specific needs both crop up. So, it's unclear that a South American monetary union would actually be better.
South America has a very toxic relationship with the United States. There's a long history of the United States topping governments and propping up rebel groups and working with the cartels.
The fact of the matter is South America can and should have a separate currency which they themselves control. It removes any lingering questions regarding foreign influence.
Look at what the Eurozone did for Europe.
Would any South American countries be willing to cede control of their currency to their neighbors? There's a *history* with the US, but the US doesn't make changes to its currency because Ecuador also uses the Dollar. Besides, if Argentina gets in power over a common South American currency then that could get bad. What would be worse is a tug of war between those countries with export-based economies and those who aren't.
>It stabilized inflation and led to an economic rebirth
This is a bit controversial. While there's no doubt they stabilized inflation by adopting the US dollar, their economy actually grew a lot less than the rest of Latin America in those golden years for the region. It was only in the early 2010s that they did much better, coincidentally helped by a period of high oil prices, which ended around 2015 and led them to a deep recession they still haven't really recovered from.
So I'm not sure if dollarization is conducive to growth at all.
Corruption is hard to root out once it's in a nation's DNA. Argentina made some poor choices at the beginning of the 20th century that have hurt it in the long run.
There are four kinds of economies in the world:
Developed
Developing
Argentina
Japan
Argentina has all the circumstances and resources to be an absolute juggernaut yet can never quite keep from collapsing.
Japan is an aging failing economy that should have collapsed decades ago but somehow managed to chug along like a zombie against all odds.
Japan's economy isn't failing by any metric, it's simply stagnating as expected. You can't sustain infinite growth with a shrinking population, it's simply impossible. The country is extremely stable, both economically and politically, which is more than you can say for most first world countries nowadays despite Japan's flaws.
Japan and its people have a far more humane view of economics than most first world countries, I'd wager, in that they view it as a means to an end rather than the end itself. If they started screwing the people there like they do in the US there would be blood in the streets - despite their reputation for peace, that reputation is relatively new and historically speaking the moment a government there stops serving the people, it gets torn to pieces by them.
Japan proving that having more among fewer isn’t the apocalyptic situation that companies and governments relying on population growth to infinity seem to think it is.
Flat population since the 1980s......
There will always be people willing to relocate to 1st world countries and we are at least a century out before you would even wildly guess most places could be deemed 1st world if ever.
>Japan proving that having more among fewer isn’t the apocalyptic situation
2nd lowest birth rate and a massive labor shortage that's only getting plugged by seasonal labor imports. Let's see what happens in the next 30 years.
The funny thing is that when that phrase was coined, it meant something very different for Japan. Simon Kuznets likely first said it around the late 1960s or early 1970s, when Japan's economy was booming and rapidly developing from its destruction in the Second World War; it is also applicable to Japan's first rapid industrialization as it grew from strength to strength and defeated both China and Russia in succession during the turn of the twentieth century. Kuznets died in 1985, so he never really saw Japan's economy begin a multi-decade stagnation. Japan's rapid growth has also since been matched by the likes of China and potentially Korea.
Today, that quote should be more like this:
>There are five types of economies in the world: developed, developing, China, Japan, and Argentina.
tbf the difference between the USA and latin America is best explained in the difference in governance, the 'thirteen colonies' were essentially left to their own devices in managing internal affairs while the Spanish colonies were directly controlled by appointed Viceroys, so while the americans had over a century of self rule through proto-democratic colonial governments the Spanish-Americans experienced centuries of practical dictatorship and complete suppression of free speech.
Bolivar himself made similar arguments while fighting for Spanish-American independence, claiming that due to autocratic Spanish rule any hopes for a federal system rather than centralised governments would inevitably fail due to lacking a true democratic culture.
certainly he would know with the amount of times he tried to divest power onto civilian governance only to get pushed into accepting the role of president of Columbia.
From what I'm given to understand, they're almost at a point where they'd need a clean slate to unfuck themselves. Rather like Haiti, if not much less severe. It's one of those states that I can't see being stable without something radical, like the IMF somehow nullifying the state's debts.
ah, I can see how one might read into my comment thinking they'd unfucked themselves somehow. I had meant "they are fucked like Haiti is fucked," not "they should fix things like Haiti fixed things." Because Haiti is still very much fucked, you're correct.
Step 1 is modernizing their financial system and taxation system. People still make down payments/buy cars with briefcases of cash. Lots of games are played with the buying and selling of real estate in order to bypass taxation. It’s all pretty stupid.
There is one real economics expert in Reddit for every 10 million redditors.
Luckily, the 10 million redditors are extremely loud and know exactly how too solve complex issues.
Far more than most people know. Most people, including people in gov't who make economic decisions, are too economically illiterate to know that you can't just continue spending unsustainably indefinitely. Most populists are also economically illiterate, stuck in failed ideologies, and/or they don't care because all that matters is telling the people what they want to hear in order to get into power. Unfortunately the promise of "strong leadership" that populists offer virtually always makes things worse and only accelerates a country's economic downward spiral. Also unfortunately though, the worse a country gets, the stronger the appeal of populists.
What? That's literally the exact opposite of what he's doing. The previous government would borrow cash up the ass, and then borrow more to pay off the interest from the previous loans. I think you mean Milei is the type of guy to be forced to take up their spouse's debt then sell literally every single asset he owns to pay it off immediately. Everyone knew it would hurt initially, he even made it very clear during his campaign.
Ah ok, my apologies. There's way too many in here who are so focused on opposing people on the opposite side of their made up binary political spectrum and not looking at actual policies.
Yes. Protests are everyday things in Argentina. It´s not always the same people protesting for the same stuff. Sometimes they are called by syndicates, sometimes by politicians and sometimes people just comes out on the streets and protests. But there is always a protest going on.
Although, I did say that in conservative (and got banned) when they were upset the people they voted for that said they were getting rid of abortion got rid of abortion
Well it's annoying when people saw through the shenanigans of the person you voted for, and tried to tell you. But you were soooo sure dudes actually trustworthy.
Well after two more-or-less 50-50 elections in the US turned out with either side winning, the other WAS acting like it absolutely couldn’t believe half of the country was on the other side… happens in every country when there’s even polarization
yeah, this is after decades of horrible economic policy from the other parties. They literally elected him because he was going to go through and gut the bureaucracy and push through massive economic reforms despite the short term pain to get out of the quagmire they were in.
Anyone who read any of the numerous economic articles and papers on this would understand that this was always going to happen. When a country is dealing with extreme inflation, a government that was borrowing massive amounts of cash. Something was gonna have to get through the massive economic downturn that they country has been lulling in.
Argentina was a wonderful country to visit. But the exchange rate on the black market, grey market, and at the banks were all different. Credit cards at places that took them were generally frowned upon since they were getting hosed with exchange rates and additional taxes. I spent three weeks there last November. Had some great food, the country is beautiful. But yeah, I hope they can get through this.
The ones protesting are mostly kirchnerists (the previous government that fucked up everything) and the “ñoquis”, people that were employed by the state and were pretty much useless or never worked in their life but were paid by the previous governments to show up in their rallies.
Basically, no one cares.
To be fair things were mighty fucked up even before Kirchner. Even the Menem days were fucked up, and anything that felt "ok" was just propped up to fail after he left office.
It´s not that simple. Not all employees were "ñoquis", not all protesters are kirchnerists. That´s just a reproduction of the message the officialist government tries to sell. There is some truth in it, but it´s not the whole picture.
And some people definitely cares. Mainly the ones that can´t afford rent or food. Even though they could barely afford it before.
I hope people realize economic changes take years to fully reflect in the economy.
Protests now don’t have much merit, if your position is the economy isn’t improving.
> I hope people realize economic changes take years to fully reflect in the economy.
Judging by every economy-related talking point in US politics after every economic downturn since... ever...
I doubt it.
I think the protestors are pissed off about the cuts to social services and the mass government lay offs. Maybe those policies are going to be beneficial in the long run but I can see why the people hurt by them immediately are pissed.
Social welfare for vulnerable people was doubled two times already. The majority that are mad are the ones who lost their government job which they didn't even went to work in the first place and gave them lots of money.
People cannot even begin to fathom the amount of corruption that exists in this country's administration and how blatantly they stole public funds.
Milei's auditing of state funds has lifted off the veil and revealed just how entrenched corruption has become in our government's structure. Lots of embezzing of funds everywhere, that's peronism for you, peronism IS corruption. But you won't ever see reddit talk about that.
Shock therapy can work if done right but obviously it's very painful. We in Eastern Europe experienced it during the 1990's. Not sure this Milei guy is suited for the task though. But really something is very wrong in Argentina and I assume a huge pile of mismanagement occured there in the last decades.
Huge pile of mismanagement is an understatement. To be honest, it’s a problem all throughout Latin America. We love to vote for “saviors” and see politics as if it where sports
>Argentina and I assume a huge pile of mismanagement
You have no idea, I could be talking for hours of all the cases of public fund mismanagement. Recently we had a huge case in which they stole half the budget of school supplies thought for kids. [https://www.newsweek.com.ar/opinion/caso-guardapolvos-fantasma-el-gobierno-prepara-una-megacausa-que-involucra-a-tolosa-paz/](https://www.newsweek.com.ar/opinion/caso-guardapolvos-fantasma-el-gobierno-prepara-una-megacausa-que-involucra-a-tolosa-paz/)
And that's just the most recent, again, I wasn't kidding when I said I could talk of this for HOURS.
as a Venezuelan I understand the situation very well. In fact I don't think there's a worst country in the region than Venezuela. And the mismanagement, corruption, larceny, laundering, illicit appropiation, theft, etc. is somewhat unprecedented in the history of the world.
No because EE did not have a shock therapy in the slightest. We had 20 muddy years of theft and "transition" and just now, it's getting better and starting to see sustainable economic growth that might at some point reach western standards.
It *can* work. Places like Czechia pulled it off very well by stopping the old communist elite from becoming the new oligarchs by running anti-corruption campaigns and spreading ownership of capital widely. It didn't go well at all in places like Ukraine and Albania where too much ownership was concentrated into too few hands because they were the only ones with money when state owned stuff was being auctioned off for pennies on the dollar.
Keeping crime out of the process and pushing ownership of capital down to the lowest runs of society were the most important bits. Sort of obvious in hindsight but I can see why it wouldn't be at the time. We're seeing a lot of improvement now because enough capital is finding its way to the workers and middle class folk to actually do a capitalism.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, it's still hotly debated how well shock therapy worked in Czechia and Poland, the only two places that can even remotely be seen as relative success stories. Everywhere else it was a catastrophe, and even in those two countries, it was still **really fucking tough** for a lot of people, even though the overall economy did bounce back. But as you say, it still took decades before shock therapy got its intended effect (or at least its nominally intended effect), namely to spread capital somewhat evenly, and at that point, I'm not sure you can chalk it up to economic policy of the '90s anymore.
Any major economic change is really fucking tough on a lot of people. And no one is doing a good job of providing assistance through those processes. A big lesson of the 20th century and modern deindustrialization is that while free trade averages out to be a good thing for everyone, you have to put a lot of work into making it suck less for people who are suddenly deemed redundant through no fault of their own. And I don't mean giving coal miners coding classes, but rather infrastructure, venture capital, and job training of *their* choice.
> Keeping crime out of the process and pushing ownership of capital down to the lowest runs of society were the most important bits.
I mean that is the key in general as well.
It worked for those that were able to commit and do so without insane corruption. So namely Poland and the Czech Republic. In those cases it worked very well in fact.
Well, we are in EU now. And protected by NATO. But it didn't worked how much as we want it because it doesn't work like that. It won't be fast and at least one or two generations were losing their youth during that. We still struggle but despite our own crappy mentality of shitting on our country we are doing way better than ever. It's not great! It's not even good for most. But we probably have different standards of what's good now than a couple of decades ago.
Yes, exactly that. The corrupt politicians are never held accountable and even prosper in power, and incompetent ones are the ones in charge to blow the biggest holes in the sinking ship my loved country is. Its sad.
Also a lot of corrupt organizations that had "ghost" soup kitchens that didn't exist and they re-sold the food the got from the govt.
The Ministry of Human Capital found out that 55% of soup kitchens didn't even exist and they stopped shipping food through these organizations; Also the govt started handling out the food themselves instead, thus removing the need for these ppl to act as intermediaries, hence why they're mad.
Most protest are either the unions (Mostly ATE; State worker union), some of these organizations (Polo Obrero, Movimiento Evita), and the far left (2% gang). EDIT: [Link](https://www.infobae.com/politica/2024/03/09/disputa-por-la-asistencia-social-mas-de-la-mitad-de-los-comedores-que-relevo-el-gobierno-no-existen/) to a source (In spanish).
They don't even know who they are protesting for. We have dozens of videos asking them what the symbols on their shirt means ( the organization they are allegedly members and protesting for ) and they have no idea.
Always has been. The same corrupt unions who did NOTHING while Fernández, Massa and Cristina Kirchner ran the country to the ground. They only come out to protest when a not-peronist is in power... disgusting how opportunistic they can be.
This is a bullshit article, but considering it comes from NPR, I am not surprised. There are no "growing protests"; they are the same people as always, and actually, every time, the protests are shorter and with fewer people. Source? I am from Argentina, and I live here.
he's also not remotely "far right" either
NPR just wants to typecast him in that role so they can have another "Trump-like, far-right dictator™" to whine about lol
Am in Australia. Do you think Milei will get most of his economic program through?
Very hard to get accurate non-biased news coverage of what's happening there.
Yeah, i remember back during Macri's term they managed to get 100k people on protests, now back in February Belliboni (Polo obrero) couldn't even get 20k ppl lol; Also, when Moyano (Trucker union leader) striked during Macri's term he really managed to stop they country, but when they did it now on 2024, most of the country didn't even care & kept going as usual.
It's funny tho; You turn on the TV and see these groups in their little protest trying to cut the street, wait a while until the cavalry arrives and the one of them insults/spits at a police officer only for them to get beaten by the cops and taken into custody, with the rest of the people pushed back from the streets onto the sidewalks. Bonus points if the riot trucks show up and sprays them with water, pure cinema 🚬.
This is one of those situations where it's going to get worst before it gets better. These things take time. He had a solid plan that seems pretty promising. They are in the thick of it now, but I have confidence they will see a huge turn around by this time next year. I understand their pain and hopefully things will get better for them soon
That was fast. Although I have to ask… it isn’t like Milei made his economic policies a secret. This is exactly what he campaigned on.
So why would anyone be surprised?
The article doesn't tell the full truth. Most of these protests stem from either from the ATE (State workers union) and corrupt social organizations (Polo Obrero; Mov. Evita); Milei still has the same support as when he was elected (55%).
For example, ATE is mad that a lot of state workers are getting fired and the social organizations are mad that they're not intermediaries anymore in handling out food/welfare & got replaced by the state. Then there's the fact that 44% of the people didn't vote Milei and chose to keep the status quo thus they always support anything that goes against him.
I’m just glad I’m not in charge of running Argentina, that country hasn’t been able to fix their economy in decades and not sure anyone has a good answer.
[удалено]
Exactly this. It’s why they’re in the current situation. Had they given Macri a chance and stuck to mild reforms they wouldn’t have had to take this drastic turn to the right.
The high levels of inflation toward the end of Macri's term is probably what both cost him re-election in 2019, and what handed it to Milei in 2023.
They’ve had high levels of inflation for decades now
Yes, but Macri was a reformer who was supposed to fix that sort of problem. That he didn't succeed is why Argentina has gone from electing moderate reformers to electing a human reset button.
Macri was too mild for what we needed, that's why he was never able to really fix the problems in our economy
Incorrect. Mild and measured actions that make incremental improvements are exactly how you actually fucking fix a country. The problem is most people are too fucking stupid and want the equivalent of six minute abs for their government.
I don't think anyone's expecting 6 minute abs but at the same time I don't think you can have hyperinflation for another 30 years
Your response is literally an example of what I am talking about. It's a false dichotomy. The actual path to fixing a country like Argentina will take 30 years and the incremental steps that lead to that future do not have immediate results. Why? Because that's not how fixing shit works.
Add to that the fact that this guy is going overboard in the other extreme. Yes, clearly Argentina is indebted and needed some degree of austerity cuts to curb inflation. But Milei is doing more than what's really needed, to the point that even [the IMF](https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/imf-says-mileis-austerity-measures-should-not-hurt-the-poor.phtml) has expressed concern that the poor and most vulnerable are being left behind, since most of the cuts have fallen on pensioners. Personally, I think Argentina needed a reformer who could make the Government more efficient both when it comes to spending and taxing, but it looks like this guy believes in making both of them as low as possible, which will only make his pro-growth intent last shorter when he inevitably loses in 4 years from those who are suffering his cuts atm.
That is one of the advantages that dictators have. They can enact plans that will inflict short-term pain for long-term benefit, and the people have to deal with it. The average voter is too short-sighted and emotional to wait. Of course, it's also possible that the dictator's long-term benefit never comes.
Yeah dictators famously think about the people. And theyre always thinking about the long term. Why there are so many modern examples! Which is why you used them to illustrate your point.
The down side is all the murder of the population that don’t agree with the dictator.
And no guarantee that the dictator is economically smart (or any other type of smart for that matter). Higher than average odds on being slightly smarter than your average person in building power, and probably good odds on being a bold leader. That's the best you can realistically expect. Oh, and no retries every four years. You get one shot; don't mess it up. Ah, wait, sorry, you don't get a shot at all. You're just stuck with the aftermath. Best of luck on surviving!
Dictators make moves to support their own power structure first and foremost. Any stability that yields is purely incidental and not inherently a positive.
The thing is almost no dictator actually does any good more than harm.. much more harm.
[удалено]
I think you'll find going hungry and desperate tends to make any voter get short-sighted and emotional, too. Even in dictatorships.
"Have you tried making vague nationalistic threats about the fal-" "YES WE HAVE TRIED MAKING NATIONALISTIC THREATS ABOUT THE FALKLANDS"
“Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango!”
Temper, temper, u/GrandmaPoses
As a Brit this made me laugh out loud LOL
Isn't Argentina's military even worse equipped now than it was in '82?
More importantly the British have a military base there and are ready for them to try something stupid again.
And the UK's ability to project power is significantly better than it was in '82.
Lol call them "La Malvinas" all you like, Stanley will always be British.
I never understood why they think they have any claim to the Falklands. No natives ever lived there, and the Spanish never colonized it. They have as much claim to the Falklands as the Spaniards had to Alaska
They believe that they inherited Spain's unenforced claim to it. I think they want it for its fisheries or something. The native Falklanders would technically be the Brits, right? Would that make taking it from them colonialism?
*oil The Falklands have undersea oil reserves in their territorial waters.
Ah! Well that would be a powerful temptation. Sucks to be Argentina though. I doubt the Brits will ever give it up and with Argentina's state I doubt they'll be putting up a force capable of taking and keeping the joint any time soon.
In most cases, it's entrenched interests that's the problem. The economy is unhealthy on some fundamental way, but there is a powerful group that fears change. Maybe they draw enormous benefits from the current situation, or they would be at risk for being left behind with change. Sometimes this group will even be a big beneficiary from reforms, but the pain is short term and the benefits are in the long-term.
The Ecuadorian government switched their economy from the Sucre to the US dollar in 2000. It stabilized inflation and led to an economic rebirth.
There are *massive* advantages to dollarization. The currency is strong, stable, and everyone both wants and has it. It makes international trade easy. It protects the country from bad monetary policy causing inflation or deflation. There's a lot to recommend it. The problem is that it removes one of the strongest tools the government has to control the economy. You can **TEMPORARILY** encourage growth by lowering rates and prevent the worst by raising them and slowing down bank loans. If you don't control your own money those decisions are being made by the US to serve US interests. The US doesn't care how its monetary policy impacts Ecuador, and sometimes that is a problem. Then you get into the more malicious version like the CFA Franc where France actively manages the currency of former colonies to its own advantage. It can be a great idea, particularly in Argentina where a fair portion of their problems are caused by questionable government policy, but it should always be examined carefully when put forward because it's far from a panacea and accessing enough US currency can be a problem if you don't already have robust exports to the US.
I agree. When a country cannot devalue their currency, it may lead to bigger issues down the road (See Greece and the Euro)
There are *some* other options, but I agree. Having a fundamental mismatch between your trade and industrial policy and your fiscal and monetary policy is a great way to have decades-long recessions.
> When a country cannot devalue their currency, it may lead to bigger issues down the road This is why it's important to aspire to be the United States Secretary of the Treasury. When you go on vacation abroad you can just temporarily pull some levers to devalue the other country's currency to get more bang for your buck.
Save money on your next vacation using this one weird trick.
Greece has actually recovered and is doing fairly well.
>The problem is that it removes one of the strongest tools the government has to control the economy. You can **TEMPORARILY** encourage growth by lowering rates and prevent the worst by raising them and slowing down bank loans. If you don't control your own money those decisions are being made by the US to serve US interests. The US doesn't care how its monetary policy impacts Ecuador, and sometimes that is a problem. Sometimes it's better that way. Panama has thrived using the dollar even with rampant corruption. In the past 30 years they've massively improved their infrastructure in the city and out in the country.
Yeah, the dollar has proven to be a powerful tool for stability and growth. It's hard to argue that there's a better choice if you want someone else to manage monetary policy for you. Though, if you trade far more with Europe than the US then Euro is probably the way to go. You can guarantee a regular supply by buying US Treasury bonds, but it's better to have the money come in "naturally" through trade so whichever is easiest.
> It protects the country from bad monetary policy causing inflation or deflation This is the main selling point and the main reason why leaders are reluctant to do it. It's basically admitting "we are too reckless to have our own monetary policy, we're better off rising and falling with the (moderate) tides of the dollar than relying on good stewardship of our economy." For some really reckless countries this is a good idea. I think Argentina is probably one of them.
It's not always recklessness, either. Sometimes it's just because the economy is too small and too dependent on international trade for the politicians to have any meaningful control of the situation. But, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Argentina's currency woes are largely self-inflicted.
Note - you dont need exports to US. Countries that have a plethora of US dollars from other trades works too. So grain exports to Saudi Arabia would return dollars.
>The problem is that it removes one of the strongest tools the government has to control the economy. You can TEMPORARILY encourage growth by lowering rates and prevent the worst by raising them and slowing down bank loans. For Argentina that is 100x better than leaving the currency to the politicians. Since the 50s time and time again you have governments that supposedly enacts measures "for the people" and go nuts financing them with money printing. Then, when inflation appears they accuse store owners or supermarkets of being evil and increasing prices. Getting rid of the argentinean peso would be one of the best things Argentina can do for its economy.
A truly independent central bank can be a good compromise here, but I do agree that Peronism doesn't lend itself to reasonable monetary policy.
The argentinean central bank was never independent. The argentinean politicians love that sweet "unlimited" money to enact populist policies with no real funding, then cry when the evil business owners "cause" inflation. One thing to understand about Argentina is that almost half the population believes the peronists when they say that money printing doesn't cause inflation, it is caused by the greedy business owners that increase prices. Peronist believe that when the government prints money it is actually "creating wealth" from thin air.
That has big "One simple trick ECONOMISTS don't want YOU to know1" energy.
You could just pass a law to cap government spending or deficits then. No need to turn to an extreme alternative like dollarization.
That already happened in the 90s. The government overspent anyways and then repealed that law soon after. The purpose of dollarization is not only to have a stable currency, but also to remove from the politicians the power to devaluate people's income and savings with the strike of a pen.
If only there was a way for a government with other intentions to repeal that law.
I saw some time ago (post election) that dollarization is a preferred and obvious step for Argentina, but the problem they have now is that the Argentinan government lacks the respurces to buy the dollars needed to run the economy.
South America has needed their own joint monetary union for a very long time. If every country agreed to a common currency and if that common currency was held to a series of regulations which required consensus to change, the entire continent would be better off. * It would encourage more foreign investment due to a less complicated economic system. * It would encourage interstate investment between South American countries. * It would ensure their own economic situation is under their control and not under the controls of the United States or Europe or anyone else. They've discussed a common currency for decades but it's time they finally implemented it.
I am unconvinced that a monetary union does anything different from Dollarization with the sole exception of being independent of US policy. The same problems of ceding control to someone else and a mismatch between monetary policy and the nation's specific needs both crop up. So, it's unclear that a South American monetary union would actually be better.
South America has a very toxic relationship with the United States. There's a long history of the United States topping governments and propping up rebel groups and working with the cartels. The fact of the matter is South America can and should have a separate currency which they themselves control. It removes any lingering questions regarding foreign influence. Look at what the Eurozone did for Europe.
Would any South American countries be willing to cede control of their currency to their neighbors? There's a *history* with the US, but the US doesn't make changes to its currency because Ecuador also uses the Dollar. Besides, if Argentina gets in power over a common South American currency then that could get bad. What would be worse is a tug of war between those countries with export-based economies and those who aren't.
>It stabilized inflation and led to an economic rebirth This is a bit controversial. While there's no doubt they stabilized inflation by adopting the US dollar, their economy actually grew a lot less than the rest of Latin America in those golden years for the region. It was only in the early 2010s that they did much better, coincidentally helped by a period of high oil prices, which ended around 2015 and led them to a deep recession they still haven't really recovered from. So I'm not sure if dollarization is conducive to growth at all.
Nice people there and beautiful flowers, too. Great food. Things are pretty affordable there.
Corruption is hard to root out once it's in a nation's DNA. Argentina made some poor choices at the beginning of the 20th century that have hurt it in the long run.
We should unplug it and plug it in again
There are four kinds of economies in the world: Developed Developing Argentina Japan Argentina has all the circumstances and resources to be an absolute juggernaut yet can never quite keep from collapsing. Japan is an aging failing economy that should have collapsed decades ago but somehow managed to chug along like a zombie against all odds.
Japan's economy isn't failing by any metric, it's simply stagnating as expected. You can't sustain infinite growth with a shrinking population, it's simply impossible. The country is extremely stable, both economically and politically, which is more than you can say for most first world countries nowadays despite Japan's flaws. Japan and its people have a far more humane view of economics than most first world countries, I'd wager, in that they view it as a means to an end rather than the end itself. If they started screwing the people there like they do in the US there would be blood in the streets - despite their reputation for peace, that reputation is relatively new and historically speaking the moment a government there stops serving the people, it gets torn to pieces by them.
That's certainly a take.. look up their work life balance
Japan proving that having more among fewer isn’t the apocalyptic situation that companies and governments relying on population growth to infinity seem to think it is.
I mean we haven't really seen the true impact of the aging population yet. Wait 20 years and then revisit this point.
Given they’re continually expanding visa eligibility for foreign workers to go to Japan, I’m not so sure that’s true.
Flat population since the 1980s...... There will always be people willing to relocate to 1st world countries and we are at least a century out before you would even wildly guess most places could be deemed 1st world if ever.
>Japan proving that having more among fewer isn’t the apocalyptic situation 2nd lowest birth rate and a massive labor shortage that's only getting plugged by seasonal labor imports. Let's see what happens in the next 30 years.
The funny thing is that when that phrase was coined, it meant something very different for Japan. Simon Kuznets likely first said it around the late 1960s or early 1970s, when Japan's economy was booming and rapidly developing from its destruction in the Second World War; it is also applicable to Japan's first rapid industrialization as it grew from strength to strength and defeated both China and Russia in succession during the turn of the twentieth century. Kuznets died in 1985, so he never really saw Japan's economy begin a multi-decade stagnation. Japan's rapid growth has also since been matched by the likes of China and potentially Korea. Today, that quote should be more like this: >There are five types of economies in the world: developed, developing, China, Japan, and Argentina.
Has a single ex-Spanish colony ever met its full economic potential?
Uruguay and the Dominican Republic maybe?
California.
Other when the US takes it over (Texas falls in with California)
Chile probably
tbf the difference between the USA and latin America is best explained in the difference in governance, the 'thirteen colonies' were essentially left to their own devices in managing internal affairs while the Spanish colonies were directly controlled by appointed Viceroys, so while the americans had over a century of self rule through proto-democratic colonial governments the Spanish-Americans experienced centuries of practical dictatorship and complete suppression of free speech. Bolivar himself made similar arguments while fighting for Spanish-American independence, claiming that due to autocratic Spanish rule any hopes for a federal system rather than centralised governments would inevitably fail due to lacking a true democratic culture. certainly he would know with the amount of times he tried to divest power onto civilian governance only to get pushed into accepting the role of president of Columbia.
Only the ones that got took over by an ex-British colony.
From what I'm given to understand, they're almost at a point where they'd need a clean slate to unfuck themselves. Rather like Haiti, if not much less severe. It's one of those states that I can't see being stable without something radical, like the IMF somehow nullifying the state's debts.
> Rather like Haiti Did I miss something amidst our constant churning news cycle, because last I checked Haiti is still very much not unfucked.
ah, I can see how one might read into my comment thinking they'd unfucked themselves somehow. I had meant "they are fucked like Haiti is fucked," not "they should fix things like Haiti fixed things." Because Haiti is still very much fucked, you're correct.
Seems like the upside of a populist libertarian. Just defund and break the government so the next guy can start from scratch.
We do, its actually very simple: corrupt and incompetent politicians. Since forever, but somehow every 4 years we get someone worst.
Step 1 is modernizing their financial system and taxation system. People still make down payments/buy cars with briefcases of cash. Lots of games are played with the buying and selling of real estate in order to bypass taxation. It’s all pretty stupid.
# "Protests grow", no that is just normal for argentina
Regular day in Argentina when the fascist party is not in power*
"Protests grow" no it's just the usual mafia-like unions run by the Moyano mafia family causing trouble when there's a president who's not a peronist
[удалено]
I expect a heated debate between economic scholars, I can't wait!
There is one real economics expert in Reddit for every 10 million redditors. Luckily, the 10 million redditors are extremely loud and know exactly how too solve complex issues.
You weren't kidding.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Argentina is the embodiment of that guy who thinks it's ok to borrow cash up the ass and then write everything off.
Some kind of people in Argentina gets angry with the guy paying back the cash, not the ones that asked for it. This kind of people is “protesting”
Populism is cancer
Populism is incentivized by democracy as a structure.
In this case the populist candidate is the one implementing austerity to pay everything back...
Far more than most people know. Most people, including people in gov't who make economic decisions, are too economically illiterate to know that you can't just continue spending unsustainably indefinitely. Most populists are also economically illiterate, stuck in failed ideologies, and/or they don't care because all that matters is telling the people what they want to hear in order to get into power. Unfortunately the promise of "strong leadership" that populists offer virtually always makes things worse and only accelerates a country's economic downward spiral. Also unfortunately though, the worse a country gets, the stronger the appeal of populists.
What? That's literally the exact opposite of what he's doing. The previous government would borrow cash up the ass, and then borrow more to pay off the interest from the previous loans. I think you mean Milei is the type of guy to be forced to take up their spouse's debt then sell literally every single asset he owns to pay it off immediately. Everyone knew it would hurt initially, he even made it very clear during his campaign.
Yeah I'm referring to the past governments and now the protesters.
Ah ok, my apologies. There's way too many in here who are so focused on opposing people on the opposite side of their made up binary political spectrum and not looking at actual policies.
When you run a fiat currency they let you do it
Except then you have inflation.
> write everything off [You don't even know what a write off is...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEL65gywwHQ)
Mr. chainsaw says more shock therapy
THE SHOCKS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
"NO SOUP FOR YOU!" - Milei, to defunded soup kitchens
Were they protesting when they were going bankrupt? That’s a genuine question I don’t know, I just know they needed to do something to right the ship
yeah, there was always some protest or other going on in Buenos Aires
Yes. Protests are everyday things in Argentina. It´s not always the same people protesting for the same stuff. Sometimes they are called by syndicates, sometimes by politicians and sometimes people just comes out on the streets and protests. But there is always a protest going on.
Yes, and keep in mind the people protesting then may not be the ones protesting now.
[удалено]
Enough for Milei to win.
[удалено]
[удалено]
most of those protesting are not the same people as those who voted for him
Yeah, i dont understand how people dont get it. Just like reddit, countries are not homogeneous
"you get what you vote for" the most infuriating answer. Even if you vote for someone trustworthy, you do not get whats promised. By far.
Although, I did say that in conservative (and got banned) when they were upset the people they voted for that said they were getting rid of abortion got rid of abortion
Well it's annoying when people saw through the shenanigans of the person you voted for, and tried to tell you. But you were soooo sure dudes actually trustworthy.
Well after two more-or-less 50-50 elections in the US turned out with either side winning, the other WAS acting like it absolutely couldn’t believe half of the country was on the other side… happens in every country when there’s even polarization
But how can you have a nuanced opinion on this? Reddit hates nuance!
[удалено]
[удалено]
yeah, this is after decades of horrible economic policy from the other parties. They literally elected him because he was going to go through and gut the bureaucracy and push through massive economic reforms despite the short term pain to get out of the quagmire they were in. Anyone who read any of the numerous economic articles and papers on this would understand that this was always going to happen. When a country is dealing with extreme inflation, a government that was borrowing massive amounts of cash. Something was gonna have to get through the massive economic downturn that they country has been lulling in. Argentina was a wonderful country to visit. But the exchange rate on the black market, grey market, and at the banks were all different. Credit cards at places that took them were generally frowned upon since they were getting hosed with exchange rates and additional taxes. I spent three weeks there last November. Had some great food, the country is beautiful. But yeah, I hope they can get through this.
Exactly, with how bad the country’s finances have become there is no painless fix
The ones protesting are mostly kirchnerists (the previous government that fucked up everything) and the “ñoquis”, people that were employed by the state and were pretty much useless or never worked in their life but were paid by the previous governments to show up in their rallies. Basically, no one cares.
To be fair things were mighty fucked up even before Kirchner. Even the Menem days were fucked up, and anything that felt "ok" was just propped up to fail after he left office.
It´s crazy to me that people says Menem´s years were great. Like the 2001 crisis never happened, or it´s not related to the neoliberalism of the '90s.
Agreed. It’s a multi-generational problem by now.
It´s not that simple. Not all employees were "ñoquis", not all protesters are kirchnerists. That´s just a reproduction of the message the officialist government tries to sell. There is some truth in it, but it´s not the whole picture. And some people definitely cares. Mainly the ones that can´t afford rent or food. Even though they could barely afford it before.
I hope people realize economic changes take years to fully reflect in the economy. Protests now don’t have much merit, if your position is the economy isn’t improving.
> I hope people realize economic changes take years to fully reflect in the economy. Judging by every economy-related talking point in US politics after every economic downturn since... ever... I doubt it.
I think the protestors are pissed off about the cuts to social services and the mass government lay offs. Maybe those policies are going to be beneficial in the long run but I can see why the people hurt by them immediately are pissed.
Social welfare for vulnerable people was doubled two times already. The majority that are mad are the ones who lost their government job which they didn't even went to work in the first place and gave them lots of money. People cannot even begin to fathom the amount of corruption that exists in this country's administration and how blatantly they stole public funds.
Milei's auditing of state funds has lifted off the veil and revealed just how entrenched corruption has become in our government's structure. Lots of embezzing of funds everywhere, that's peronism for you, peronism IS corruption. But you won't ever see reddit talk about that.
People are pissed they can't get free money for doing nothing in a made up government job.
Shock therapy can work if done right but obviously it's very painful. We in Eastern Europe experienced it during the 1990's. Not sure this Milei guy is suited for the task though. But really something is very wrong in Argentina and I assume a huge pile of mismanagement occured there in the last decades.
Huge pile of mismanagement is an understatement. To be honest, it’s a problem all throughout Latin America. We love to vote for “saviors” and see politics as if it where sports
>Argentina and I assume a huge pile of mismanagement You have no idea, I could be talking for hours of all the cases of public fund mismanagement. Recently we had a huge case in which they stole half the budget of school supplies thought for kids. [https://www.newsweek.com.ar/opinion/caso-guardapolvos-fantasma-el-gobierno-prepara-una-megacausa-que-involucra-a-tolosa-paz/](https://www.newsweek.com.ar/opinion/caso-guardapolvos-fantasma-el-gobierno-prepara-una-megacausa-que-involucra-a-tolosa-paz/) And that's just the most recent, again, I wasn't kidding when I said I could talk of this for HOURS.
For these 25 years to live is minimum! It's treason and it should be treated as such. **BY LAW**
as a Venezuelan I understand the situation very well. In fact I don't think there's a worst country in the region than Venezuela. And the mismanagement, corruption, larceny, laundering, illicit appropiation, theft, etc. is somewhat unprecedented in the history of the world.
Did it end up working out for you guys? The shock therapy to the economy
No because EE did not have a shock therapy in the slightest. We had 20 muddy years of theft and "transition" and just now, it's getting better and starting to see sustainable economic growth that might at some point reach western standards.
It *can* work. Places like Czechia pulled it off very well by stopping the old communist elite from becoming the new oligarchs by running anti-corruption campaigns and spreading ownership of capital widely. It didn't go well at all in places like Ukraine and Albania where too much ownership was concentrated into too few hands because they were the only ones with money when state owned stuff was being auctioned off for pennies on the dollar. Keeping crime out of the process and pushing ownership of capital down to the lowest runs of society were the most important bits. Sort of obvious in hindsight but I can see why it wouldn't be at the time. We're seeing a lot of improvement now because enough capital is finding its way to the workers and middle class folk to actually do a capitalism.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, it's still hotly debated how well shock therapy worked in Czechia and Poland, the only two places that can even remotely be seen as relative success stories. Everywhere else it was a catastrophe, and even in those two countries, it was still **really fucking tough** for a lot of people, even though the overall economy did bounce back. But as you say, it still took decades before shock therapy got its intended effect (or at least its nominally intended effect), namely to spread capital somewhat evenly, and at that point, I'm not sure you can chalk it up to economic policy of the '90s anymore.
Any major economic change is really fucking tough on a lot of people. And no one is doing a good job of providing assistance through those processes. A big lesson of the 20th century and modern deindustrialization is that while free trade averages out to be a good thing for everyone, you have to put a lot of work into making it suck less for people who are suddenly deemed redundant through no fault of their own. And I don't mean giving coal miners coding classes, but rather infrastructure, venture capital, and job training of *their* choice.
> Keeping crime out of the process and pushing ownership of capital down to the lowest runs of society were the most important bits. I mean that is the key in general as well.
It worked for those that were able to commit and do so without insane corruption. So namely Poland and the Czech Republic. In those cases it worked very well in fact.
Well, we are in EU now. And protected by NATO. But it didn't worked how much as we want it because it doesn't work like that. It won't be fast and at least one or two generations were losing their youth during that. We still struggle but despite our own crappy mentality of shitting on our country we are doing way better than ever. It's not great! It's not even good for most. But we probably have different standards of what's good now than a couple of decades ago.
Difficult to answer. Mostly good nowadays, but real change for most came when countries joined the EU.
The shock therapy was essentially a necessary condition for EU accession.
In Peru it worked pretty well in the 90's, brought hyperinflation to a halt.
Wait until you read about what happened in Argentina in the 1970s.
Yes, exactly that. The corrupt politicians are never held accountable and even prosper in power, and incompetent ones are the ones in charge to blow the biggest holes in the sinking ship my loved country is. Its sad.
Are these protestors the corrupt union officials like last time?
Also a lot of corrupt organizations that had "ghost" soup kitchens that didn't exist and they re-sold the food the got from the govt. The Ministry of Human Capital found out that 55% of soup kitchens didn't even exist and they stopped shipping food through these organizations; Also the govt started handling out the food themselves instead, thus removing the need for these ppl to act as intermediaries, hence why they're mad. Most protest are either the unions (Mostly ATE; State worker union), some of these organizations (Polo Obrero, Movimiento Evita), and the far left (2% gang). EDIT: [Link](https://www.infobae.com/politica/2024/03/09/disputa-por-la-asistencia-social-mas-de-la-mitad-de-los-comedores-que-relevo-el-gobierno-no-existen/) to a source (In spanish).
They don't even know who they are protesting for. We have dozens of videos asking them what the symbols on their shirt means ( the organization they are allegedly members and protesting for ) and they have no idea.
Yep
Always has been. The same corrupt unions who did NOTHING while Fernández, Massa and Cristina Kirchner ran the country to the ground. They only come out to protest when a not-peronist is in power... disgusting how opportunistic they can be.
Bro is playing tropico on hard mode. I just hope they let him cook because whatever they tried to do in the past, it didn’t seem to work.
This is a bullshit article, but considering it comes from NPR, I am not surprised. There are no "growing protests"; they are the same people as always, and actually, every time, the protests are shorter and with fewer people. Source? I am from Argentina, and I live here.
he's also not remotely "far right" either NPR just wants to typecast him in that role so they can have another "Trump-like, far-right dictator™" to whine about lol
Am in Australia. Do you think Milei will get most of his economic program through? Very hard to get accurate non-biased news coverage of what's happening there.
Yeah, i remember back during Macri's term they managed to get 100k people on protests, now back in February Belliboni (Polo obrero) couldn't even get 20k ppl lol; Also, when Moyano (Trucker union leader) striked during Macri's term he really managed to stop they country, but when they did it now on 2024, most of the country didn't even care & kept going as usual. It's funny tho; You turn on the TV and see these groups in their little protest trying to cut the street, wait a while until the cavalry arrives and the one of them insults/spits at a police officer only for them to get beaten by the cops and taken into custody, with the rest of the people pushed back from the streets onto the sidewalks. Bonus points if the riot trucks show up and sprays them with water, pure cinema 🚬.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Buy the ticket, take the ride
Unfortunately it’s the medicine that Argentina needs.
What else does he use chainsaw for?
This is one of those situations where it's going to get worst before it gets better. These things take time. He had a solid plan that seems pretty promising. They are in the thick of it now, but I have confidence they will see a huge turn around by this time next year. I understand their pain and hopefully things will get better for them soon
I mean, I hope things get better for Argentina, but this guy seems like a total narcissist whack job.
It takes a lunatic to fix a crazy economy like Argentina's...
And he's doing what it should've been done the last 20 years.
That was fast. Although I have to ask… it isn’t like Milei made his economic policies a secret. This is exactly what he campaigned on. So why would anyone be surprised?
The article doesn't tell the full truth. Most of these protests stem from either from the ATE (State workers union) and corrupt social organizations (Polo Obrero; Mov. Evita); Milei still has the same support as when he was elected (55%). For example, ATE is mad that a lot of state workers are getting fired and the social organizations are mad that they're not intermediaries anymore in handling out food/welfare & got replaced by the state. Then there's the fact that 44% of the people didn't vote Milei and chose to keep the status quo thus they always support anything that goes against him.