I mean, I'm not advocating support for the guy but citing stuff that happens within the first 6 months of taking office is a bit disingenuous.
Things generally don't happen immediately after someone takes power, there's a lag before things start to happen and change. I would imagine that the increase in poverty would have happened no matter who was in power and whatever happened after that first 6 months could be attributed to milei more than what happened within the first 6 months.
If someone I voted for made it into office I wouldn't be pissed at them if the economy was still shit 6 months later.
The one year mark was arbitrary, there's no set timeframe of course. 6 months is in my personal opinion, which could be wrong, pretty fast for any rate of large-scale change to happen country-wide for anything but the outbreak of war to have an impact.
It's the same reason Republicans think they're system of economics works when the economy is okay going into the presidency of trump but shit going into a new democratic office which needs to pick up the pieces afterwards.
I wouldn't blame Biden for what the economy looked like 6 months after Trump left. But I also would not* blame/attribute the state of the economy 6 months into Trump's term.
During the observation period from 1980 to 2022, the average inflation rate was 206.2% per year. Overall, the price increase was 902.38 billion percent. An item that cost 100 pesos in 1980 costs 902.38 billion pesos at the beginning of 2023.
Because in the long term, very high inflation leads to everyone being poorer. And Argentina is the very best example of this.
A country that went from being the 6th richest in the world to having over half the population in poverty in 100 years. All thanks to protectionism, subsidized living costs, low taxes and printing money to make up the difference.
And let's not forget fleecing the international community for money to rebuild the economy several times and then not paying it back.
It's gone from less than half of the population being in poverty to over 60% being in poverty since Milei has started implementing his austerity measures.
So it sounds like exactly the opposite of what you're claiming is happening.
But it's fine. People are starving but it's okay because austerity somehow is always a good thing and fuck those people, they were going to starve anyway. Probably.
You're not wrong. There's probably a better way to stabilize Argentina's currency which won't lead to as much suffering. But no one presented that better way.
Peronists have been doing the same things for decades and it led to 40% poverty. Milei ripped off the band-aid and it led to 60% poverty. But it probably paved the way for lower poverty in the future.
If you find a way to lower inflation (which helps everyone) and make the poorest people in society equally prosperous, I'm sure they'll give you a Nobel in Economics for it.
today Milei has a stable approval rating of 50 percent.
Apparently even some of those in poverty agree with his reforms.
I think people who only started paying attention to Argentina since he got elected should review the past few decades of history.
Im also not saying he's great but he is at least making some needed reform. We'll see if it continues. He definitely has an attitude and zeal that could push it too far but at this point it has helped.
Yeah...and they'd keep dying even if you did what they were still doing only it'd be worse for so much longer.
I usually like your takes but you're just saying "children dying=bad."
Everyone knows that. But you also have to accept that there will be short term pain for a longer term gain. If you disagree then I'd like to hear solutions that you have to fix it without this. I mean- with these fixes an IMF loan is back on the table that could help alleviate some poverty potentially, etc. Economists are not the end all be all but again, the data is trending in the right direction despite the pain it takes to get back to good. There is no magic fix for decades of neglect here.
And who said he is good? I don't personally like the guy for a bunch of his takes. But if this particular bit of policy is righting the ship then it should be lauded despite his personality or other flaws. And even then that is quite a...not sure how to phrase this politely, "lame" take that every libertarian ever doesn't care about people's suffering. I've read personal writings of his and it seems he believes that people are better off when they can provide for themselves without the state doing it for them. Now, I personally think that is bollocks but given where Argentina is with their massive government and massive debt he has far more room to have that attitude and push his ideas before they go too far. But again- if it's just his personal beliefs it doesn't mean that "does not give a shit about people suffering"- it's that he believes they won't once the state gets out of their way.
There certainly is room for nuance, but all I am hearing is that Milei's libertarian policies that cause far, far more suffering were the only option. And that's utter bullshit. It just pays lip service to libertarians who could not give less of a shit about human suffering. Why are you all defending this asshole populist just because he found the cruelest possible way to get inflation down? Hitler revitalized the German economy too.