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.
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.
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.
And in other news: Argentina’s poverty rate jumped from almost 42% to 53% during the first six months of Javier Milei’s presidency (https://apnews.com/article/argentina-milei-budget-congress-economy-inflation-c83178217097093d476fab94429768a4)
Appeasing the market needs humans sacrifice! Once the rich get their fill, the poor will… anyway who cares about the poor.
Yes, because of austerity. You have to sacrifice spending somewhere to cool the economy and reduce the deficit.
The other way to go about it is to jack up interest rates sky-high, but that doesn’t fix the deficit.
You’re defending increasing the poverty rate because of a budget deficit. Are you aware that you’re trying to justify human suffering?
How well do you think the population would fare if the government goes bankrupt?
Are you honestly suggesting that Milei’s solution to that is the only possible solution? Libertarian austerity or nothing?
You honestly believe high inflation is better for poor people?
I honestly believe poverty has risen from just above 40% to around 60% since Milei started his austerity measures.
People are dying.
Repeated your unsourced claim that people are dying does not make it true, and nice dodging the question.
Of course people are dying when 60% of the people are in poverty. Do you not understand what poverty is? It literally kills people.
But if you want a source, here you go: https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/life-expectancy-and-child-mortality-how-it-impacts-rising-poverty.phtml
Now please do justify the child mortality that libertarianism is causing.
53% is not “around 60”. Moreover,
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.
https://apnews.com/article/argentina-poverty-levels-uca-study-milei-devaluation-d5cb0a20b1e768efdeafbad5bf05eded
If it’s dropped down to 53%? Great. Children are still fucking dying.
And no, he’s not great, he’s a libertarian who doesn’t give a shit about people suffering. Because he’s a libertarian.
I mean, that is how the libertarians argue since time immemorial, isn’t it? “Cut the welfare state or the EcOnOMy never improves”
Because 200% inflation was so great
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.
https://www.worlddata.info/america/argentina/inflation-rates.php
Less poverty but more inflation sounds better to me than more poverty but less inflation.
Why is more poverty better?
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.
Lowering inflation when it’s too high is always a question of short term pain for some people to get long term benefits for most people.
Just as long as YOU aren’t the one who is chosen to be unemployed and homeless right?
It’s always acceptable for others to make these sacrifices of course.
Most people are in poverty. 60%. “You’ll do better in the long term” is not very accurate when people are starving to death.
This is the most ridiculous attempt to defend something that is causing suffering on a scale of millions that I have seen in a long time.
It’s okay because he is on the side of the empire
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.
6 months is negligible but a year is proof of success?
Ok keep licking that boot
I’m just not hypocritical.
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.