81
Javier Milei’s first year: $3 billion surplus and tenfold lower inflation in 2024
(www.financial-world.org)
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
81 points (77.9% liked)
News
23627 readers
2559 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
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.
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.
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?
I mean, that is how the libertarians argue since time immemorial, isn't it? "Cut the welfare state or the EcOnOMy never improves"
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.
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.
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.
Seriously man- there is room for nuance here.
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.
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.
I will, right after you answer how uncontrolled inflation helps poor people.
Why are the only two options uncontrolled inflation and libertarian austerity?
Nice straw man. I never made that claim. I simply asked you to explain why you think inflation is better for the poor than the current situation, which you have clearly expressed you do.
Because in the current situation, people are getting poorer and children are dying more.
So clearly it was better before Milei started his libertarian shit.
Less dead children equals better. I'm not sure why you're suggesting otherwise.
Milei's libertarianism, which is what I have been criticizing this whole time, is killing people.
I showed you evidence of that and you're just pretending I never did now, which is quite dishonest. Especially after you criticized me for not providing any.
Are you going to start discussing in good faith or should we just end this? You could start by acknowledging what I said about more children dying now than before when inflation was higher. Then you can justify that.
From the article you linked
Do you understand what a forecast is?
Your claim is unsubstantiated but plausible.
There is as yet no evidence of increased child mortality (yet) and seeking to paint those you disagree with as child killing monsters and ignoring the longer term benefits of a stronger economy, reduced poverty and by your own claims, reduced child mortality is naive at best.
Long term fixing the Argentinian economy would result in better quality of life and reduced child mortality.
Allowing high inflation to continue would prevent that progress and long term result in more dead children.
Okay, you're clearly not here in good faith.
The article literally says it has increased. So yes there has been an increase. They just don't have newer figures because the government isn't collecting them any more. Why do you think that is?
More children are dying now than before. That's not a forecast, the article states that very clearly.
I understand that you really like libertarianism and that you don't want kids to die. Libertarianism is causing kids to die. That's just reality. You didn't even accept the realty- the reality all over the world- that increased poverty leads to increased death. Again, that's just simple reality. The more impoverished people there are, the more early deaths. Especially children.
I don't think there's any point in continuing when you're denying reality.