What's incredible is not Milei winning, but how the government party thought it was a good idea that the Minister of Economy who's running the country on 140% inflation and a 40% poverty level would be a great candidate for the presidency. "Vote for me! I will do the same things that got us here!"
What's really incredible is Milei's big objection was extreme fiscal irresponsibility, so the incumbent decided to try to bride the country by handing out extra pension money and a temporary tax cut right before the election.
It world for the past few decades (just do the same). In some provinces of Argentina more than 50% of people are on govt payroll, so yeah they want to keep their jobs.
Well, Massa is 44%. In the Argentinian current culture there were different values that people think about. For example, the corruption of the current government is incredible yet for some people it does not matter.
Milei is pledging economic shock therapy. His plans include shutting the central bank, ditching the peso, and slashing spending, potentially painful reforms that resonated with voters angry at the economic malaise.
Sounds fun and unrealistic - for sure to lead to more of the same.
What else can leaders do? Take your medicine for 10 years and then things will be alright is never going to work out politically. All the things Argentina needs to do suck in the short term; stop taking giant loans, stop printing money, stop overly generous government programs, stop protectionism.
You say taking your medicine will never work, but it has worked at least in some places. India was in an economic crisis in 1991 and needed an IMF bailout. That bailout was made under the condition that they “took their medicine”. They did, fundamentally changing their approach to everything related to the economy. And it worked. India has done pretty well since 1991.
I agree that many countries never fall out of the cycle of lurching from bailout to bailout, never implementing the needed reforms because they’re too painful. Pakistan, Egypt, Argentina and others, that’s the norm for countries in IMF programs. But there are success stories too.
The problem is that the current govt wasn't taking its medicine. It continued spending more, subsidizing everything and supressing the exchange rates ARS-USD.
I'm from Argentina, and I didn't want either of the final options, but I knew that choosing the continuity of the current govt would bring us closer and closer to what's happening in Venezuela
Let's see what happens. The big issue is government spending which causes the printing of more money which leads to inflation. Changing to the dollar will help but it's going to lead to many government programs ending and a lot of misery for many in the lower rung of the economy. It sounds like a good fix but eventually, we'll see people demonstrating against the government and asking for change. That will be the real test to see if they can really follow the reforms they voted for today. I suspect we'll be seeing a back tract to the same. I wish them luck.
I fail to see how that would work. Argentina doesn't have a lot of US$ reserves. In order to have currency circulating, they're going to have to get a lot more. How? By purchasing it with AR Pesos? But they won't have those either without a central bank.
Pegging goods directly to the dollar will help with inflation. People will earn relative to the dollar and price goods relative to the dollar not the peso so people will see the prices go up at a slower pace. Inflation is partly due to the anticipation of prices going up. It's a psychological fix. As time continues more dollars will get into the economy and the move to dollar will may be possible. It's a longer term solution. Also the central bank won't go away tomorrow if ever. The man is a president not a dictator so he still needs to deal with the rest of the government to get things done. He may want to get rid of the central bank but I doubt everyone will go with his ideas. It's only a possibility not a definite.
People think he will do all the changes on day one but it's going to be years if ever.
How is trying something else sure to lead to the same? Possible it works out, no? Even if small chance. You never know, there's some individuals if empowered can do good things. Let's hope someone in his circle is capable of doing good and is empowered to do so.
>How is trying something else sure to lead to the same?
Because that's kind of how Latin America has worked for decades. Pivot from shock therapy Chigago school free marketeer to the other end of the spectrum and back again, usually because leaders are either eccentric, strongmen or plain crazy and radical reforms start to cause social upheaval.
What would be an actual change would be just putting a competent, moderate administrator in charge.
Getting off the peso means a huge loan to buy all the existing money to get it on USD. It'll be real interesting to see if it can happen. Argentina has and can be great. I wish them luck.
Argentina is effectively on the USD anyway. The peso has lost so much value that people quote prices in dollars for real estate and other large items, and convert dollars every day to pesos to buy ordinary things, but not from the official channels because they do not give you a market rate.
I wonder if dollarization will be an improvement just from the less bureaucracy and need to get around the government to do things as they are already done.
Yes, that's one way. The other is to price everything in both dollars and pesos and accept both. Eventually, the dollar will dominate and they can work towards the complete change. It's also something they can do very quickly and it's less shocking to the economy.
I doubt they can come up with enough dollars in one shot to switch over all at once so that's unlikely.
Would they need to do it all at once like this? How have other countries that have officially dollarized handled the transition, if there are any major ones?
The entirety of the European Union changed their national currencies to a new one, from scratch (no prior partial euroization), essentially overnight, in 2002. It’s definitely doable, if properly planned.
Ecuador and El Salvador both use the US Dollar as their official currency. It isn’t as if there is a lack of precedence when it comes to ditching your own currency for something more stable.
There was a dirty war between 'guerrilleros' (leftists revolutionaries) and the military and a lot of innocent people were killed as a result of both sides. She asked people to stop pretending that the revolutionaries were saints and that these victims' human rights should also be recognized.
She has never made any claim like 'being in favour of state murdering people' or 'thinking the state didn't commit crimes against humanity'.
Eh, he knows his stuff. You don't have to like or agree with him to appreciate his insights on the political economy and international monetary systems.
It's like if Dave Cutler starts a blog series on OS dev. Most HN users are Unix users but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be gained from reading the thoughts of somebody at the top of their field.
There are thousands of economists who know their stuff, probably even more than Varoufakis, who spent the last decade doing a lot more politics not economics. (And that might be a lot more important for navigating the situation in Argentina, but then that just means there are likely even better candidates who know more about Argentina than Varoufakis.)
Ditching those who drove the country into the ground might be an even better idea.
He said he was planning to pay himself zero as president and that he may apply the same rate to many career politicians (often from second generation btw: being, like monarchs, heir of politicians). Now that I'd like to see.
Do their salaries matter? Presumably they make all their money from bribes.
A better approach is to give everyone a giant raise, but make it clear they will be first against the wall if they or any of their relatives accepts any additional payments or gifts.
Honestly, if shuttering the central bank and dollarizing the economy were his only plans I'd actually think it sounds reasonable. I'm pretty leftist but Argentina has pretty well proven they'd be better-off without managing their own currency.
The problem is that the man is absolutely batcrap in every way imaginable. He's climate-change-denying, hateful, constantly insults and threatens progressives with ludicrous insults like "libtards", considers sex-ed to be "brainwashing", etc. It's like if a country had elected Tucker Carlson for president.
Finally someone in this whole HN post saying _true_ negative things about Milei. I also consider myself left leaning. And yes, Milei said he doesn't believe in global warming and he was insulting people on the left a huge load. After he won, he invited everyone, no matter which side, to work together to make Argentina better (great again :D). I'd give him a benefit of the doubt. If he proposes something, and that makes sense, I'd be supportive of the proposal. Unfortunately, what I'm most afraid of, is the people who will be against anything he proposes, only because it was him who proposed it.
"For sure to lead to more of the same"? It seems to me more likely to lead to something different. It may still be terrible, but it might be terrible in a different way.
Or he could turn out to be one more tin-pot dictator. Or he could turn out to create a disaster, and that disaster could set the stage for the next tin-pot dictator. But for a moment, I think it will be different rather than just "more of the same".
Disclaimer: I don't live in Argentina. This is just my opinion.
This has the potential to be extremely transformative for Argentina. The country struggled for decades with rampant inflation and incompetent leadership. Dollarizing the economy will offer the potential for Argentina to return to growth and offer a quality standard of living to tens of millions of Argentineans.
For reference - I was in Argentina earlier this year. The exchange rate was 400:1, relative to the dollar. Now each dollar is worth ~1000 pesos, after only a few months. A 30+ minute Uber was the equivalent of under 3 dollars.
Javier Milei has close to 0 representation in any level of government apart from the executive: can you please explain how he is going to get literally anything done, let alone “offer a quality standard of living to tens of millions of Argentineans” ?
Use the bully pulpit and massive propaganda resources of the government to hammer his opposition. Use the levers of executive power to find ways to implement his agenda without the legislator, just as Biden does in the US with split congress. And finally caucus with the conservative parties who openly backed him.
His mandate is about the economy. Not social issues. He may rant about sex ed and libtards and all that, but everybody knows he was elected to fix hyperinflation. He and the more centrist parts of the government may be able compromise and come up with solutions for that.
> the levers of executive power
This is what I worry about. I don't know much about division of powers in AR, but anything he can do unilaterally will likely be batcrap like sabre-rattling at "communist" trading partners.
I have bad news for you. They basically elected a right-wing shock-jock President. This is like if Americans elected Tucker Carlson. I mean, I get that Argentina couldn't survive another Peronist, but this is not better.
The final outcome could be okay if dollarization happens - I do agree with economists that dollarization would probably be good for AR... the rest of his other "platform" planks aren't so rosy, and MAGA extremists aren't known for restricting their scope.
This guy will either set Argentina on the right path towards a stable, successful economy or wreck what’s left of it with his policies…seems it’s a bet voters were willing to make, unsurprising after years of mismanagement, corruption, and tomfoolery by the political class.
It's always funny when the people of a democratic country get into trouble by electing bad people, then suddenly decide to fix everything by electing the very worst person they can find.
People knock intellectuals because they don't give straight answers and say things are complicated. So they elect the first idiot that offers them an easy, feel-good solution to problems despite how dubious those solutions are.
I guess if your population gets cynical and apathetic enough, democracy becomes a means of entertainment rather than governance.
Curiously, one of the things many people criticize about Milei is that he explains the situation of the economy and its solutions in a way that many people don't understand because he's too technical about it
Maybe read a little bit more before commenting? Milei is, yes on one side a lunatic, but on the other side he definitely is talking complicated things and offering solutions that are usually difficult to comprehend for the average Joe.
Despite inflation I would say Argentinians still have a relatively high quality of living compared to most other countries in the region. The reason for this is that the state is still capable of providing decent services to people.
Argentinians have decent schools and universities (compared to other countries in the region), the capital has a decent transportation system, they have free healthcare, etc. All of these things are keeping a country that's falling apart still somewhat together and Milei has openly said he's going to do away with all of these.
How is that going to improve the situation in Argentina? I'm not sure slashing public education and healthcare is good for the country. People are extremely poor, what are they going to do when they can no longer afford medical care, just die?
Argentina definitely needs to become more fiscally responsible, but if anything, this shouldn't mean getting rid of their free healthcare and education; that's a difficult equation to put together for sure. But that's why they need responsible leaders capable of truly discerning what matters from what doesn't. I believe Milei is just going to plunge Argentina further into chaos.
> How is that going to improve the situation in Argentina? I'm not sure slashing public education and healthcare is good for the country. People are extremely poor, what are they going to do when they can no longer afford medical care, just die?
It's not clear that Argentina can afford the kind of social services you're talking about. Liberalization will be painful but then things will get better.
If all goes well, perhaps in the future we'll be able to compare this transition to Chile under Pinochet, minus a bloody coup and associated political repression. Or maybe Milei will drop the ball.
Funny you mention Chile, considering it had a huge social uprising in 2019 that was precisely a consequence of the political and economic measures that have been left as Pinochet's legacy.
A lot of the policies we implement today won't bloom until 10, 20 years in the future. If you make education worse today; you won't notice tomorrow. You'll start noticing in a generation.
And a big part of Chile's "economic miracle" can be traced to China's development (as China is actually Chile's biggest economic partner) [1]. Chile is now a days fully trapped with an economy that does nothing but extract resources without any kind of development at all. The so called middle-income trap. And this is generating huge friction in the country. If it all goes well, I don't hope for Argentina to become more like Chile; as I believe Chile is on a downward spiral (much like most of the rest of the region). What they should be looking at are economic models similar to what's happening in Asia.
Chile is not a good example to follow.
Also, do people not know who Milei is? He's openly in favor of organ-selling and also considers the selling of children a possibility. He literally has a medium on hire that he uses to communicate with his deceased dog (whom he has cloned) and believes that his sister is the literal Messiah. This is *not* someone you would want running any country. He's clinically insane and I'm not exaggerating.
> Liberalization will be painful but then things will get better.
Has this ever worked anywhere to take an empoverished country out of their miserable situation?
Also, this completely ignores the context of the region. South American history is littered with examples of politicians that promised easy solutions to deep, complex issues.
Argentina has generally higher income and better standards of living than China during the 80s, India and Bangladesh later on. It cannot follow the same path of industrialization based off extremely cheap labor, nor it has the population to pull that trick.
And I really hope you are not using Chile under Pinochet as a good example of anything.
Wikipedia says Argentina is currently 47th on the HDI scale and 66th on the GDP (PPP) Per Capita. Failed currency or not it can get a lot worse. Not saying it will or will not, just that objectively Argentina isn't that bad even with the semi-permanent crisis.
Slicing the state to zero and instating hard right social policies is not going to fix anything. Argentina needs a steady hand at the wheel, not this nut job.
Slicing the state to zero would definitely decrease inflation, but at tremendous cost to citizen wellbeing. It is not like print so much money that groceries cost more in the evening than they did in the morning is working out well for the people either.
Who said slicing the state to zero? Why do you have to go to the extremes? Yes, Milei said he'll cut down on the number of ministries (currently 18) to 8. So how is that zero?
> Slicing the state to zero would definitely decrease inflation
Slicing the state to zero as part of the shock therapy economics did not stop inflation nor it helped recesdion in Eastern European ex-Soviet countries in 1990s.
When you swear on national TV and insult people, you're immediately a far right fascist. Very easy to become far right fascist these days with people who have no clue what the difference is between being far right and being libertarian.
So happy for him. If they're using the dollar massively on the black market, why not tether? Having said that, he has so little support in parliament its hard to tell what he'll get through.
Sometimes I wonder about why some populist candidates seem to have so much more trouble electing people to parliament than themselves to the presidency.
Javier Milei is an outlier. He built its presidency in a few years and with orders of magnitude less financing that the current official government. This is not an endorsement for Milei but a recognition of an unique phenomenon.
Beyond the well known Austrian school of economics there are Argentinian referents as
Juan Bautista Alberdi [1]
Sure but even then, what goes in the head of someone voting for the "take a wrecking ball to the establishment" candidate and then votes for a traditional party candidate for parliament? Why can't those populists point out they will need the legislative to actually do much?
They are talking to a woman that's about to go into a public bus, she says "I can't live without the transportation subsidy, I would literally not be able to afford the commute and I need to commute to go to work. It's essential to me" so the interviewer asks her who she's voting for then she says "Milei. I'm voting Milei".
Funny thing is, one of the promises of Milei was precisely to take away the transportation subsidy. And it's not something that people weren't aware of. Of course, everyone knew.
What goes on in the head of someone that clearly relies on a government program and has decided to vote for a politician that will take that away?
I think, obviously, asking what goes on in the head of voters is a silly question. You're presupposing that voters are rational and logical, and they're not. Representative elections are all about feelings, not thoughts. People are voting for the outsider candidate because they're sick of the same politicians doing the same things that always lead to nothing. But hey, turns out voting for the outside candidate is not going to make things better at all, in fact, it's just gonna make things worse and when this happens the opposite side will come back with their "we told you" message. Just for the cycle to repeat again.
So, I think you have the wrong framing. People are literally not thinking. But obviously our political system only works if people "think". It's a systemic failure, voting for representatives this way just doesn't work. It doesn't work in Argentina, it doesn't work in France, it doesn't work in the US. Our representative democracies are collapsing, and it's not going to get better.
>What goes on in the head of someone that clearly relies on a government program and has decided to vote for a politician that will take that away?
You may see "I'm voting against my own interests" but I see the flipside of that woman with the bus subsidy:
"Our money is so worthless and our economy so terrible, the government has to intervene even in bus fare just to keep things going".
What point are you trying to make? That is good that people need to rely on a transportation subsidy, a food subsidy, a housing subsidy and if they vote against more subsidies they are voting against their interest. Maybe people aren't ok where thinking like that lead to.
What point are you trying to make? This person was literally telling the journalist how she NEEDS this subsidies to be able to live; what's she going to do when it goes away? Do you think she will magically become able to pay for the commute?
Argentina has a lot of problems, of course it does, but if people need help it's not because they're "living off the state" it's because even with the jobs they have they don't have enough to live. This is very much a different set of problems that's unrelated to subsidies to healthcare, education and public transportation. Of course there's a lot of unnecessary handouts in Argentina, for one, gasoline is way too cheap (for example). This money is effectively helping out the people that have the most money in the country (because the poor use the public transportation, they don't drive their own cars) and would be a good angle to start tackling the financial irresponsibility problem.
Do you think Milei will get rid of the subsidies to gas? Well, he's not mentioned it.
I'm not making an assumption here on what she might be thinking, I'm saying she is effectively voting against her own interests by her own words. If you look at reasons why people are voting for Milei it's not because "Argentina needs to stop having a strong-state", it's because people are sick of the politicians that are offered by "the other side". They don't want traditional politicians from any side, and at this point, Milei is the one that presented himself as an alternative. It might very well be an extreme-leftist that rises to power; it just so happens that right now it's the right wing and the libertarians that have a much better understanding of these "outsider" dynamics; a lot of it spear-headed by Trump in 2016 and then Bolsonaro in 2019.
But I'm not going to be surprised when we start the actual extreme left raising up in a few years because it'll be the exact same phenomenon just with another sign.
The subsidies are band aids over festering band aids over other festering band aids. Time to pull off all the band-aids and clean the wound so it can heal. It will be painful but at least you won't get sepsis and die.
Really? I get that if he can pull off dollarization that may be good news for Argentina, but the man is a complete maniac. This is like if Americans elected Tucker Carlson. The man is a complete wingnut.
...he has so little support in parliament its hard to tell what he'll get through.
From now to next midterm parliament elections he'll need to play his cards carefully, negotiating with the other right-wing coalition and even then, he'll be short of some votes. Also the left is going to set the streets on fire.
But if he can show some progress in these first two years...
This is going to be a fascinating experiment to watch. I wouldn't wish to be an Argentinian now, because even if turns out to be amazing this is going to leave a lot of people out. Anyone who had it good due to idealogical reasons will see drastic reduction in life quality and prospects.
I have been through two big transformations(communism->capitalism in the 90s, secular totalitarianism->islamist totalitarianism in the 2000s), I have no doubt that many people will not be able to function in the new system. The young may see better outcomes if the new governance succeedes overall.
Good luck. Never been to Argentina, but I always heard that they are poor but the life is good for all non-monetary stuff that matters. I hope they don't loose that.
Not the same country, but Bulgaria in the 90s and Turkey in the 2000s. I suspect that my parents are crisis chasers. :)
It's fun to notice similarities from the past. Did you know that when your economy collapses, the quality of ketchup nosedives and you end up with ketchup having strange color and wrong texture?
But there are of course so many differences too, the first 10 years of Turkey's transformation were mostly for the better. The later 10 so far are 90's Bulgaria level.
Public buses begin to break down, you start to see some clunkers brought back to service.
Shopping malls get less maintenance, supermarkets start turning off the air conditioning.
You start seeing some new products with clear packaging, almost as if they were packaged in a small room with no access to industrial packaging.
Generally that kind of stuff, not very surprising. The ketchup was surprising, wasn’t expecting to see an item from my childhood.
Turkey has some strong advantages over Bulgaria(there’s no change in the how economy works, it was just mismanaged), so it’s not that bad in the terms of impact on daily life but it’s still interesting to recognize patterns.
The most unfortunate one is the rise of organized crime. Bulgaria was a center of international crime rings throughout the 90’s. Turkey is currently in the same spot. There were many murders of mob bosses, just like in 90’s Bulgaria the organized crime leaders kill each other.
The impact of the organized crimes on daily life is that some sectors are taken over by gangs and some people who used to be nobodies become very rich and they show it. In response to that, the youngsters lose fate in education and they try to pursue similar path to become rich.
In the recent few months the new interior minister is conducting police raids on gangs, so maybe things can change.
Haven't seen any communist places go to an anarcho capitalist system, so your comparisons don't say much. The mere fact that Milei won makes me want to find out if I can move to Argentina!
Our Constitution says that everyone in our country has the same rights as an Argentine, even if they are not. So you can get a national ID pretty easily, and in two years (which can take more time if you are living in Buenos Aires City, due to bureaucracy) you can become an Argentine. You must know too that it's impossible to lose the Argentine Nationality. Once an Argentine, never not-an-Argentine.
We are a country that's very open towards immigrants, as most of us are descendants of immigrants, mostly from Italy and Spain.
It's not really about what's the new system. It's more about the change itself.
Governments usually have priorities and policies that artificially make something valuable - for example rocket scientists. That's why with the collapse of USSR suddenly the very well educated engineers and scientists had to become taxi drivers and this caused huge social issues. It was so widespread that it become a stereotype in the west. Of course it's not just the rocket scientists but pretty much anyone employed or their sector protected by the government.
Because those people don't know how to operate in the new system, they will fail miserably. Another example could be An archeologist who was able to climb their career through their academic success will finding out that archaeology doesn't have much market value and their lives will be ruined. For decades no one smart will want to do this and they will lose a lot of cultural and historical heritage will be eroded by corrupt people who find a market value in it but have no knowledge in the matter or ethics.
It's a stereotype for Eastern European women becoming prostitutes in the West. Apparently Javier Milei promised to legalise selling organs, so it is possible that the Argentinian stereotype be people with missing organs. This happens because sometimes people are desperate and sometimes because they lose fate in their future and want the quick buck.
System changes are extremely stressful and can create huge social issues that can last for generations.
I think the change is very much reflected from the system being changed to. Javier Milei has not been shy to say that he intends to slash millions of government jobs, but with the important note, that people will move freely before then because of better offers from the private sector. Now you can't say that about the other revolutions we've seen, because that was just a change of hands on power, not a dissolution of it. Even so, I'm ecstatic that Argentina might show this is possible. Hopefully as a great inspiration to others! There will be many fighting against it, but I'm an optimist, and I'm certian people exposed to real freedom can and will adapt.
It's going to be interesting and will definitely bring opportunities to many. It's also going to be interesting to see the market value of the millions of government employees.
What do you think will happen if significant number of government employees can't find jobs nearly as good as those they used to have? What do you think it will happen to people who are 40+ years old, having school age kids and they know one job that no longer exists?
Definitely! And yes, it will be a stark awakening for many. Many who for years have made their income, not by productive means, but by political means. The amount of people that can rise out of poverty instead will outnumber them easily, and so, the rest will adapt in the end. The 40+ year old with children were already hurting. They will hurt less.
The system favouring certain sectors and millions building their career for these sectors is not the same as being employed by political means and being unproductive.
All the Russian engineers who become unemployed with the collapse of USSR were not leeches, they build some of the greatest machine mankind ever build and the scientists made huge contributions only to become taxi drivers. Those who can suck up the system will be able to suck it. No matter how libertarian, they will find out that infrastructure doesn't spontaneously occur in nature and there will be huge government spendings and the leeches will leech those.
I've been through this twice, I don't have faith in revolutions. If they actually manage to the things they say will do and govern properly and have sane government, it will take decades before it stabilises for the society. This is because people live around 80 years and they have different abilities and different capacities to adapt at different ages. It's very fundamental to human nature.
Well it of course depends on - if those sectors were massively propped up by goverment. That was most certainly the case for the engineers in USSR you mention, but even so - had there not been state conflict, and more open opportunities for foreign investment, how are we to say they couldn't have fared much better? We should catch up in 10 years and do a rain check on this ;)
> Milei rejected the use of the far-right label to describe his views, and said: "I'm a liberal and libertarian, these positions are things of the left, because for the left, everything that is not on their side is on the right."
Regardless of how one feels about Milei, I think this is a pretty understandable perspective.
His vicepresident has strong ties to the military (specifically to the sectors that made the last coup in the 70s). He has publicly opposed abortion rights, same-sex marriage, feminism in general, publicly denies climate change, is against gun control, and a large etc...
He is not only economically but also socially on the far right of the polítical spectrum here.
This is all I can find about his views on same-sex marriage. It seems to contradict what you're saying. He says he doesn't care.
“Si vos querés estar con un elefante... Si tenés el consentimiento del elefante, es tu problema y del elefante. No me opongo a que dos personas del mismo sexo se casen”, remarcó. Y sumó: “Para mí, el matrimonio es un contrato. Puede ser de dos partes, tres partes o 50 si uno quiere”.
My translation:
"If you want to be with an elephant... If you have the elephant's consent, it's your problem and the elephant's. I'm not opposed to two people of the same sex marrying," he remarked. And, he added, "For me, marriage is a contract. It can be between two parties, three parties, or fifty if one wants."
Edit: Another quote from the article:
“Es un contrato entre partes. ¿Qué tengo que opinar yo? Vos casate con quien quieras. El liberalismo es el respeto irrestricto del proyecto de vida del prójimo basado en el principio de no agresión y en defensa del derecho a la vida, la libertad y la propiedad. ¿En qué me agrede a mi que dos personas del mismo sexo se casen? En nada, punto uno afuera. ¿Afecta la vida de alguien? A nadie. ¿En la libertad? A nadie ¿En la propiedad? a nadie”.
It's a contract between parties. What do I think? Marry whoever you want. Liberalism is unconditional respect of the life plan of our fellow man based on the principle of non-aggression and in defense of the right to life, liberty, and property. What harm does it do to me that two people of the same sex marry? Nothing. Does it affect someone's life? No one's. Their libery? No one's. Their property? No one's.
Yeah, he seems really blunt, crass, and insensitive.
His vice says she's against calling it marriage, which does seem homophobic, but she says she's not bothered by the rights afforded by civil unions. This isn't the worst thing; she's not going campaigning against the right of gays to have their marriages/civil unions recognized by the government, at least.
Civil union is a legal figure (approved in 2002) that grants less rights than marriage. Same sex marriage was legalised in 2010. What she is proposing is taking a step backwards in terms of rights.
One doesn't have to personally like or agree with the choices of others. Being libertarian is about respecting another person's personal choices despite not liking them.
No. What you say is a caricature of him. I listened to him directly. In spanish. I am spanish.
He never opposed to same sex marriage or denied climate change. What he said is that people treat climate change as religion without any other considerations.
A libertarian is not far right. You could consider it right, but far right is just absurd. A libertarian cannot be anti-liberal in essence. Milei never defended positions of force against others and promotes respect for life, private life (he does not care who you go to the bed with or who you trade with) and private property.
Anyone who knows ehat far right is knows perfectly this is not a far right position at all.
I hope you are right, but it's a bit silly to try to claim that there's a caricature and there's a perfectly cromulent man behind it, when his whole political persona is the former.
He does not like leftists ideas (most, not absolutely all) and he is not politically correct all the time when speaking and I donot mean he is right about doing this. Just oart of his personality. Can be harmful for him, yes, but that's him.
If you listened carefully what he defends and under which principles and framework, you will quikcly understand he is a libertarian. That is not "far right". It is something entirely different.
Almost everything he said that looks bad when heard isolated is usually manipulated by lack of context to poject a different idea of what he is saying or defending.
Not sure if translatiins for full interviews of what he says exist. But just listen to the interview with Tucker Carlson, that one is translated and can give you an idea of what he defends that is quite accurate.
hard to listen carefully when someone is shouting at you and lunging with a chainsaw :)
I'm not saying he is the next Pol Pot, but I'm trying to point out there's not much sense in pontificating over what a populist candidate thinks/plans.
Trump was a registered Democrat until he wasn't, etc.
He has little to do with Trump except for being more or less anti-left (not in a totally orthodox way though)
I would recommend you to see the interview with Tucker Carlson for a less distorted view of his thinking and proposals.
He has nothing to do with far right. He is a libertarian, an anti-statist (the opposite of an antiliberal, no matter left or right wing in this case, hence, labelling hime as "far right" is just absurd).
If you want to keep his caricature in your mind I am ok with it. But I have been following him for years. And I do not need english translation or middle-man interpretations at all. I saw it myself.
Yes, sometimes he used to raise his voice (lately less). But compared to promoting policies where inflation reaches 150% or smashing people with taxes, Milei is a much better alternative.
BTW, technically speaking, as an economist, he has a very solid background and has worked for many years in the private sector. For me, those are good things, not bad.
I understand some people do not like Milei, but that nonsense about zoophilia, far right or similar things just look for insulting him so that people make a caricature out of him.
I find him a solid candidate. Let us see when he starts governing. Only time will tell.
He goes on a populist far-right propagandist's show but somehow that will lead to a less distorted view?
Look, I have nothing against Milei (because I haven't even set foot on that side of the Atlantic), nor against libertarianism (I agree we should strive to approximate it), or crypto, or being irreverent (which might be a moot point in Argentina and nowadays).
I really hope he can stay true to the ideas we think he has, but I have serious doubts after seeing this rhetoric again and again all over the world and taking into account how bad the situation is in Argentina (and all over the world).
I know nothing about allegations of zoophilia, and of course any such extreme allegation without similarly hefty evidence are just ridiculous. I think he deserves a fair chance, despite his abrasiveness and methods, but that doesn't absolve him of these.
Saying you won’t watch an interview because you dislike the host, when the subject is about the interviewee, shows a strong tendency to police thought and ignore anything that contradicts your prior beliefs.
I do try to police my attention ... you know, in this economy, who has spare of that!
If I can I try to not watch content from propagandists, populists, self-professed leftists/socialists/Marxists/anti-capitalists/eat-the-rich-ists/etc. it just doesn't make much sense.
No, he does not. Listen to the interview with Tucker Carlson. It is there. It is well exposed. He does not shout in that interview.
With all his defects and given the argentinian situation, I honestly think he was the right choice. I say this from a confidence point of view. We have to see what he really ends up doing and only time will tell. At that time we will know.
I am a supporter of Bukele as well. He is not supposed to be anywhere near the right. But... he had good results so far. That is what I wish to countries: peace, progress, results.
First off, let's preface this by going over the etymology of the words "liberal" and "libertarian". Both words stem from the word liberty, which means freedom, and within the context of politics the freedom of not being burdened by authoritarian regimes and policies.
So with that out of the way, let's break down your references one by one:
>His vicepresident has strong ties to the military
This has nothing to do with liberty or even politics, this is about power. Both the left and the right want the military on their side, lest they suffer a military coup and lose power.
>opposed abortion rights
On the opposing hand it's the freedom for a newborn fetus to a prospective life, and on the supporting hand it's the freedom for a mother to do with her body as she pleases. Either way, abortion rights is a question of who's freedoms are being guaranteed and thus liberal/libertarian in nature.
>[opposed] same-sex marriage
This is squarely authoritarian and is in opposition to liberal and libertarian politics.
EDIT: It would appear this claim was made in ignorance or bad faith, so I'm striking this part out.
>[opposed] feminism in general
Assuming that "feminism" here actually refers to the phenomenon and movement of certain people wanting women to be more equal (read: more powerful) than men, this is guaranteeing the freedoms of the individual regardless of their gender and thus their equality.
>publicly denies climate change
Imposing policies based off nebulous scientific models of questionable accuracy and encouraged by pundits of questionable motivations is authoritarian.
>is against gun control
Guaranteeing the people's freedom and right to bear arms by opposing top-down regulations and policies is squarely liberal and libertarian.
>and a large government
See above.
>He is not only economically but also socially on the far right of the polítical spectrum here.
Seeing as Milei is in favor of liberal and libertarian policies, and seeing as the left likes calling themselves liberals, Milei is quite correct in saying that he's only considered "(far) right" by virtue of the left labeling everything they disagree with "(far) right".
Just to add something to this discussion - South America is fundamentally different from the US. The region has a long and terrible history of gang violence, political and military coups, drug cartels, etc and so forth.
The last thing it needs is more guns in circulation.
Yes, John Oliver is 100% pūteketeke nuts. Oh you mean the Idiocracy candidate? Well, he's probably a safer bet than the doddards and agro embarrassments the US has in office and to choose from at present. I vote New Zealand conquers North America and replaces quite a few not-so-great US elected officials with saner adult supervision by kiwis who aren't prone to fisticuffs, felonies, or hiding gold bars in clothing. The results of populist elections makes you consider sortition. And Socrates would be the first to vote for it.
It is a 3rd world pattern: countries with weak and ineffective institutions turn politics into a personality cult where authoritarian charismatic saviours with lunatic ideas are preferred to sensible and pragmatic policies.
You know these types: Jair Bolsonaro, Sivio Berlusconi, V. Orbán, R. Duterte, Hugo Chávez, Nayib Bukele, Daniel Ortega, Narendra Modi and ... yeah, the most famous one. I don't need to mention him.
Funny thing is that Argentina already experienced some of Milei's ideas before, under Menem, with disastrous results.
> Funny thing is that Argentina already experienced some of Milei's ideas before, under Menem, with disastrous results.
We don't know yet if he will have the same execution. What we know is that the current government is a populist one and has the record of reaching 50% of poverty.
Argentina is in South America but as Simon Kuznets [1] said "there are four types of countries in the world—developed, undeveloped, Japan and Argentina".
I am not saying this could not be the next disaster but that the other party also offers a disaster that we already know.
It is also interesting to note that local politics in South America are more linked to the world that citizens recognize while many intelectuals try to give a hyperlocal narrative.
Startup wise Argentina is very unique and even if companies at the end are generally incorporated in USA there are a myriad of well known companies that were ignored or attacked by the governments.
> countries with weak and ineffective institutions turn politics into a personality cult where authoritarian charismatic saviours with lunatic ideas are preferred to sensible and pragmatic policies.
Ehh, do you know about Cristina kirchner (current vp), Néstor kirchner? They’ve been ruling the country since 2003.
> sensible and pragmatic policies
Reduce public spending, reduce taxes is not a sensible and pragmatic policy?
> But the truth is that the US doesn't have an history of populist demagogues as rich as 3rd world countries. There is Trump and nothing as him before.
The US had a good economy for many decades, while 3rd world countries did not. This led to more desperation in those countries. In the last 1-2 decades, jobs have been shipped from the US to other countries due to globalization, leaving some people feeling left behind. The US now has the highest inequality since 100 years[1]. While not being part of that group, I understand the concerns of those who voted the way they did, as desperation is a strong motivator.
>But the truth is that the US doesn't have an history of populist demagogues as rich as 3rd world countries. There is Trump and nothing as him before.
George Washington, literally the first POTUS, was as populist as he could be. Likewise Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt; they are all on Mt. Rushmore because they were popular both at the time of their elections and during and after their tenures.
Benjamin Franklin was also popular with the people even though he never held a public office as prominent as POTUS; Franklin's political roles were much more subdued, such as his time as Postmaster-General or the ambassador to France.
populist doesn't mean popular. That you don't understand these political terms speaks well on the competence of Milei supporters. There is simultaneously left wing populism and right wing populism at the same time, yet not both can be a majority.
Left vs. right is the wrong way to view the world. It should freedom vs. authoritarianism. Argentinians had socialism for so long they actually elected a self-described anarcho capitalist! Incredible
1 dimensional, binary thinking is a myopic viewpoint a priori. There is much more gray, in numerous dimensions, including the degrees of wisdom and efficacy.
I think corruption muddles everything—you can have both left-wing (Argentina) and right-wing (Russia) governments that become increasingly less able to meet the needs of their citizens due to corruption; also, the patterns of corruption tend to endure through transitions in government.
You didn’t read my statement! Russia is authoritarian / the opposite of free. I don’t like the left / right axis. If you can’t call the leader of your country and asshole on TV then your country isn’t free.
I read your comment—I was agreeing with an aspect of what you wrote. But you said that we shouldn’t see things as left vs right, but then proceeded to equate “socialism” with “authoritarianism” which seemed like exactly the thing you were arguing against. There are many functional, non-authoritarian socialist countries. What do they have in common?
A country which ranks 12th on the economic freedom in the world. Calls it self capitalist welfare democracy is now an example of successful socialist country?
Sidenote anarcho-capitalism is not related to anarchism. If anything its on the most opossite spectrum. Where anarchism general goal is dissolving hiearchies/power/authority. Anarcho-capitalism goal is creating pure unrestricted capitalism system with single master hiearchy/power/authority - money.
If he is truly anarcho-capitalist he should be ok with people having abortions. As long they can pay for it.
In broad strokes the libertarian split on abortion comes down to the right of the unborn child vs. the right of the mother. A very rich vein of debate.
> Homosexuality is a personal choice and compares it to zoophilia
Where can I find a literal quote where he said that?
> In favor of gun ownership without governmental limitations
Not really. What he proposes is inside the law of Argentina. Read it carefully and understand he does not propose something the law does not allow. Just to put in oractice what is granted already in the law itself.
> Wants to freeze relationships with China, Russia, Brazil because they're communists
Not really. He wants from an institutional point of view but he made very clear citizens are free to do that and he has no problem with it. Which is not the same as forbiding trade and business with them. Careful bc it is not the same at all.
> "Si fuera por vos, suponete que querés estar con un elefante. Bueno, si tenés consentimiento del elefante es problema tuyo y del elefante", resumió Milei y, cuando el periodista le preguntó si tenía amigos gay, remarcó: "Yo no los califico en esos términos".
"If it were up to you, suppose you'd like to be in a relationship with an elephant. Well, if you had the elephant's consent then the matter is between you and the elephant's."
That is totally out of context and has nothing to do with zoophilia. He just means that whatever you do with whoever, and uses an elephant as an example, is your private problem. He is not promoting zoophilia at all.
You can find the example harsh, but this is how he talks.
I question his libertarian cred, he wants to pull out of trade deals, wants to cut back on immigration, is anti-abortion. He's one of those "libertarians".
He's also a crackpot who thinks he can talk to his dead dogs through a mystic and holds conspiracy theorist views on Covid and climate change. Just a nutter.
But I can't blame the Argentinian voter for wanting to kick out the leftists that brought them hyperinflation. Let this be a lesson to all the far-leftists who don't understand that printing money leads to the destruction of your country in more ways than one.
As a Chilean, I'm happy for our neighbors, but also somewhat cautious.
Leftist ideas have brought nothing more than misery to the Argentinian people.
Milei's ideas are much better on paper, but I don't know if he will select the right people to help him develop these ideas in a fruitful way, and I hope he has the character to withstand the political pressures that will come and still act like a president.
Keep in mind that the other guy is the current minister of economics, and Argentina has an anual inflation of 140%. Milei was clearly the better option between the two.
Some politicians starts wars to distract from domestic troubles. Hopefully, this one doesn't understand how government works and the people around the bastions of functional government limit the damage of incompetency.
People are scared of change. Particularly where those changes require mass acceptance of uncomfortable truths.
Intellectually it’s obvious that society has to come to a reckoning over our current way of life if we’re going to get a handle on existential threats like climate change and endemic disease.
Emotionally it’s appealing to hear someone say that those hard truths don’t actually exist, and even if they do exist they don’t matter.
Societies are reactionary by nature. Until avoidance hurts more than denial we’ll opt for the latter every time. Argentina is by no means the first place where voters picked the guy peddling emotional comfort over the other candidates. The US may very well head in the same navel-gazing direction soon.
> Argentina is by no means the first place where voters picked the guy peddling emotional comfort over the other candidates.
Have you seen the other candidate? Milei was the objective better of the 2, the other guy had been the de facto president over the past 18 months, inflation rose to 140%, poverty is over 40%, child poverty is over 60%.
It’s not emotional comfort, it’s a rational decision.
That he has an actual plan for the economy based on proven measures taken by other countries.
The things you are complaining about are a luxury to complain in Argentina.
For abortion he proposed a referendum, so that people decide, like Britain did with brexit.
Antivax, he was against the Russian vaccines that the government got through shady deals.
Climate denier I won’t deny it, but Argentina doesn’t really contribute to climate change like USA, China and India do, and honestly, it has more accruing issues right now to worry about.
You think 10% inflation a year increase is bad? Think about it being 10% a month. The country in en route for hyperinflation within months if drastic measures aren’t taken.
Oh yeah, I agree completely with everything you're saying. There but for the grace of God go I and all that.
I really hope this works out well for Argentina. Everyone deserves to live in a healthy and thriving society. I'd just have more confidence if the candidate's scientific views aligned with mine, but that's implicit. :)
The bad policies we implement today will not really be seen until years down the line.
Where is the UK heading? And how much of that is a consequence of Thatcher's policies.
What Argentina needs is responsible leaders, not really an austerity freak. They need to realign their economy and become more fiscally irresponsible without sacrificing everyone to the "Economy" like Aztecs would to the Sun god.
And, in any case, anyone that's familiar with Argentinian policies knows Milei is no Thatcher at all. He is a lunatic. He is crazy and his policies do reflect it. This libertarian wet dream is not the responsible fiscal needs that Argentina needs, and I'm sure we're going to be seeing that soon enough.
It's unclear to me what economic advice you're offering other than "we can have our cake and eat it". Fixing what's wrong with Argentina is going to hurt and there's no way around it.
A responsibly run country wouldn't have gotten to this point but even in the US, the fed makes decisions that make people's lives harder in the short term to make them better in the long term.
Sure it will yep. I'm pretty confident it won't be though.
I am half-Argentine and a student of history. Both things tell me it will be a disaster.
For what it's worth, I'm utterly opposed to the corrupt useless Peronists. Their centre right rivals are pretty awful too. Argentina was lead to the abyss by decades of political failure and corruption. Now, in desperation, they've rolled the dice and summoned a catastrophe.
By the looks of it, Argentinians didn't want to continue with the current system nor wanted the status quo offered by other parties. The elected president will either rock or bust.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it a lot, and it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
It’s not flame bait, it’s complaining that people look at other country politics like it’s the USA, when the situation in the local country differs substantially from what a regular American experiences.
A lot of people are making unsubstantive comments and flamebait, without the context that Argentina is in, with an economic situation that for the average American is unimaginable.
If you feel it’s flamebait, then I’m sorry for try to educate people about other countries they don’t have any idea about.
I know that users do that, and they shouldn't, but your post was certainly flamebait, as well as personal, as well as an internet trope ("tell me without telling me"), and the site guidelines ask you to avoid all of that.
It's certainly possible to make your substantive points thoughtfully, and in the spirit of curiosity that is supposed to be the core value here. Why not do that instead? If you really want to educate people, you'll get much further that way.
He is written about as a libertarian, but my understanding is he is more of a "minarchist": attracted to the ideas of libertarianism, but without the solidarity aspect of anarchism and with hierarchies (making the term a misnomer as well, similar to the absurdly self-contradictory term "anarcho capitalist") and pro-capital, which he realizes requires some state government and policing to enable (capital is nothing without the state there to protect its hierarchy through coercion by threat of violence/caging that it maintains a monopoly over).
Doesn't sound very "libertarian" to me. Also not sure how to square his positions such as anti-abortion with his reputation for libertarianism. So what are his politics
He is the leader of a political party that calls itself the Libertarian Party, so calling him libertarian sounds fair.
Political labels often don't match the original meaning of the terms. Most liberals are not liberal, most libertarians are not libertarian, and most communists are not communist.
No one here is uttering his party's official name when describing his policies as anti-authoritarian, "ancap", pro-freedom, leftist, etc. I hope we can have discussion beyond the vocabulary of populist sloganeering
As a European, I see libertarianism as a right-wing ideology with a particular focus on property rights. Because that's what the vast majority of self-described libertarians I've met care about. I've never heard of Javier Milei before, but based on some quick reading, he seems to fit in this group well.
Then there is a centrist position called liberal, such as the Liberal Democrats in the UK. Their heritage is in social liberalism and ultimately in classical liberalism.
And when you go to the anti-authoritarian pro-freedom left, you tend to see ideological opposition to strong property rights. Those people usually see wealth as inherently authoritarian.
