Javier Milei is:
-
Against abortion (except when mother’s life is in danger)
-
Against sex-ed and wants to eliminate it (says it deforms people’s minds)
-
Denies climate change (says it’s an invention of socialism)
-
Anti-vax (But got vaxxed in Nov 2021 because otherwise he would not be able to work in other countries)
-
Wants to fuse the departments of Social Development, Health and Education into a single department of Human Capital.
-
In favor of Austrian school of economics - Wants to remove the central bank
-
Adopt the US dollar
-
Homosexuality is a personal choice and compares it to zoophilia
-
In favor of drug legalization and to opening up immigration as long as it doesn’t cost the State.
-
In favor of people paying for sex
-
In favor of gun ownership without governmental limitations
-
Wants to freeze relationships with China, Russia, Brazil because they’re communists.
-
Wants to align with the US, particularly Trump’s party.
-
Against the Pope because he represents evil on Earth, and because it promotes communism which goes against the holy scriptures.
-
In favor of animal cloning
-
In favor of organ selling
Good luck Argentina
What is the rationale behind switching to the US dollar? I sort of get why US libertarians are opposed to fiat currency (they don’t want the Fed to have the power to interfere in markets), but Milei just wants to switch to a fiat currency that someone else controls? What makes him think that would end well for Argentina?
Argentina’s runaway inflation is caused by the central bank printing money (to finance the government’s out of control spending). The rationale for dollarization is to remove the ability for the government to do this. It’s not an inherently crazy idea, since (i) there are smaller Latin American countries that use the dollar, and (ii) the dollar is already used de facto for many purposes in Argentina because of how debased the peso has been. But there are lots of practical problems; notably, Argentina simply does not own enough dollars in the entire country to keep the economy running normally if they switch (whatever “normally” means for an economy like theirs).
Argentina’s runaway inflation is caused by the central bank printing money (to finance the government’s out of control spending)
Macroeconomists don’t really agree that that issuing money in and of itself causes inflation, but it certainly can lead to it in some cases. Instead, if you issue money you need to spend it on something that increases the productivity of your economy, otherwise it can lead to waste and inflation down the line. You can actually use money issuing to fight inflation if you spend the money you issued on addressing the problem at hand - for example, the supply side problems we faced following the pandemic that caused the inflation we’re at the tail end of right now.
By adopting the US dollar, Argentina would effectively give up monetary autonomy to the US central bank (so, just another central bank outside of their control). In fact, the US central bank could decide to issue money in a positive way as mentioned above, without any of that having a similarly positive impact on the countries that depend on the US dollar.
Money & Macro (PhD Joeri Schasfoort) has made multiple videos on the topic, but here are two (the first one short, the second one a deep dive) if you want to hear this side of the story told in greater depth:
You might be confusing debt issuance with money issuance.
Governments often issue debt to fund various kinds of spending. And despite concerns about debt levels, they can have a pretty fuzzy relationship with inflation; Japan has public debt of over 200% of GDP, and an underinflation problem.
But issuing money for the purposes of government spending – the monetization of fiscal policy – is almost always a bad idea, outside of wartime. The practice is behind every single episode of hyperinflation in economic history. And governments know this. Fiscal monetization is only resorted to by countries that have exhausted their ability to borrow; if cutting spending isn’t politically feasible, the remaining resort is monetization. That’s basically how you get to Argentina’s situation.
As for giving up monetary autonomy, it is indeed a serious drawback to dollarization. But this is a second order problem compared to the kinds of problems facing Argentina, like findng a guy bleeding out after a road accident, and worrying about his obesity.
You might be confusing debt issuance with money issuance.
Nope. Let me quote Joeri from his second video (19 minutes in):
Let’s tackle the one that the internet loves the most first: money printing. To view money printing as the source of all price inflation actually has a very long tradition in economics. The most prominent economist to support this idea was Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman (11:49) who said that. […]
Crucially, Friedman inspired economists often assume that velocity and production are roughly constant. Remember that clip from Peter Schiff arguing that stimulus checks for people at home would be inflationary? Crucially, he made the implicit assumption there that this didn’t prevent a further collapse of production.
“Everything is getting more expensive. And if people think that is transitory, it is because they don’t understand the problem. In fact, they don’t even understand inflation or where it comes from because inflation is about money. You are inflating the money supply. That’s what’s being expanded and none of this is transitory because these deficits aren’t transitory. The money printing isn’t transitory. It’s here to stay. — and that means prices are going to continue to go up because we continue to destroy the value of the dollar as we expand the supply”
Sounds pretty convincing right? However, the monetary theory of inflation has almost completely disappeared from universities. Why? Well, because the data doesn’t support this simple explanation in most economies. For example, check out this graph of the CPI for Europe and compare it to the graph of central bank printed M1 money supply… You can clearly see that the money supply has accelerated while price growth has slowed. To a less extend this disconnect also exists for the USA. But, if you really want to see this simple theory fail, you only need to look at Japan. Even if we take into account the more expansive M3 money supply measure, which include money created by private banks, and compare it to the CPI. You can clearly see that while M3 kept going up, the CPI had its ups and downs. What can explain this disconnect?
Pointing to Japanese money supply versus inflation is irrelevant because Japan doesn’t fund its fiscal deficit via monetization. It issues debt, just like every other non-basket case economy on Earth.
The distinction is important. Debt is tied to a promise to repay later. Monetization has no such promise, so it’s functionally equivalent to issuing debt and then immediately defaulting. So long as lenders believe debt will be repaid, the effects are different from monetization.
-
Maybe this time it will be different. (Inset some weird emoji that denotes is won’t with a mix of sadness, regret, and ennui)
He’s a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist
Great, a walking oxymoron.
Can someone explain me this? In Argentina, the majority of the workers are employed by government (crazy rate of employment by a government, I don’t think they actually need all those people), but then the majority of the voters elect someone that plans to cut spending a lot, meaning most of those workers that voted him will be laid off.
Can we theorize a situation where an average Argentinian voter consciously chooses a short term crisis with the prospect of normalization over a lifetime stagnation and decay? Argentina’s economy was shit for a long time, and maybe people’s intent is to wreck things for a change?
Do you have any evidence that a significant number of voters have ever voted for short-term harm to enable some hypothetical future benefit?
2015 elections. Actually, 2015 elections are a better example than this. Argentina wasn’t half as bad as now. And people in the most important place (Conurban region) view for the change, because there was a solution that was not peronism. Unfortunately, Macri let everyone down with his gradualism strategy, instead of a shock strategy. That’s why the peronism came back.
I’m simplifying a lot of stuff, there are other reasons for everything. Like Cristina’s legal issues, the kirchnerist party corruption, and the sort. In the same vein, Macri’s lack of boldness in some cases created a crisis of its own.
Make Argentina Great Again.
Sad to see people fall for the same bullshit over and over.
I see Argentina decided they weren’t fucked enough.
Am I allowed to draw a parallelism with last year’s elections in Italy? More than 50% of Argentinians have Italian ancestry, no wonder they naturally lean towards fascism.
Look I understand, I really do.
When I was a kid, I was told to beware of clothes irons because they are hot.
But one day, curiosity got the better of me, and I touched the damn thing to see if it was hot. Hurt like hell, still have the scar to this day. But I don’t touch hot surfaces anymore.
Go on Argentina, touch the iron :)
I predict that Argentinians are going to like this even less in the long run than the stuff the Peronists have gotten up to
I can get the annoyance with how the economy has been… but jeez, what is the real solution here? I can’t see much of anything positive coming out of this.
I think the only silver lining will (hopefully) be a whiplash reaction once the authoritarian populists fuck things up enough.
It’s been a slow one in the UK, at least the US had a four-year load of nonsense to deal with before finding reality again.
For real - our electoral systems are utterly fucked, but sometimes yours makes ours look like a damn tea party
I assume that, just like with trump, they won’t admit that they were bamboozled and will just double down with the crazy.
Most likely. That seems to be the pattern.
It’ll be a miracle if in the next year alone he doesn’t completely obliterate what’s left of Argentina’s economy.
