530
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023
530 points (95.1% liked)
World News
33700 readers
327 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think so far this is what people wanted: end the status quo and apply shock therapy.
His supporters hope that in the long run the economy will become independent and the country would come out of the never ending crisis. My guess is that everything will simply end up owned by private interests and while (best case scenario) the economy will do better, people will suffer even more.
Well, I guess we'll see. Currently I don't really see how privatizing everything and opening real estate market to foreign investors helps poor children but maybe it will. My guess is that when the private corporations take over everything they will squeeze even more money out of the poor but maybe the wealth will somehow trickle down. It's definitely an interesting experiment. My other guess is that if this fails all the libertarians will say that it's because he implemented all the policies they like so much wrong. If he succeeds I'm definitely voting for the right wing nutjobs in the next elections.
The historical record shows that there are no maybes about this. It’s obviously not an “interesting experiment.” There’s no sense in giving these rhetorical inches while they’re taking miles.
What historical record? Can you point to another country taking such a extreme turn to the right while being in similar situation? And not being met with sanctions like in Afghanistan for example. I'm genuinely curious.
While that isn’t what I was talking about, Weimer Germany is the canonical example of a similar situation, but there are many examples.
What I was talking about is the historical record of neoliberal shock therapies, which Naomi Klein documented well.
Shock therapy in Russia after USSR breaking up, maybe?
That was more extreme, since it was not a transition from left-wing liberal democracy to right-wing liberal democracy, but from bureaucratic planned economy to a pretense at liberal democracy.
Still some examples may apply.
Say, if things state-owned or state-managed in Argentina now get privatized, one can look at the specific mechanism and whether it'll be similar to what happened in Russia.
I guess the right wing theory is that the president makes Argentina a great place to do business, business people rush in, and wealth trickles down.
But, that "trickle down" idea doesn't ever seem to have actually worked anywhere. Maybe the best Argentina can hope for is that at one point when the economy is booming, the working people suddenly form or join unions and the companies decide it's too risky / expensive to leave, so they negotiate with those unions.
OTOH, these days it's so easy to move corporations around to wherever the laws are the most corporation-friendly. So, even if somehow the new president does make corporations want to do more business in Argentina, it's hard to see how the people of Argentina will really benefit.
I would agree if Argentina wasn't so fucked right now. The goal is not to make Argentina great but to get out of crisis. I think what can happen is that all this drastic cuts and price hikes will lower inflation and stabilize the economy. With inflation under control and normal interest rates people will be able to start saving money again, take out mortgages and import goods. This could improve their situation if public services survive but my guess is they will end up fully owned by foreign capital at the end.
It might, or it might not. The thing with inflation is that it's based on people's expectations as much as anything else. People have to believe that inflation will go away before it goes away.
The new president has one thing going for him, which is that he's not a continuation of the previous administration. That means there's a chance that people will believe that he's actually making serious reforms. If they'd stuck with a prime minister who was the finance minister when the inflation was going nuts, I don't think anybody would have believed that things were going to improve, which meant they wouldn't improve.
If you look at Switzerland, it does, just takes long.
That's not what's happening in Switzerland. Switzerland just has a weird niche as a tax haven.
I meant "last few centuries" by "long", in that context your answer is invalid.
In that case, by the standard of the last few centuries, the Swiss are especially poor.
You forgot the context, that of change.
Ah, you mean world war 2.
Uh, I saved this comment of yours for that one sentence.
My views are rather libertarian, but I wouldn't trust most of the real life libertarians (too trusting into thousands of shitcoins or excited with reading sci-fi and busy writing and discussing articles about mechanisms of anarchy in the ancap meaning of the word).
However, if it comes to you voting for the "right wing nutjobs", please remember that GOP in USA is not libertarian in any way, no more than Ukraine's ruling party which uses the word sometimes.
I don't live in USA. I would be voting for Konfederacja in Poland which has similar, libertarian ideas as Milei. They are always dismissed as idiots (and I tend to agree) but if Milei fixes Argentina I'm ready to eat crow and give them a chance.
Well, for the next 10-20 years I doubt I'll have the option of participating in a real vote, not without a revolution. So wishing you well and wishing Argentinians well, what is described should work in theory, but it's just too sharp a turn.
They are in a solid chummy political party with neonazis and monarchists for years. This alone should tell you what kind of libertarians they really are.
Spoiler alert: it never did.