Staunch libertarian Javier Milei has implemented a range of austerity measures since taking office. His government blamed previous administrations for the dire economic situation.
The poverty rate in Argentina reached 52.9% during the first six months of Javier Milei’s government, the national statistics agency reported on Thursday.
It marks the highest poverty rate since 2003, and a 11.2% increase compared to the second half of 2023.
The number of people living in extreme poverty grew by 3 million during the first half of 2024, according to the report.
The statistics agency calculates poverty by comparing household income with the cost of a basic basket of goods, which amounts to around $240 (€215).
And no one could have predicted this! 🤣
Didn’t he basically campaign with this?
A very brutal rate. Sad to see for the Argentinian people.
To the surprise of no one.
Milei? AFUERA!
What else did they think he was going to do with that chainsaw?
By chainsawing all the social nets and the magic of economic liberalism the Economy would heal and everything would be wonderful!
Or at least some super-wealthy people can buy up State services for pennies on the dollar and make a killing later.
What percentage of a population must suffer under right-wing leadership before that population rises up and corrects the problem by force? Is some type of uprising likely to form here?
He was elected. If people don’t want him they should just vote someone else next time.
Usually it’s when the middle class gets tired that governments are overturned here.
The days of revolutions are past. Remote control drones have made it impossible now.
The answer is all of them. Right wing behavior is always from hatred and insecurity.
I’m sorry but why does he look like an aging emo?
He looks like Bob Odenkirk’s donut ordering slacker from Mr. Show.
Droopy!
DW News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for DW News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Germany
Wikipedia about this sourceUnfortunately if the government has been run on unsustainable economics previously, balancing it to be more sustainable will make people poorer on average. The aim is of course to build a foundation for sustainable growth afterwards.
If possible, the best way to balance the budgets socially is to increase taxes on the rich. It’s a horrible situation because things generally have to get worse before they get better.
I hope the government is doing the right thing, so Argentina may restore their economy. But unfortunately right wing governments tend to favor the rich and not the poor.I just read the part: “What policies is Milei implementing in Argentina?”
And this is not a good way of doing it, just cutting social assistance is a very harsh way of doing it, and will hit the vulnerable parts of the population the most. I now remember reading about the guy a few months ago, and he seems to be delusional also in his economic thinking.I don’t think Milei will make Argentina better in any sense in the short/mid/long term. Bolsonaro, Trump, everyone on the far-right says the same thing but it only gets worse, never better.
Wrong. It does work… for the intended demographic. Which is rich business owners, not regular working class people. But trying to paint these people as ‘trying but failing’ is far too generous: they know what they’re doing - robbing you & me.
Yes I just read the article, and remembered reading about the guy some months ago, Javier Milei is delusional in his economic thinking. He may stabilize the economy, but it will be at great cost to the population.
The economy he creates will be unstable and the wealth redistribution he wants will see everyone’s money go to a few people. The end result is a massive poor majority jealous of the people who have taken everything from them. Milei will destroy the country before any of his ideas work. At least it will result in the rich getting eaten.
the wealth redistribution he wants will see everyone’s money go to a few people.
And that’s the opposite of what is necessary, everybody has to be part of it, and the rich have to carry the bigger burden.
What he is doing is based on flawed logic, that the wealthy are the ones that build the economy, which the evidence shows isn’t true.I’m wondering why the people elected him? Did they only have 2 options like USA?
They elected him because inflation was awful in Argentina for a long time. He said he would improve it, but he made it much, much worse. It’s starting to stabilise back down to the original awfully high levels he inherited from the terrifyingly stratospheric levels he took it to, simply because the people really have no money left and aren’t buying anything and the shopkeepers can’t raise prices too fast, so of course he’s claiming that his policies are working because it’s getting better.
Economists suspect that shutting down the whole economy for lack of cash after astronomical inflation isn’t the strong long term solution to inflation that the libertarians like to claim they’re creating.
He got rid of rent controls and other price controls. Because it would fix inflation, apparently.
So yeah, he got elected because the economy has been bad for a long time and they haven’t tried far right in quite a while. It’s got even worse of course.
So are there only 2 parties to realistically vote for? No center parties?
History teaches us that when people are desperate they are more likely to turn to the right for solutions. That’s why right wingers like to keep them desperate. It’s not in their interests to make things better.
This guy literally takes advice from his dogs, so probably not. And i mean “literally” in the literal way.
You have got to be kidding.
https://time.com/6337474/javier-milei-argentina-president-cloned-dogs-advice/
What the actual fuck.
Yeah. Even though I think right wing libertarian economics is naive, and guaranteed to fail, blaming this guy for the economy in his first 6 months is likely propaganda. Most economists don’t attribute economic performance to leadership until their own budgets and policies have been in effect for 6-12 months, which often isn’t until the 2nd half of their term. Obviously radical changes can have an immediate impact, but they tend to be rare.
Edit: A linked article states a radical inflationary policy, but provides no references or sources. Journalism fail!
Immediately after taking office, Milei devalued the national currency, the peso, by more than 50% against the US dollar.
Most economists don’t attribute economic performance to leadership until their own budgets and policies have been in effect for 6-12 months
Most world leaders don’t dismantle their entire system with the sense and carefulness of a coked up toddler from day 1.
Add a special animosity towards anything that provides stability and financial security to the country as a whole or any non-rich person and you get dramatic worsening of conditions REALLY fast no matter how bad it already was.
From the other commenters ap article, the economy he inherited was already run by coked up toddlers:
Argentina is suffering 143% annual inflation, its currency has plunged and four in 10 Argentines are impoverished.
What, in your opinion, should he have done differently? Should he have kept the pre-existing train wreck?
I don’t know enough about the SPECIFIC conditions to know what he SHOULD do, but I don’t have to in order to recognize that the solution to a dysfunctional government isn’t a sledge hammer or any other kind of wanton destruction.
He ran for office dressed as his vigilante alter ego “Captain Ancap” wielding a symbolic chainsaw at the very concept of government while talking about how his top advisers are the clones of his dead dog and that’s exactly how he’s been governing as well.
I mean he made about 300 changes to the government in his first few days so his anarcho capitalist ideology might be the exception to your point.
I mean you don’t have to look far to find credible sources showing what his own adminstration admitted to doing.
Thanks. I was pointing the ridiculousness of journalists stating information — on the fucking internet — without directly linking to evidence. They have a world of sources they could link to, probably that their own company reported on in the past, and that they — as journalists — should have cross referenced before stating that information. Why should consumers have to independently Google pieces of information when the platform can hyperlink to numerous sources for verification?
You see the absurdity in stating information as fact, without sourcing evidence, right? This isn’t fucking Lemmy or Reddit as a source. This is a major news organization, staffed with journalists who completed an entire degree being educated in how to source and reference information…
Sounds like most economists haven’t heard of Liz Truss.
Can verify: am Brit.
Liz truss tried the libertarian experiment, sidestepped the Office for Budget Responsibility that her own party set up so that they were prevented from announcing the forthcoming shitshow (because she correctly thought they would be doom and gloom about it), tanked the economy in less than one week, blamed the media for it, blamed not going far enough for it, blamed the Chancellor of the Exchequer for it, sacked him, said she wouldn’t resign but was famously outlasted by a lettuce.
Now she simps for the republicans but is largely ignored by them. She still maintains she was right, which is par for the course for idiot lying right wingers.
