this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
61 points (82.8% liked)

News

23601 readers
3579 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
top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] az04 3 points 8 hours ago

Milei is a Christian, authoritarian, regressive fascist.

And he would never have gotten into power if the Argentinian left had respected the independence of the central bank, been more pragmatic with their subsidies and let the market decide more of their economy. Protectionism doesn't work and Argentina is a shining beacon letting everyone know that.

The left in Argentina did this to themselves. Even the trade unions in Argentina are struggling with support because they're seen as complicit in the country's wild overspending.

[–] skhayfa 69 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

And in other news: Argentina's poverty rate jumped from almost 42% to 53% during the first six months of Javier Milei's presidency (https://apnews.com/article/argentina-milei-budget-congress-economy-inflation-c83178217097093d476fab94429768a4)

Appeasing the market needs humans sacrifice! Once the rich get their fill, the poor will... anyway who cares about the poor.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I mean, I'm not advocating support for the guy but citing stuff that happens within the first 6 months of taking office is a bit disingenuous.

Things generally don't happen immediately after someone takes power, there's a lag before things start to happen and change. I would imagine that the increase in poverty would have happened no matter who was in power and whatever happened after that first 6 months could be attributed to milei more than what happened within the first 6 months.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Obviously, for neoliberals starving their own population to increase the imaginary numbers for foreign imperialist rentiers is more than acceptable, it is essential

[–] [email protected] 34 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Freezing investment into the country and nuclear grade austerity will always bring inflation to an almost stand still. You're literally tossing liquid nitrogen on your economy, it's absolutely going to freeze.

The IMF does not expect the Argentine economy to grow this year, but rather to decline by 3.5%, while it should start growing next year.

And this is the key aspect that usually makes people who consider this pause for a second. Because freezing your economy might solve the right now problem, it also has the ability to ice economic activity completely, triggering an economic depression. This is the "balance" so to say. The harder your freeze, the more you'll need to rewarm the markets to get your economy going again.

President Milei and the government hope that the new laws, which offer investors decades of tax and customs relief, will quickly attract capital and curb the recession.

This has always been the super tricky part of the weapons grade austerity. The what comes after part. So Milei has done it, he's cooled the markets and supply has nearly cratered in the country. The next steps is to get production back and start pesos in the country to start flowing again.

I've always been a bit irresolute about Milei's approach on the economy. I'm not against it, it's just a strategy that's playing with fire in a gun powder factory. First and foremost, I hope that the people in Argentina find economic stability, because boy do they deserve it. So to that end I hope WHOEVER succeeds in getting that done. And second, I really hope this is something that can be long lasting. Hyper austerity has a history of bad boomerang effects. It can work, it's just takes a ton of work, more than most governments are willing to invest. And so there's a big chance that we could start to see some positive only to then watch it completely crumble once again.

If I was a leader, this isn't exactly a strategy I would pick. There's just a ton of places where it can go all wrong. But I hope the guy gets it fixed once and for all. But dang, I don't know how dude is smiling in that photo because if I was going down this road I wouldn't be able to sleep properly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

The harder your freeze, the more you'll need to rewarm the markets to get your economy going again.

Milei is pumping millions into shale oil pipelines and lithium mines, I assume that's his game plan for "rewarming the markets".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Could you give some examples of where this has worked in the past?

[–] veganpizza69 7 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Here's a fun one:

Neoliberalism: Oversold? -- Finance & Development, June 2016 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm

Finance & Development, June 2016, Vol. 53, No. 2

Instead of delivering growth, some neoliberal policies have increased inequality, in turn jeopardizing durable expansion

Milton Friedman in 1982 hailed Chile as an “economic miracle.” Nearly a decade earlier, Chile had turned to policies that have since been widely emulated across the globe. The neoliberal agenda—a label used more by critics than by the architects of the policies—rests on two main planks. The first is increased competition—achieved through deregulation and the opening up of domestic markets, including financial markets, to foreign competition. The second is a smaller role for the state, achieved through privatization and limits on the ability of governments to run fiscal deficits and accumulate debt.­

[...]

•The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.­

•The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.­

•Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.­

[...]

Austerity policies not only generate substantial welfare costs due to supply-side channels, they also hurt demand—and thus worsen employment and unemployment. The notion that fiscal consolidations can be expansionary (that is, raise output and employment), in part by raising private sector confidence and investment, has been championed by, among others, Harvard economist Alberto Alesina in the academic world and by former European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet in the policy arena. However, in practice, episodes of fiscal consolidation have been followed, on average, by drops rather than by expansions in output. On average, a consolidation of 1 percent of GDP increases the long-term unemployment rate by 0.6 percentage point and raises by 1.5 percent within five years the Gini measure of income inequality (Ball and others, 2013).­

In sum, the benefits of some policies that are an important part of the neoliberal agenda appear to have been somewhat overplayed. In the case of financial openness, some capital flows, such as foreign direct investment, do appear to confer the benefits claimed for them. But for others, particularly short-term capital flows, the benefits to growth are difficult to reap, whereas the risks, in terms of greater volatility and increased risk of crisis, loom large.­

[...]

Moreover, since both openness and austerity are associated with increasing income inequality, this distributional effect sets up an adverse feedback loop. The increase in inequality engendered by financial openness and austerity might itself undercut growth, the very thing that the neoliberal agenda is intent on boosting. There is now strong evidence that inequality can significantly lower both the level and the durability of growth (Ostry, Berg, and Tsangarides, 2014).­

[–] t_chalco 1 points 5 hours ago

Thank you for posting this. It is good to see studies, even metanalysis or otherwise, enter the forum discourse.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

That doesn't sound like a positive outcome...

[–] veganpizza69 5 points 10 hours ago

And it's coming from inside the IMF house.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I thought he was another right wing populist demagogue but apparently there is method to his madness. I hope he pulls off this stunt perfectly and is able to land the plane.

[–] FlyingSquid 11 points 12 hours ago

The method to his madness is "fuck the poor."

It's a lot easier to win the fight against inflation when you don't give a shit who suffers because of it.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Seems a bit early to tell if this will have much of a lasting effect. So-called economic "shock therapies" have a long history of working for a year or so, and then unraveling later. And especially for Argentina, the cycle of decades of growth followed by decades of recession has been going on for a while now. I'll be genuinely impressed if he manages to actually fix the economy long-term, but that still remains to be seen.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Do you have examples of previous failed shock therapy attempts at economy?

[–] Foreigner 8 points 11 hours ago

General Pinochet's rule in Chile is a good example:

In fact, when Milton Friedman—one of the principal architects of the so-called Chicago School of economics—traveled to Chile in 1975, it was still not clear whether Pinochet would fully embrace the Chicago School’s economic program. It was only after Friedman met personally with the dictator that Pinochet was persuaded to fight inflation with “shock treatment”—that is, steep budget cuts that would cause high unemployment but, Friedman promised, would also put the country on a more secure economic path.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

But the people are unemployed and in poverty.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

They would be either way. For the moment there is some hope and evidence things are getting better instead of just endlessly sliding worse and worse.

[–] FlyingSquid 6 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

The evidence is it's getting worse, not better. Poverty is increasing significantly.

How is there hope?

[–] FireTower 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Because inflation rate is decreasing. It's still triple digits but it's going down.

Imagine a wildfire spreading rapidly. Remedial action is taken and then it continues to spread but notably slower. Obviously there's more to do but it is still good news for a place where that is in short supply.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Why is low inflation but high poverty a good thing?

[–] FireTower 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It's not a good thing. No one here is arguing that poverty is good. It's that their current choice is 'still pretty high inflation w/ high poverty' is preferable to 'holy shit that's their monthly inflation w/ high poverty'.

Low poverty is no longer in Argentina's deck for the foreseeable near future. Inflation will rob the working class people of any thing they are given or earn.

[–] FlyingSquid 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The poverty was far lower before Milei started implementing austerity measures, so yes, by saying his measures are a good thing, you are saying high poverty is a good thing.

[–] FireTower 1 points 1 hour ago

Only if you believe there is no direct connection between the devaluation of people's savings paired with increased costs of goods and poverty.

Hyper inflation in itself leads to poverty.

[–] az04 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Inflation is going down. That brings hope. A year ago some saw their life savings' purchasing power cut to a third. That brings despair. This year it only went down by half, which brings hope because it's an improvement. Once inflation is at a reasonable level, economic growth will have to bring hope, which it probably won't, since Milei will be focused on lowering debt and trying to fill the hole in the central bank, which still stands at negative 7 billion dollars in foreign reserves.

[–] FlyingSquid 0 points 8 hours ago

Being in poverty with hope is really not any different from being in poverty without hope. You starve either way.

[–] HappycamperNZ 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It's why inflation sucks soo much.

The only realistic way to make it so you can keep affording to buy something is to make it so alot of people can't afford anything for now.

[–] DeadWorldWalking 8 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Or we could perpetually redistribute the excess wealth of the rich so everyone can have proportional spending power again.

Ir we could tie min wage to inflation.

There's better ways of fixing income inequality than making everyone unemployed and homeless, but i guess it's time humanity learn this economic lesson AGAIN instead of making correct decisions.

[–] iopq 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

There is not enough wealth in Argentina to distribute to all the poor people. You need to grow the economy first. But if you print a lot of money and spend it, you get inflation.

So Milei is first getting spending and inflation in order which is cratering the economy. But at least it solves the budget and inflation problem.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

...at the cost of human lives. Why does that not concern you?

[–] iopq 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Let me guess what you said about 10% inflation in the US

Now imagine 200%

[–] FlyingSquid 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Please do guess. But not before answering my question.

[–] iopq 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The inflation concerns me more than the slight contraction in the economy. If the country is stable and the currency is stable, that will encourage investment and help people in the long term.

Argentina has tried redistributive policies and it has caused huge problems for the economy. The man got elected promising to fix the inflation and he already did it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/argentina-inflation-dips-locals-dare-hope-worst-is-over-2024-12-11/

He can't just go back on his election promise

[–] FlyingSquid -1 points 6 hours ago

You still didn't answer my question.

60% poverty is not a "slight contraction in the economy."

[–] DeadWorldWalking 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

*at the cost of widespread unemployment

They are siphoning all the money into corporations and then using the success of corporations (GDP) to evaluate their success.

Well they sure did make the GDP go up and now everyone is unemployed.

[–] iopq 3 points 14 hours ago

GDP is down