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.
Not the person your debating with, and normally I agree with the famous Mr Squid.
In this case I disagree - im not fully knowledgeable on Argentina specifically, just economic application. The problem with inflation is that it harms your entire population - and its horrific when its out of control. 60% poverty (don’t know if this is total, increase or increases since these measures came out, very different discussions) is easily obtainable when a significant amount of your population are already close to the poverty line and even a small change comes into effect.
Regarding the cost of human lives, and assuming he’s not Trump levels of econ knowledge, its a balance between putting this 60% in poverty now to get a handle on inflation now, or that 60% in poverty due to inflation indefinitely until you put them and more people in poverty.
Anything that increases government spending, including social support services, infrastructure spending, unemployment support would increase GDP and work directly against disinflation measures.
Its cold, it sucks, but the logic and theory are there. Sometimes the best thing you can do is cause the least long term harm.
As I keep saying, poverty has increased by 20% since Milei implemented these measures. If people have to starve to death in order to make inflation go down, how can you say that’s worth it the way it’s being done?
I cant, because it didn’t happen (these ideas were implemented) and therefore its evidence of poverty increasing by not putting them in place doesn’t exist.
What I can give you is the known and proven link between between income, spending, GDP and inflation, which is a combination of Okuns law and the Phillips curve. Both of which have been used by pretty much every country to control inflation since the Great depression- which happened because these wernt known and applied.
You made the claim. If you can’t back it up, it’s a worthless claim. Either they would have been in poverty regardless as you claimed, in which case you can back that up, or libertarian policies hurt people.
I’m going with the latter until you can show me some evidence.
Please do guess. But not before answering my question.
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
You still didn’t answer my question.
60% poverty is not a “slight contraction in the economy.”
Edit: You libertarians go ahead and keep downvoting me. Milei is killing people.
Not the person your debating with, and normally I agree with the famous Mr Squid.
In this case I disagree - im not fully knowledgeable on Argentina specifically, just economic application. The problem with inflation is that it harms your entire population - and its horrific when its out of control. 60% poverty (don’t know if this is total, increase or increases since these measures came out, very different discussions) is easily obtainable when a significant amount of your population are already close to the poverty line and even a small change comes into effect.
Regarding the cost of human lives, and assuming he’s not Trump levels of econ knowledge, its a balance between putting this 60% in poverty now to get a handle on inflation now, or that 60% in poverty due to inflation indefinitely until you put them and more people in poverty.
Anything that increases government spending, including social support services, infrastructure spending, unemployment support would increase GDP and work directly against disinflation measures.
Its cold, it sucks, but the logic and theory are there. Sometimes the best thing you can do is cause the least long term harm.
As I keep saying, poverty has increased by 20% since Milei implemented these measures. If people have to starve to death in order to make inflation go down, how can you say that’s worth it the way it’s being done?
Because those will end up in poverty regardless - either due to disinflation measures or due to inflation when we do nothing.
Big difference with the disinflation measures is that these an end point.
Please provide evidence that poverty would have ballooned this much whether or not Milei started implementing his libertarian ideas.
I cant, because it didn’t happen (these ideas were implemented) and therefore its evidence of poverty increasing by not putting them in place doesn’t exist.
What I can give you is the known and proven link between between income, spending, GDP and inflation, which is a combination of Okuns law and the Phillips curve. Both of which have been used by pretty much every country to control inflation since the Great depression- which happened because these wernt known and applied.
You made the claim. If you can’t back it up, it’s a worthless claim. Either they would have been in poverty regardless as you claimed, in which case you can back that up, or libertarian policies hurt people.
I’m going with the latter until you can show me some evidence.