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.
The fact I can show you the two key economic laws that address inflation, and the effects that a triple digit inflation rate has on a country and its population, and that you consider that not evidence tells me you are about 6 weeks of tertiary education short of knowing what you are actually talking about. I can link you the damn text book if thats good enough evidence, but I doubt that you would consider an internationally recognized and developed, peer reviewed document as evidence.
For the record - im not calling you stupid or uneducated. I suspect you actually give a shit about people and are blinded to the fact that reality doesn’t give a shit about feelings and being nice. You’re argument is the same as saying that a starving population shouldn’t be made to work a fallow farm to feed themselves and others because its putting more pressure on them. They will starve regardless - but this gives a way out.
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.
The fact I can show you the two key economic laws that address inflation, and the effects that a triple digit inflation rate has on a country and its population, and that you consider that not evidence tells me you are about 6 weeks of tertiary education short of knowing what you are actually talking about. I can link you the damn text book if thats good enough evidence, but I doubt that you would consider an internationally recognized and developed, peer reviewed document as evidence.
For the record - im not calling you stupid or uneducated. I suspect you actually give a shit about people and are blinded to the fact that reality doesn’t give a shit about feelings and being nice. You’re argument is the same as saying that a starving population shouldn’t be made to work a fallow farm to feed themselves and others because its putting more pressure on them. They will starve regardless - but this gives a way out.
And people can show you economic “laws” that counter them, because there’s absolutely no such consensus about economics.
Saying I’m uneducated and then saying you’re not calling me uneducated doesn’t make much sense either.
Also, saying someone is uneducated because they don’t agree with libertarian economic theories is peak libertarian. Good job.