Can someone explain me this? In Argentina, the majority of the workers are employed by government (crazy rate of employment by a government, I don’t think they actually need all those people), but then the majority of the voters elect someone that plans to cut spending a lot, meaning most of those workers that voted him will be laid off.
Can we theorize a situation where an average Argentinian voter consciously chooses a short term crisis with the prospect of normalization over a lifetime stagnation and decay? Argentina’s economy was shit for a long time, and maybe people’s intent is to wreck things for a change?
People forget accelerationists exist… I doubt Trump would have won without them.
I know they’re out there, but there can’t be a significant enough bloc of them to swing things. I’ve never encountered one outside of the internet, and even on the internet they mostly seem to be acting facetiously.
Do you have any evidence that a significant number of voters have ever voted for short-term harm to enable some hypothetical future benefit?
2015 elections. Actually, 2015 elections are a better example than this. Argentina wasn’t half as bad as now. And people in the most important place (Conurban region) view for the change, because there was a solution that was not peronism. Unfortunately, Macri let everyone down with his gradualism strategy, instead of a shock strategy. That’s why the peronism came back.
I’m simplifying a lot of stuff, there are other reasons for everything. Like Cristina’s legal issues, the kirchnerist party corruption, and the sort. In the same vein, Macri’s lack of boldness in some cases created a crisis of its own.
