Javier Milei is:
-
Against abortion (except when mother’s life is in danger)
-
Against sex-ed and wants to eliminate it (says it deforms people’s minds)
-
Denies climate change (says it’s an invention of socialism)
-
Anti-vax (But got vaxxed in Nov 2021 because otherwise he would not be able to work in other countries)
-
Wants to fuse the departments of Social Development, Health and Education into a single department of Human Capital.
-
In favor of Austrian school of economics - Wants to remove the central bank
-
Adopt the US dollar
-
Homosexuality is a personal choice and compares it to zoophilia
-
In favor of drug legalization and to opening up immigration as long as it doesn’t cost the State.
-
In favor of people paying for sex
-
In favor of gun ownership without governmental limitations
-
Wants to freeze relationships with China, Russia, Brazil because they’re communists.
-
Wants to align with the US, particularly Trump’s party.
-
Against the Pope because he represents evil on Earth, and because it promotes communism which goes against the holy scriptures.
-
In favor of animal cloning
-
In favor of organ selling
Good luck Argentina
The anti-abortion one is the one I don’t get. After all, why shouldn’t a landlord be able to kick out a non-paying tenant?
I’ve seen more than a few libertarians who are only libertarian because they’re also misanthropic. They’d love heavy government control, but they don’t trust anybody enough to have power over them, so they choose libertarian ideals. It’s a strange chain of logic, but I guess it’s logical.
Excuse me does he think zoophilia is a personal choice?
And yeah good luck Argentina. I’m sure you’ll have positive results from this
I don’t think they mean that as in “is up to the person but overall okay” but more so as in “is something that isn’t determined by anything other than conscious decision making”
His actual quote (translated to the best of my ability) is:
Homosexuality is fine, who am I to tell someone who can they have sex with? If they have consent I don’t care if they want to have sex with an elephant. Good luck proving they had consent, but if they do I can’t object.
Actually no, he does mean it in a sense such as: “the government shouldn’t interfere in people’s life projects. If you want to be with a man or a woman that’s your right. Heck even if you wanted to be with an elefant that’s fine with me as long as you have the elefant’s consent”
Here’s the actual source: https://youtube.com/shorts/FZp6zbQ-goE
Even the video caption misrepresents his words imho. You can turn on translated captions.
As I said in another post, Milei is in the bottom right quadrant of the political compass. It’s a big mistake to directly compare him to neo conservatism.
What is the rationale behind switching to the US dollar? I sort of get why US libertarians are opposed to fiat currency (they don’t want the Fed to have the power to interfere in markets), but Milei just wants to switch to a fiat currency that someone else controls? What makes him think that would end well for Argentina?
Argentina’s runaway inflation is caused by the central bank printing money (to finance the government’s out of control spending). The rationale for dollarization is to remove the ability for the government to do this. It’s not an inherently crazy idea, since (i) there are smaller Latin American countries that use the dollar, and (ii) the dollar is already used de facto for many purposes in Argentina because of how debased the peso has been. But there are lots of practical problems; notably, Argentina simply does not own enough dollars in the entire country to keep the economy running normally if they switch (whatever “normally” means for an economy like theirs).
Argentina’s runaway inflation is caused by the central bank printing money (to finance the government’s out of control spending)
Macroeconomists don’t really agree that that issuing money in and of itself causes inflation, but it certainly can lead to it in some cases. Instead, if you issue money you need to spend it on something that increases the productivity of your economy, otherwise it can lead to waste and inflation down the line. You can actually use money issuing to fight inflation if you spend the money you issued on addressing the problem at hand - for example, the supply side problems we faced following the pandemic that caused the inflation we’re at the tail end of right now.
By adopting the US dollar, Argentina would effectively give up monetary autonomy to the US central bank (so, just another central bank outside of their control). In fact, the US central bank could decide to issue money in a positive way as mentioned above, without any of that having a similarly positive impact on the countries that depend on the US dollar.
Money & Macro (PhD Joeri Schasfoort) has made multiple videos on the topic, but here are two (the first one short, the second one a deep dive) if you want to hear this side of the story told in greater depth:
Which other countries use it in Latin America? There are places which have used it relatively successfully, and de facto usage at least gives people more confidence.
It’s because every time the argentinian government needs to pay something, and don’t have the cash to do that, they print some billions and pay it. By literally printing monopoly money in huge quantity, they’re devaluing their currency every time they print a batch.
The rationale is that if they’re using the us dollar, the inflation will stop because it’s controlled externally
But by using the us dollar, every time the argentinian government needs to pay something and doesn’t have the cash to do that, need to borrow some heavy debt (at insane interest rate given their history where they didn’t repay previous debts)
And would need an huge quantity of them in a short time to exchange and dispose the pesos from people and banks
If it was as easy as “just don’t print monopoly money” they would have solved it.
Maybe it would be easier to just stop printing money than officially switching to a different currency
that’s not really politics, it’s about his personal council of cloned dogs. Argentinians do not realize how fucked they are going to get.
Nothing inherently. Nature even does it sometimes, although it’s rare with larger complex organisms.
The problems with cloning arise when it happens in bulk. Instead of a single creature with a genetic abnormality or vulnerability to disease, you now have a whole population with those weaknesses. Look up monocultures or monocropping to read some horror stories. True cloning of e.g. livestock could take those issues to the extreme.
Wow that’s quite the spread of ideas!
Some of those I’m on board for.
Others make me wonder what stone he slimed out from under.
Doesn’t matter. It’s all words until he’s I power and does / doesn’t do anything.
I see Argentina decided they weren’t fucked enough.
Desperate people make poor but desperate choices. 150% inflation? Goddamn, people here are freaking out about 5%…
There was a thread a couple days ago about how do you see the world ending. It’s stuff like this, situation will het worse and worse so people will turn to crazier and crazier solutions.
We’re all in for an interesting next few decades.
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.
I predict that Argentinians are going to like this even less in the long run than the stuff the Peronists have gotten up to
I can get the annoyance with how the economy has been… but jeez, what is the real solution here? I can’t see much of anything positive coming out of this.
Elect normal-ass people instead of batcrap loonies like milei or the peronists.
What options are in Argentina currently? I have almost zero knowledge of the political system there.
I think the only silver lining will (hopefully) be a whiplash reaction once the authoritarian populists fuck things up enough.
It’s been a slow one in the UK, at least the US had a four-year load of nonsense to deal with before finding reality again.
I assume that, just like with trump, they won’t admit that they were bamboozled and will just double down with the crazy.
