Argentina elects "far-right" libertarian--will they turn it around?

[hoot1]

99% of MSM economists are just propagandist for governments/organizations.

SC, cannot remember the last time seeing a prominent economist on the mainstream media such as Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz whose economic theories often focus on social welfare, inequality, and market failures. Theories which support government programs and intervention into the marketplace.

In place of hearing the boring theories of a Krugman or Stiglitz, I would argue the airways and other forms of the media carry politicians and others who offer conservative and or non-partisan views very effectively. By effectively, I mean narratives which have a commonsense appeal to the voting public. As Ronald Reagan might say, government is the problem, not the solution.

 

[mcmurtry66]

It's not just economists. As long as I've been paying attention, stories like this one citing "experts" have been used to promote policies and narratives under the guise of straight news stories. The idea is to cast them as dispassionate and authoritative....to suggest that there really is no debate necessary.

Anyway, here's a key paragraph from their open letter. And I think it's important for all of us to examine just how wrong (so far, anyway) they have proven to be.

Argentines are all too familiar with the pain of laissez-faire economics that have been imposed by international lenders like the IMF, which have in the past increased poverty and economic insecurity and inhibited the country's development. The program proposed by Milei would create more socioeconomic inequality by reducing the role of the state in redistribution and social welfare. A major reduction in government spending would increase already high levels of poverty and inequality, and could result in significantly increased social tensions and conflict. Milei's idea of drastically cutting taxes while reducing public spending would significantly reduce the ability of the state to meet the social and economic rights of citizens. Meanwhile, further reductions in government tax revenues would aggravate the fiscal crisis.​

​

If Milei's policies are able to endure and develop solid roots beyond his tenure, Argentina will become one of the most prosperous nations on earth.

That’s why losing this forum is so disappointing. It’s vital in terms of public education. It fills a void once occupied by npr etc. it was a place where the truth could be found….under names like McMurtry, snarl, coh, crazed badewakeboarding the couple Lars and Brad. Where the truth about domestic life and courts was revealed by names like Joe Hoopsier. Where exploration lived on in names like hooky. Where we could revise our investments on the guidance of pros like jdb twenty and snarl. Where we stayed nostalgically connected to 80s celebrities with Dbm. where people like goat could get the fashion guidance he desperately needed without resort to a personal shopper. Humor in bulk and his alternate personality Lucy. And most importantly where people like Milton could educate boomers like Marv and univee on the beautiful game.

And finally where we learned to live with and get along with people we’d cross the street to avoid. Names like hickory and shooter.

All in one place

Sad

 

[hoot1]

That’s why losing this forum is so disappointing. It’s vital in terms of public education. It fills a void once occupied by npr etc. it was a place where the truth could be found….under names like McMurtry, snarl, coh, crazed badewakeboarding the couple Lars and Brad. Where the truth about domestic life and courts was revealed by names like Joe Hoopsier. Where exploration lived on in names like hooky. Where we could revise our investments on the guidance of pros like jdb twenty and snarl. Where we stayed nostalgically connected to 80s celebrities with Dbm. where people like goat could get the fashion guidance he desperately needed without resort to a personal shopper. Humor in bulk and his alternate personality Lucy. And most importantly where people like Milton could educate boomers like Marv and univee on the beautiful game.

And finally where we learned to live with and get along with people we’d cross the street to avoid. Names like hickory and shooter.

All in one place

Sad

Doesn't this forum illustrate the saying, Truth is in the eye of the beholder ?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Doesn't this forum illustrate the saying, Truth is in the eye of the beholder ?

No hoot

 

[Indyhorn]

That’s why losing this forum is so disappointing. It’s vital in terms of public education. It fills a void once occupied by npr etc. it was a place where the truth could be found….under names like McMurtry, snarl, coh, crazed badewakeboarding the couple Lars and Brad. Where the truth about domestic life and courts was revealed by names like Joe Hoopsier. Where exploration lived on in names like hooky. Where we could revise our investments on the guidance of pros like jdb twenty and snarl. Where we stayed nostalgically connected to 80s celebrities with Dbm. where people like goat could get the fashion guidance he desperately needed without resort to a personal shopper. Humor in bulk and his alternate personality Lucy. And most importantly where people like Milton could educate boomers like Marv and univee on the beautiful game.

And finally where we learned to live with and get along with people we’d cross the street to avoid. Names like hickory and shooter.

All in one place

Sad

You should start your own message board. You could preach to the choir really efficiently in that manner, and I promise Indyhorn won’t preach about debt as none of you supposed Republicans care which astounds me- especially so for you who can’t yet take the Social Security many on your Dream Team do pull already!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You should start your on message board. You could preach to the choir really efficiently in that manner, and I promise Indyhorn won’t preach about debt as none of you supposed Republicans care which astounds me- especially so for you who can’t yet take the Social Security many on your Dream Team do pull already!

Having read this several times, I’m failing to divine what all you’re trying to say (other than advising mcmurtry to start his own message board, so he could preach to the choir).

Is your last sentence suggesting that accepting Social Security benefits is tantamount to an endorsement of its current form? Or is it that Republicans don’t care about debt (is that personal debt, or the public debt?) - as evidenced by their cashing of SS checks?

 

[Indyhorn]

Having read this several times, I’m failing to divine what all you’re trying to say (other than advising mcmurtry to start his own message board, so he could preach to the choir).

Is your last sentence suggesting that accepting Social Security benefits is tantamount to an endorsement of its current form? Or is it that Republicans don’t care about debt (is that personal debt, or the public debt?) - as evidenced by their cashing of SS checks?

I’m saying the Dream Team doesn’t care about the debt, presumably as the older ones like Danc are already getting their social security. They love Trump who has stepped right in the same Trickle Down BS as every Republican president since Reagan. Trump gave us 7+ trillion in debt his first term. Now his big beautiful bill sticks in another 3 trillion- my team is fiscally conservative I believe in balanced budgets!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I’m saying the Dream Team doesn’t care about the debt, presumably as the older ones like Danc are already getting their social security. They love Trump who has stepped right in the same Trickle Down BS as every Republican president since Reagan. Trump gave us 7+ trillion in debt his first term. Now his big beautiful bill sticks in another 3 trillion- my team is fiscally conservative I believe in balanced budgets!

So you are saying that cashing Social Security checks necessarily precludes somebody from caring about the public debt.

Hmm. Well, I can only speak for myself, but if the government would’ve allowed me to opt out of Social Security — no taxes withheld, no entitlement to benefits under any circumstance — I would’ve taken them up on that deal decades ago. And I would likely have a net worth $2-3 million higher than it is…even if I had purchased private disability insurance to replace public DI.

So where does that put me, viz the public debt, in your view?

 

[BradStevens]

So you are saying that cashing Social Security checks necessarily precludes somebody from caring about the public debt.

Hmm. Well, I can only speak for myself, but if the government would’ve allowed me to opt out of Social Security — no taxes withheld, no entitlement to benefits under any circumstance — I would’ve taken them up on that deal decades ago. And I would likely have a net worth $2-3 million higher than it is…even if I had purchased private disability insurance to replace public DI.

So where does that put me, viz the public debt, in your view?

Harder question:

Is it OK to argue for SS reform with lower benefits for others while taking the full benefit now, yourself?

That always kinda irks me, even though I think change is needed.

 

[Indyhorn]

So you are saying that cashing Social Security checks necessarily precludes somebody from caring about the public debt.

Hmm. Well, I can only speak for myself, but if the government would’ve allowed me to opt out of Social Security — no taxes withheld, no entitlement to benefits under any circumstance — I would’ve taken them up on that deal decades ago. And I would likely have a net worth $2-3 million higher than it is…even if I had purchased private disability insurance to replace public DI.

So where does that put me, viz the public debt, in your view?

I voted for Trump in 2016- he crowed and crowed about the “greatest economy” and never once had a balanced budget in any of his first four years in office- that’s abject failure in my eyes. But I’m a centrist and neither party fits me at present. Whichever side gets to middle first has my vote!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Harder question:

Is it OK to argue for SS reform with lower benefits for others while taking the full benefit now, yourself?

That always kinda irks me, even though I think change is needed.

It seems like an inherent flaw in any underfunded defined-benefit pension - where current revenues are relied upon to pay most or all of accrued benefits.

It’s why powerhouse Keynesian economist Paul Samuelson used the term “Ponzi” when discussing Social Security.

​

The beauty of social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in -- exceed his payments by more than ten times (or five times counting employer payments)!​

​

How is it possible? It stems from the fact that the national product is growing at a compound interest rate and can be expected to do so for as far ahead as the eye cannot see. Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population.​

​

More important, with real income going up at 3% per year, the taxable base on which benefits rest is always much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generation now retired.​

​

Social Security is squarely based on what has been called the eighth wonder of the world -- compound interest. A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived.​

​

He was certainly right about earlier generations taking out more than they paid in. But he was not correct that it would successfully fund itself in perpetuity — not, anyway, so long as the Trust Fund assets were invested in Treasuries.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I voted for Trump in 2016- he crowed and crowed about the “greatest economy” and never once had a balanced budget in any of his first four years in office- that’s abject failure in my eyes. But I’m a centrist and neither party fits me at present. Whichever side gets to middle first has my vote!

We've known that this fiscal comeuppance was coming for, literally, decades. It's certainly true that Trump exacerbated it. But that hardly makes him unique. In one way or another, pretty much everybody who has been in elected office has some fingerprints of one kind or another on it. Some are bigger than others. And events like the Subprime Meltdown and COVID certainly didn't help matters. But it's the autopilot growth of non-discretionary spending that has been the prime culprit.

And, as we stand, nobody has a plan to address a situation where we're bringing in ~16-17% GDP in tax revenues and spending 23+% GDP and net interest costs keep hurtling skywards.

 

[Indyhorn]

We've known that this fiscal comeuppance was coming for, literally, decades. It's certainly true that Trump exacerbated it. But that hardly makes him unique. In one way or another, pretty much everybody who has been in elected office has some fingerprints of one kind or another on it. Some are bigger than others. And events like the Subprime Meltdown and COVID certainly didn't help matters. But it's the autopilot growth of non-discretionary spending that has been the prime culprit.

And, as we stand, nobody has a plan to address a situation where we're bringing in ~16-17% GDP in tax revenues and spending 23+% GDP and net interest costs keep hurtling skywards.

Decades since Reagan tried voodoo economics and led my once GOP party from being fiscal conservatives to being anti abortion spend thrifts. I’ll vomit if I lose my social security because Jerry Falwell needed a tax cut!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Decades since Reagan tried voodoo economics and led my once GOP party from being fiscal conservatives to being anti abortion spend thrifts. I’ll vomit if I lose my social security because Jerry Falwell needed a tax cut!

As I've demonstrated here before, federal tax revenues since 1981 have more or less been on par with where they were prior to 1981. For some reason, people have this idea that Uncle Sam used to bring in plenty of funds to (almost) pay his bills....until tax cuts from Reagan, GWB, and Trump came along and decimated his income.

But that claim does not stand up to any scrutiny. Revenues have grown in line with output (which is to say that they're flat as a percentage of it). But spending has grown faster than output.

To illustrate this, in 1956 (when marginal tax rates went as high as 91%) federal tax revenues were 16.53% of GDP. Federal outlays were 16.84% of GDP.

In 2024, federal tax revenues were 16.74%. Federal outlays were 22.98% of GDP. (Source for spending. Source for revenue.)

There have been some outlier periods -- typically coinciding with an extraordinary macroeconomic environment. COVID naturally wreaked some havoc on both taxes and spending. So did the subprime crisis and ensuing recession, the dot-com boom/bust, the stagflation years.

In the case of Covid, 2022 was something like the 6th or 7th highest year on record for tax revenues relative to GDP (18.64%). But the context of that was the inflationary landscape in the wake of many trillions of new liquidity -- despite relatively modest growth on the denominator. But it was the TCJA tax code which produced that windfall.

If anybody feels obliged to blame presidents for the predicament we're in -- and lots of people are going to want to say "Trump!" or "Biden!" or "Reagan!" -- the truth is that more presidential blame lies with FDR and LBJ than any other.

But what even is the point of casting blame? Blaming some politician, living or dead, isn't going to fix the problem.

 

[twenty02]

We've known that this fiscal comeuppance was coming for, literally, decades. It's certainly true that Trump exacerbated it. But that hardly makes him unique. In one way or another, pretty much everybody who has been in elected office has some fingerprints of one kind or another on it. Some are bigger than others. And events like the Subprime Meltdown and COVID certainly didn't help matters. But it's the autopilot growth of non-discretionary spending that has been the prime culprit.

And, as we stand, nobody has a plan to address a situation where we're bringing in ~16-17% GDP in tax revenues and spending 23+% GDP and net interest costs keep hurtling skywards.

When you have the leaders of both parties saying that entitlement cuts are off the table from the start, there's really no hope left.

I do think we could collect more than 16%, however there's never been the will to attempt to do so. At least not in my life. Would require payroll and income tax increases across the broader, middle swath of the population.... Something that's obviously a massive loser. Even Democrats don't try to attempt to raise taxes on the bottom 90%.

Inflation is the only way out. It's a tax without having to ever pass a tax increase.