• Flying Squid
    link
    01 day ago

    …at the cost of human lives. Why does that not concern you?

    • @iopq
      link
      1
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      Let me guess what you said about 10% inflation in the US

      Now imagine 200%

      • Flying Squid
        link
        -122 hours ago

        Please do guess. But not before answering my question.

        • @iopq
          link
          420 hours ago

          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

          • Flying Squid
            link
            -3
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            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.

            • @HappycamperNZ
              link
              313 hours ago

              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.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                011 hours ago

                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?

                • @HappycamperNZ
                  link
                  15 hours ago

                  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.