Or we could perpetually redistribute the excess wealth of the rich so everyone can have proportional spending power again.
Ir we could tie min wage to inflation.
There’s better ways of fixing income inequality than making everyone unemployed and homeless, but i guess it’s time humanity learn this economic lesson AGAIN instead of making correct decisions.
First, I fully agree the super wealthy need to pay more tax - let’s not get in the way of that.
Redistribution of wealth would only drive up inflation, not actually fixing the problem of inflation v incomes. Basic supply and demand equilibrium - incomes increase, quantity demanded increases (price goes up), new suppliers enter market to meet this new demand that are willing to accept this higher price… Higher prices and quantity supplied.
Giving everyone more money to buy food doesn’t magically create space for new farms, especially not in the short term.
There is not enough wealth in Argentina to distribute to all the poor people. You need to grow the economy first. But if you print a lot of money and spend it, you get inflation.
So Milei is first getting spending and inflation in order which is cratering the economy. But at least it solves the budget and inflation problem.
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.
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?
Or we could perpetually redistribute the excess wealth of the rich so everyone can have proportional spending power again.
Ir we could tie min wage to inflation.
There’s better ways of fixing income inequality than making everyone unemployed and homeless, but i guess it’s time humanity learn this economic lesson AGAIN instead of making correct decisions.
First, I fully agree the super wealthy need to pay more tax - let’s not get in the way of that.
Redistribution of wealth would only drive up inflation, not actually fixing the problem of inflation v incomes. Basic supply and demand equilibrium - incomes increase, quantity demanded increases (price goes up), new suppliers enter market to meet this new demand that are willing to accept this higher price… Higher prices and quantity supplied.
Giving everyone more money to buy food doesn’t magically create space for new farms, especially not in the short term.
There is not enough wealth in Argentina to distribute to all the poor people. You need to grow the economy first. But if you print a lot of money and spend it, you get inflation.
So Milei is first getting spending and inflation in order which is cratering the economy. But at least it solves the budget and inflation problem.
…at the cost of human lives. Why does that not concern you?
Let me guess what you said about 10% inflation in the US
Now imagine 200%
Please do guess. But not before answering my question.
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
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?