• joelimgu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes in normal countries. But Argentina has an official fixed rates that is unrelated to reality. This means there are two exchange rates, the official one and the real one. Thie measure just puts the official one closer to the real one. And as Argentina uses gov money to pay the official rate thus this reduces the gov expenses and in the long term it stabilises the currency. Yes, in the short term its a shock to the economy making some thins more expensive (for those that had access to the gov rate) but its just bc before the gov subsidised those things indirectly.

    Most of the ideas of this president are actually good. Its just a shame that he has to insult and act to apply them. He’s just doing what the IMF has proposed for years and telling everyone it’s a revolution.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Correct. Usually when governments devalue currency, it’s a move to find equilibrium slightly above the black market value of that currency.

      I read that the official rate was 380 to the dollar and is now 800, while black market rate was 1000.

      So this devaluation is still 20% higher than the black market rate.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      He’s just doing what the IMF has proposed for years

      So he’s just throwing Argentina to the neoliberal wolves?

      • hh93@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Isn’t that like his whole thing to do unregulated capitalism?

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pretty much. This is not just going to be an Argentinian thing… capitalists desperately funding politicians into power that makes no secret of their willingness to sabotage economies for the benefit of the rich is something we’re probably going to be seeing more and more of in the future.

      • joelimgu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In particular yes. And even if its usually a bad idea an equilibrium must be found between social services and Liberal policies. And Argentina is clearly in much need of some Liberal policies. This president might take it too far, making some irreparable mistakes like doralisation, but seeing the state of the Argentinian economy its provably an overall positive. But again, its. Abit sad that he feels like insulting is the way to do it.

        Also, the IMF usually gives good advice to counties, most of its bad reputation comes from them trying to impose unpopular measures to counties on the border of collapse and it usually fails. But that’s like blaming Hospitals for not beeing able to save all patients. They usually ask for a but too much (as you said they are liberals after all) but its a good idea to listen to them

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also, the IMF usually gives good advice to counties

          Oh… is “destroy your infrastructure for the benefit of US corporations” (somehow) “good advice” now?

    • bioemerl@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      He’s just doing what the IMF has proposed for years and telling everyone it’s a revolution.

      Because after a decade of socialist assholes, it is.

      • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was the corruption, not the socialism, what little of that there actually was anyway. At no point did the workers own any of the production. You are pretending the definition of socialism is subsidies. It isn’t.

        • bioemerl@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          1 year ago

          They call themselves socialist.

          They promote socialism.

          They were praised as being fine examples of socialism and progress when things were going well

          Get out of the cope copter.

          • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Outside of having socialist as an adjective, none of that is true.

            You’ll be shocked to discover the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is a dictatorship and neither democratic nor a republic.

            Oh, and the insurrectionists that attacked the Capital who call themselves Patriots, aren’t that either.

            Words have definitions. When you ignore the definitions it shows you’ve no idea what you are talking about.

            • bioemerl@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              N Korea doesn’t have real elections.

              Argentina did actually seize the means of the means of production, (oil fields).

              This is yet another case of passing the buck on socialist unsustainability.

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is yet another case of passing the buck on socialist unsustainability.

                Oh, look… the Capitalist Bootlicker Brigade is pretending to know what socialism is again.

                Yawn.

              • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                and neither did Argentina. What was your point supposed to be?

                I’m a capitalist and I’ll prove it, just send me cash and I’ll provide you access to proof with a receipt, (access for verified accounts available for the duration of your subscription. Not available in all areas.).

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They call themselves socialist.

            So… which part of Argentina’s production was owned by the workers?

          • joelimgu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, but the fact that no one knows what socialism is doesn’t mean that the definition of socialism changes. Argentina is an example of socialdemocracy with too much interventionist, nothing to do with socialism.

            But again, even if the new guy has good ideas nobody should support him insulting to make a campaign, this just makes discussion counterproductive, and its the base of a democratic society