Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, is the lucky winner of $40 billion that Donald Trump managed to conjure from thin air. Less lucky are the Americans who rely on the government programs Trump has gutted to be able to “save” that sum.
Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, is the lucky winner of $40 billion that Donald Trump managed to conjure from thin air. Less lucky are the Americans who rely on the government programs Trump has gutted to be able to “save” that sum.
No worries, I understood that you were playing devil’s advocate somewhat. And indeed I don’t like it either, and fwiw, I’m not American either (European, so I don’t really have skin in this particular issue).
But when you say it’s a “rather valid decision with its motivations and reasons”, then yes, that’s basically what it means when I say it’s justified. But then you still have to ask the question as to who it is justified for. If you say it makes “sense on an economical and geopolitical level”, that’s well and good, but which economical and geopolitical level are we talking about? A deal such as this is unlikely to benefit the economy as a whole, so who are the beneficiaries? That’s the question of perspective. Probably this benefits Trump and his billionaire friends, hence why it’s justified from their perspective. But Average Joe, or the Argentinian equivalent, are unlikely to ever see a benefit from this.
Oh well indeed, that’s much more complex to evaluate. It is unclear what the US will get in exchange. I’d imagine lithium would be the main focus. Not sure if this would be going towards Trump associates (probably at least in part) or to relevant sectors of the economy. Will this have a relevant impact on the economy as a whole? Surely not on the whole economy, but it could have a significant impact on parts of it - especially now that they have an economic war going on with China. Does this benefit the average American? Probably some of them, likely many of them will stay in the same conditions as now. But it’s also worth mentioning that if the US stopped doing these kinds of things (without enacting some significant changes in their production and economic system) their influence would decline and citizens would be affected by that. Is this a better way to spend money rather than on public hospitals? This is up for opinions and it is difficult to come up with an answer. From my point of view, a poor man with public healthcare lives better than a rich man without it. But that is my opinion that goes to the individual and does not consider country wide effects.
Will Argentinians benefit from this? Probably there’ll be some relief in the short term, but things really are not going great and I’m sure giving away resources won’t help much.