Thanks for writing this! Very interesting. I wrote the original viral tweet — when I did, it pretty quickly became clear that the few sentences on Wikipedia had missed some important nuance.
>However, I think that claims that rent “fell 40%” are (while, yes, in a literal sense factually correct) exaggerated and a bit dishonest
Same story with the poverty rate. Yeah it technically went from 54 to 35%, but that was a momentary bleep caused by the record inflation Massa left us with and the delay in salaries catching up, not due to a meaningful change in the living conditions of 10% of Argentines.
However it's still true that Milei's stabilization policies have brought poverty down to the mid 2010s levels and that's worth celebrating.
Perhaps the improvement in the housing market in Argentina is representative of broader improvements in the economy under Milei: most of the progress comes from a rebound effect caused by the drop of the extraordinarily high inflation and uncertainty in 2023. But long-term change depends on institutional reform, which does require some form of state intervention and planning. People outside Argentina think Milei is a miracle because they fail to grasp Argentina’s complex history and institutional setting.
While true, in many instances the state planning and intervention required is to get out of the way, which would align with Milei's values.
For instance, in the capital the libertarians voted against mayor Macri's housing reform that put more limits on development in the north of the city to promote development in the south. This is obviously an anti housing policy as it keeps the north even more inaccessible by limiting supply. (I personally know of a project that fell apart as a result of this new code, although I haven't seen any stats related to it).
Is it fair to say that by running an official and unofficial exchange rate markets and thereby attracting tourists who can arbitrage between them to outcompetes locals for accommodation, previous policy was indirectly subsidizing tourists to take housing available for locals? That seems bad and it seems good for local welfare if locals are getting fairer undistorted pricing for housing thats no longer artificially tilted against them.
Thanks for writing this! Very interesting. I wrote the original viral tweet — when I did, it pretty quickly became clear that the few sentences on Wikipedia had missed some important nuance.
>However, I think that claims that rent “fell 40%” are (while, yes, in a literal sense factually correct) exaggerated and a bit dishonest
Same story with the poverty rate. Yeah it technically went from 54 to 35%, but that was a momentary bleep caused by the record inflation Massa left us with and the delay in salaries catching up, not due to a meaningful change in the living conditions of 10% of Argentines.
However it's still true that Milei's stabilization policies have brought poverty down to the mid 2010s levels and that's worth celebrating.
Perhaps the improvement in the housing market in Argentina is representative of broader improvements in the economy under Milei: most of the progress comes from a rebound effect caused by the drop of the extraordinarily high inflation and uncertainty in 2023. But long-term change depends on institutional reform, which does require some form of state intervention and planning. People outside Argentina think Milei is a miracle because they fail to grasp Argentina’s complex history and institutional setting.
While true, in many instances the state planning and intervention required is to get out of the way, which would align with Milei's values.
For instance, in the capital the libertarians voted against mayor Macri's housing reform that put more limits on development in the north of the city to promote development in the south. This is obviously an anti housing policy as it keeps the north even more inaccessible by limiting supply. (I personally know of a project that fell apart as a result of this new code, although I haven't seen any stats related to it).
Is it fair to say that by running an official and unofficial exchange rate markets and thereby attracting tourists who can arbitrage between them to outcompetes locals for accommodation, previous policy was indirectly subsidizing tourists to take housing available for locals? That seems bad and it seems good for local welfare if locals are getting fairer undistorted pricing for housing thats no longer artificially tilted against them.