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.
Dude, he said he will only give the money if Millei wins again. It’s a direct bribe to the people of Argentina.
I’m not sure, the article does not say so. Regardless, my analysis is independent from this fact. My main point is that this is not Trump stealing money from the government, but rather Trump investing money to gain a strong influence on a country that has always been rich and full of resources.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg7n82gd7pvo
We apparently can’t afford to keep our own government open, or staff vital programs, but we can bribe the people of Argentina with $40 BILLION.
It’s a fucking joke.
Thank you for the reference. I would consider this an investment by the government, at that it does not appear to be a bad one at all. Even though I really despise the implications behind it, it is a justified and rational choice.
The US relies on influence on external countries and foreign investments. Do you think the US is rich because of their great manufacturing and exports? I live in Europe and own basically nothing made in the US. Not because I’m against it, there just isn’t anything made in the US to buy. It’s been a long time US products are just software and websites, but most wealth comes from other sources.
I do not like your government, and I despise they cut government spending and social spending. I believe this will cause plenty problems in your country. However, this decision seems completely justified. The US will probably get back way more than those 40 billions, by opening mines and acquiring local industries. I believe your country is quite interested in lithium, that is a good source for it. Together with Bolivia, who has elections today and is already decided to sell off swats of its resources in exchange of some dollars for a year or two of economic stability.
Look man, if you’re in Argentina, I get it. You want that money. It is a lot of money.
But c’mon. Nothing this administration does is justified. Nothing they do is in the interest of American citizens. You need to understand this.
I think you’re both right. The problem in this discussion is that “justified” really depends on perspective. I agree with the other guy it is justified… from Trump’s perspective. I agree with you it is not justified for the American people.
I don’t really like the action itself. I would not say it is justified by Trump perspective or by people’s perspective. Rather, it is an action which does make sense on an economical and geopolitical level. Now, whether it was a good moment to take this action, whether Americans want this and whether this is morally acceptable - I’m not getting into. I’m not American, you do you and take your own decisions and vote whomever you wish.
I really do not like that this has happened. But that is me. I have many friends in Argentina, and I don’t think this will be good for them. However, this does not look to me as Trump trying to steal money from the government as has been said here above and in other comments, but a rather valid decision with it’s motivations and reasons.
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.
This move seems very much to the benefit of the US and to the detriment of Argentina. Argentinians will pay dearly for this. Now, if you want to close your eyes and act like the US is a third world country nobody cares about go ahead. If you don’t want to see how the US relies on influence in other countries to sustain it’s wealth, that is ok.
Multiple straw men in one comment. Impressive.
The US President does not get to unilaterally decide where $40 billion of taxpayer dollars goes. It just does not work that way, and if any other president in US history had done even just this one thing, people in their own party would be condemning it.
If this action had anything to do with helping the people of Argentina, it would not be conditioned on them re-electing their failing idiot libertarian.
Oh sorry I missed the last part. This is clearly not done to help the people of Argentina.
Sure, that is internal politics. Go ahead and take part in the no kings day. Protest against your government and change it. I’m not American, I don’t know in detail what the president can or can not do. It is completely fine that you don’t agree with his decision. Hell, I really do not like this either. What I’ve been doing is explain the rationale behind the decision. There is a reason behind this choice and it is not that Trump wants to steal money from the government.
Do I like the US intervening more and more in other countries? No, I really do not like it. But frankly that is not just about Trump.
I’m not sure what you mean by straw men, it feels to me that we’re missing each other somewhere in the discussion.
These were the strawmen arguments I was referring to in your previous comment.