Why it is misleading? I didn’t get your point here.
This does not describe Argentina in the early 1900s because the country's wealth was mostly from raw resource exports which are always unstable. It's like Venezuela being (relatively) wealthy from oil is the early 2000s. In this case transitioning from "one of the richest countries on Earth" to poor doesn't require you to mess up proactively - if the price of oil swings the wrong way, you're suddenly poor, as for Venezuela, without doing anything wrong yourself.
At the start of the 20th century, Argentina and Australia were in rather similar situations: southern hemisphere countries with mostly European settler ancestry, and an economy dominated by exports of agriculture and mining. And yet, across that century, Australia's economy just went up and up, while Argentina's stagnated (especially post-1950). Yes, Australia was also faced with instabilities from resource export prices, but it managed to weather them. Why?
The fundamental difference between Argentina and Australia is Australia had much better economic management. And a big factor behind that, is it also had much better political stability. Which could be (at least partly) due to differences in political systems (parliamentary for Australia, presidential for Argentina) and political cultures (British-derived vs Latin American)
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/abc-news-daily/iyl-ar...
I agree it is an oversimplification - yes, in 1951, Artie Fadden was making sensible (even if unpopular) economic decisions in Australia, while Perón was making foolish (albeit popular) economic decisions in Argentina. But the same pattern has been repeated many times since. If Argentina had learned its lesson from Perón‘s mistakes and chosen not to repeat them, it would be in far better economic shape today - arguably much closer to where Australia is. Instead, it has chosen to repeat them again and again and again