Argentina is what Trump’s team imagines the US to be. They’re not the same.
EDIT: fixed some typos.
Argentina is what Trump’s team imagines the US to be. They’re not the same.
EDIT: fixed some typos.
We went from 25% inlation where prices changed every single week to discussing whether the government will be able to lower inlation from a monthly 2% (still high, o course). The goal post was moved but I'm just glad not to have prices change every week, it was complete madness. And the 2% is the average, of course, you can find some prices the same as they were 2 months ago.
They are obviously saying "the differences are significant enough for these measures to be misplaced" and you probably mean something like "I think the differences in these areas are closer than you claim".
So - go ahead and make the argument you intended to make so we can engage with it.
So, how are they different?
I'm not even disagreeing, but it needs to be elaborated upon.
Argentina suffered 25% inflation per month.
Did you seriously not know this, or were you just being obtuse?
Let me help you. Point one, of many: Argentina's economy is more agrarian than the USAs.
See? Wasn't that hard.
On the surface, a popular president is voted into office on promises of "cutting government inefficiencies" and then proceeds to do just that. Not sure if that's "not looking very hard", but those look pretty similar to me.
I happen to hold my politics very loosely, and so (at the risk of being downvoted by angry HN commenters) I asked, "How are they different?"
Sorry I don't spend hours every day reading up on politics and comparing international presidential trends.
I did however moderate my reply to be respectful and I attempted to draw out a more thoughtful response. The fact you categorise me as the asshole in this leaves me even more uncertain as to your sincerity.
In particular Argentina is moving to free trade, while Trump is moving away. Trump also isn't working within the law/constitution to make his cuts while it appears Argentina is.
Interesting point regarding unions. I hadn’t considered that.
The above is really complex. I don't pretend to understand the laws.
Quite a lot of things. Many of them that might be Constitutional for the government but are illegal and unconstitutional for Trump because they would require Congressional action to make or change law to be valid, and that hasn't happened. That applies to, for instance, most of the spending cuts that are not done through the budget process and the mass firings.
> And why aren’t there any repercussions (as far as I know) for that?
There have been legal reversals, but court processes are slow. There aren't other consequence, because most other consequences for malfeasance by the Chief Executive require active Congressional action, and while Congress has not actively done what is necessary to make actions legal, it also hasn't been interested in taking corrective action against Trump, largely because the majority tacitly supports the illegal actions (both in their substance and the decision to do them by unlawful means.)