Need to read this again, but wanted to post waxwings other comment as I think it answers my question to him
nostr:note1k0gaymsw7h2ds2ck65rprrlt3k4kcd0cgrcwrrur94jr6u5pkf2s6asmju
Yep it was Saifedean
https://saifedean.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-the-milei-ponzi
Also:
"It is true that he has made the names of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and other thinkers of the Austrian School known to a wider public. But his knowledge of their ideas and theories is superficial and flawed, and his praise is therefore double-edged. In any case, we can only advise the public not to regard Milei’s statements on economic philosophy as authoritative...
...it is not enough that he pursue liberal goals with his policies. Rather, the political means must be objectively suitable for actually achieving those goals. This should be self-evident, but it is often disregarded in politics, as Ludwig von Mises repeatedly pointed out. Milei’s policies are a case in point."
- Prof. Dr. Rolf W. Puster, Prof. Dr. Jörg Guido Hülsmann and Prof. Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Discussion
Ergo,
Play fiat games, win fiat prices
Yes, very true, but your standard here is "don't use fiat money". It's a good standard! But it's one that literally no country meets.
I do agree it's reasonable to criticize Milei for not taking non-fiat money more seriously, but he actually put the government in surplus and did *not* print money to finance govt activities, despite what people apparently believe (choosing to believe western media is just incredibly stupid here, but apparently if it suits your bias, it's fine!)
Definitely don't trust our media here to characterize things honestly or well here, so appreciate the extra insight
It is about holding a politician who claims to be libertarian to a libertarian standard.
This means attaining libertarian goals through libertarian means.
A fiscal surplus achieved by increasing tax coercion is certainly not a libertarian policy program.
Increasing govt debt is not a libertarian policy program either, as it just pushes the instance of tax coercion into the future.
If the surplus was attained by reducing spending, reducing debt and also reducing tax coercion at the same time, then yes. It can be appreciated.
And the counter argument that 'net taxes' fell is also not what I consider to be the standard. There should be no increase in taxes whatsoever.
In terms of monetary reform, abolishing the central bank would be worthy of praise. Backing the Peso with Gold would be another one.
The fact that no government doing this is not a valid justification he can give either.
And it's not just an economic criticism. There's also the question of whether he brought in libertarian legal reforms.