Coin Press - Argentina's radical Shift

NYSE - LSE
RBGPF 0% 69.99 $
AZN 0.64% 162.89 $
RYCEF -0.05% 19.29 $
CMSC 0.68% 20.48 $
BCE -1.78% 22.5 $
VOD -1.26% 17.46 $
RIO -1.53% 95.79 $
BTI -0.77% 56.09 $
GSK 0.56% 50.29 $
RELX 0.15% 34.27 $
CMSD 0.88% 20.29 $
BCC -0.82% 75.31 $
BP -3.48% 45.38 $
JRI -1.04% 11.5 $
NGG 1.45% 76.03 $

Argentina's radical Shift




Argentina is in the middle of a historic experiment. When libertarian economist Javier Milei took office on 10 December 2023, he inherited an economy gripped by triple‑digit inflation, a fiscal deficit equal to around 15 % of GDP, negative foreign‑exchange reserves and a country risk premium that made external financing almost impossible. Weekly price jumps were eroding purchasing power and nearly half of Argentines lived in poverty. In the 1990s a reform wave under President Carlos Menem introduced a currency board, privatized state companies and liberalised trade; those changes briefly stabilised prices but unravelled after persistent fiscal deficits led to a sovereign default in 2001. Milei argues that this earlier programme did not go far enough and has promised “the largest structural reform in Argentine history,” which he says is eight times larger than Menem’s and will transform the country into “the freest nation on the planet”.

Shock Therapy and Austerity
Within days of taking office, Milei unleashed a package of policies that he called shock therapy. His finance minister devalued the peso by more than 50 %, set a crawling peg for the currency, halved the number of ministries and announced a fiscal adjustment of around 5 % of GDP. Government ministries were slashed from 18 to nine, thousands of public‑sector contracts were terminated and many public works projects were cancelled. A plan to shrink the state by roughly a third included closing state‑owned news agencies and eliminating subsidies for culture and the arts. Energy and transport subsidies — which had cost the treasury US$12 billion in 2022 — were cut sharply, while a tax amnesty was introduced to lure dollars stashed abroad back into the banking system. Import and export restrictions were lifted, price controls removed and the central bank stopped financing the treasury, ending a practice that economists blame for Argentina’s chronic inflation.

The “chainsaw” approach shocked a society accustomed to state intervention. Public sector workers, construction employees and pensioners were hit hard. Tens of thousands lost their jobs or saw salaries and pensions lag behind prices. Construction activity collapsed after public works were frozen, costing an estimated 200,000 jobs, and austerity measures reduced funding for universities and hospitals. Unemployment and poverty surged in early 2024; some surveys reported poverty peaking at around 53 %. Milei acknowledged the pain but insisted that “there is no money” and that the alternative was hyperinflation.

Early Results and Second‑Year Progress
The shock therapy delivered results faster than many economists expected. After spiking briefly, monthly inflation plunged from roughly 25.5 % in December 2023 to 2.7 % by October 2024. Fiscal austerity and the elimination of money printing produced Argentina’s first budget surplus in more than a decade. By mid‑2024 the economy ran a trade surplus and improved its trade balance by more than US$18 billion, reflecting a decline in imports and an export boom driven by agricultural products and the Vaca Muerta shale field. Country‑risk indicators fell to their lowest levels in years, bonds rallied and the gap between official and parallel exchange rates narrowed sharply. A tax‑amnesty programme drew some US$19 billion back into the banking system, boosting reserves. Monthly inflation continued to fall into 2025, reaching around 2 %, a deceleration described by analysts as unprecedented.

Second‑Year Progress
By the middle of 2025 the government began to point to clear signs of economic turnaround. Output data show that GDP grew by 6.3 percent and investment by 32 percent year‑on‑year in the second quarter of 2025 after contracting early in Milei’s term. International institutions forecast overall growth of 4.7–5.5 percent for 2025. Annual inflation, which had reached 289 percent early in his administration, fell to 34 percent, equivalent to roughly 2 percent per month, and the poverty rate dropped from 53 percent to 32 percent, lifting more than 11 million people above the poverty line. Consumption and exports recovered, and employment started to grow.

The administration attributes these gains to aggressive cuts and deregulation. It claims to have reduced the federal budget by 30 percent, balancing it by Milei’s second month in office. Public debt fell by about 12 percent, and the president vowed never again to run a deficit. A new ministry dedicated to deregulation abolished ten ministries, merged agencies and fired over 53,000 public employees. As of August 2025, the government had enacted 1,246 deregulations, roughly two per day, cutting red tape in energy, agriculture, real estate and health. The programme also repealed 22 taxes and reduced export duties, scrapped import licences and raised the limit on duty‑free purchases. These measures lowered prices for many goods — for example, home appliances fell 35 percent after import licences were abolished — and allowed livestock producers to import vaccines at a third of the previous cost. Rental deregulation tripled housing supply and cut real rents by around 30 percent, and mortgage lending has surged from a handful of loans in 2023 to a tripling of new mortgages in 2024. Together these changes are intended to create the freest economy in Argentina’s history.

Milei used this momentum to claim that his government was “the best in history” and that his fiscal adjustment was the largest ever attempted. In an interview he declared that his administration had already executed a structural reform eight times larger than Menem’s and that his deregulation ministry was scrapping “between one and five regulations every day,” with more than 3,200 reforms still pending. The reforms have propelled Argentina up 90 places in an international economic‑freedom index, the president bragged, and he vowed to keep pushing until the country surpasses Ireland, Switzerland and New Zealand.

Social Costs and Rising Dissent
Despite the improvement in macro indicators, the social consequences of Milei’s programme are severe. Real wages have fallen, and poverty, though down from its peak, still affects almost half of the population. Retirees have seen the real value of pensions eroded, with the average minimum pension hovering around US$300. Cuts to university budgets have left some campuses struggling to pay electricity bills. High interest rates — imposed to defend the peso — have frozen bank lending and provoked a steep drop in economic activity, especially in construction and manufacturing. Critics argue that opening the economy too quickly exposes local industries to cheap imports and risks deindustrialisation. Protests by pensioners, students and public‑sector unions have become more frequent, and opposition politicians warn that the recession will deepen if austerity continues unabated.

Milei dismisses such criticisms as coming from the “political caste” he has vowed to defeat. He believes the temporary pain is a necessary price for eliminating structural distortions. To mitigate hardship, the government doubled the universal child allowance and increased food assistance, but for many households the support has not offset the effects of subsidy cuts and high inflation.

Midterm Mandate and Reform Blitz
Argentina’s October 2025 midterm elections turned into a referendum on Milei’s policies. The libertarian alliance La Libertad Avanza (LLA) captured more than 40 percent of the vote and more than doubled its share of seats in Congress. Preliminary results show the party winning 13 of the 24 Senate seats up for election and 64 of the 127 seats contested in the lower house, while the main Peronist coalition fell to second place. This landslide, combined with a turnout of 67.9 percent — the lowest since Argentina’s return to democracy — handed Milei the political capital he needs to advance reforms. Analysts say the midterm win “raised the prospect of structural change on a scale Argentina has not seen in decades”, and investors see it as a positive sign that a more market‑friendly Congress will back his agenda.

U.S. support played an important role. In the weeks before the vote Washington offered a twenty‑billion‑dollar currency swap line and another twenty‑billion‑dollar loan facility to shore up Argentina’s reserves. After the election, analysts noted that U.S. backing of up to US$40 billion would encourage longer‑term investment in Argentine assets. Investors anticipate that Milei will now pursue sweeping labour and tax reforms that could unlock billions of dollars in foreign investment. Plans under discussion include simplifying the tax system, making labour contracts more flexible and reducing pension costs. A simplified tax regime, flexible labour laws and lower pension obligations are seen as prerequisites for Argentina’s competitiveness and will be key components of Milei’s “Pacto de Mayo” programme.

The election also cemented investor confidence in the government’s Régimen de Incentivos para Grandes Inversiones (RIGI). Under this scheme, companies investing more than US$200 million receive 30‑year guarantees of legal and tax stability and a reduced corporate income tax of 25 percent, down from the standard 35 percent. Observers say the combination of a strengthened Congress and the RIGI regime will attract more foreign capital to mining, energy and infrastructure projects.

International investors have taken note. Improved fiscal accounts and the promise of structural reform have attracted pledges of major investments. Energy companies have committed US$25–30 billion to build a liquefied natural gas terminal at Vaca Muerta, a project expected to create 50,000 jobs and generate US$300 billion in exports over two decades. Mining firms plan a US$15–17 billion copper and gold project in San Juan, described as the largest private investment in Argentine history. A technology consortium led by a U.S. artificial‑intelligence company has announced a US$25 billion data‑centre project in Patagonia. The United States has signalled support with a US$20 billion swap line and potential additional financing. Analysts believe that a simpler tax regime, flexible labour laws and lower pension costs could unlock billions in mining, energy and infrastructure investment.

Yet Milei must still build alliances to turn proposals into law. Even after the midterms his party lacks a majority in both houses, and he needs support from centrist and provincial parties to enact reforms. Some lawmakers remain cautious; one Peronist congressman suggested the government must seek consensus rather than impose a programme unilaterally. Allies warn that fiscal discipline is non‑negotiable, but labour reforms could face resistance from unions and courts. Failure to build durable coalitions could stall the reform blitz and undermine investor confidence.

Comparing with the 1990s
The last time Argentina attempted such sweeping changes was during the early 1990s. Hyperinflation in 1989–90 forced a political consensus for reform, and the government introduced a Convertibility Plan in 1991 that fixed the peso at par with the U.S. dollar and privatised most state enterprises. The package included trade liberalisation, tax reforms, and the replacement of the pay‑as‑you‑go pension system with private capitalisation. For a time the economy boomed and inflation collapsed, but the plan’s rigid exchange‑rate peg and lack of fiscal discipline eventually contributed to the devastating 2001 crisis. Milei argues that those reforms were incomplete and financed with debt. His programme goes further by eliminating monetary financing, balancing the budget, liberalising currency controls and aggressively deregulating markets. By claiming that his reforms are eight times more extensive than Menem’s, he positions his agenda as the largest structural change since the 1990s.

Outlook: Promise and Peril
Milei’s experiment has altered Argentina’s economic narrative. A year of aggressive austerity has stabilised inflation and restored fiscal discipline, leading to cautious optimism among investors. Massive energy, mining and technology projects could transform the export mix and relieve Argentina’s perennial foreign‑exchange constraint. Support from the United States and multilateral lenders provides a financial cushion while reforms take root. If labour, tax and pension bills pass, Argentina could enjoy a more competitive tax code, flexible labour market and sustainable social‑security system, changes that companies say are necessary for long‑term investment.

But risks are substantial. Despite the fiscal surplus and lower inflation, Argentina remains in a deep recession; output fell 3.4 percent in the first half of 2025 and is expected to decline almost 4 percent for the year. Consumer demand has collapsed and unemployment has risen to about 8 percent, while nearly half of workers lack formal contracts and social security. Tens of thousands of public‑sector jobs have been cut, and many households now rely on multiple jobs because wages lag behind inflation. The peso remains overvalued: after an initial devaluation, the government has maintained a 2 percent per month crawling peg, causing the gap between the official and unofficial exchange rates to widen again. Import taxes of 17.5 percent and licensing requirements make trade unpredictable, and the administration plans to reduce the levy to 7.5 percent only gradually. These barriers, together with currency controls that limit citizens to changing US$200 of currency per month, continue to discourage investment and could prolong the recession.

High interest rates and a strong peso threaten to squeeze exporters, while rapid import liberalisation risks deindustrialisation. Poverty remains high and social unrest could erupt if growth fails to materialise or if reforms are seen as benefiting only elites. Analysts warn that the currency remains vulnerable; mismanagement could reignite inflation or force a disorderly devaluation. Politically, Milei must shift from a confrontational approach to consensus‑building. Although the midterm strengthened his hand, he still lacks an outright majority and needs to negotiate with provincial governors and centrist lawmakers to pass labour, tax and pension bills. His ability to convert ambitious reforms into enduring state policy will determine whether Argentina’s new era becomes a sustainable success or another aborted experiment.



Featured


Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Да здравствует Украина

Es lebe die Ukraine - Да здравствует Украина - Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Nech žije Ukrajina - Länge leve Ukraina - תחי אוקראינה - Lang leve Oekraïne - Да живее Украйна - Elagu Ukraina - Kauan eläköön Ukraina - Vive l'Ukraine - Ζήτω η Ουκρανία - 乌克兰万岁 - Viva Ucrania - Ať žije Ukrajina - Çok yaşa Ukrayna - Viva a Ucrânia - Trăiască Ucraina - ウクライナ万歳 - Tegyvuoja Ukraina - Lai dzīvo Ukraina - Viva l'Ucraina - Hidup Ukraina - تحيا أوكرانيا - Vivat Ucraina - ขอให้ยูเครนจงเจริญ - Ucraina muôn năm - ژوندی دی وی اوکراین - Yashasin Ukraina - Озак яшә Украина - Živjela Ukrajina - 우크라이나 만세 - Mabuhay ang Ukraine - Lenge leve Ukraina - Nyob ntev Ukraine - Да живее Украина - გაუმარჯოს უკრაინას - Hidup Ukraine - Vivu Ukrainio - Længe leve Ukraine - Živjela Ukrajina - Жыве Украіна - Yaşasın Ukrayna - Lengi lifi Úkraína - Lank lewe die Oekraïne

Stargate project, Trump and the AI war...

In a dramatic return to the global political stage, former President Donald J. Trump, as the current 47th President of the United States of America, has unveiled his latest initiative, the so-called ‘Stargate Project,’ in a bid to cement the United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and outpace China’s meteoric rise in the field. The newly announced programme, cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and ambitious targets, is already stirring intense debate over the future of technological competition between the world’s two largest economies.According to preliminary statements from Trump’s team, the Stargate Project will consolidate the efforts of leading American tech conglomerates, defence contractors, and research universities under a centralised framework. The former president, who has long championed American exceptionalism, claims this approach will provide the United States with a decisive advantage, enabling rapid breakthroughs in cutting-edge AI applications ranging from military strategy to commercial innovation.“America must remain the global leader in technology—no ifs, no buts,” Trump declared at a recent press conference. “China has been trying to surpass us in AI, but with this new project, we will make sure the future remains ours.”Details regarding funding and governance remain scarce, but early indications suggest the initiative will rely heavily on public-private partnerships, tax incentives for research and development, and collaboration with high-profile venture capital firms. Skeptics, however, warn that the endeavour could fan the flames of an increasingly militarised AI race, raising ethical concerns about surveillance, automation of warfare, and data privacy. Critics also question whether the initiative can deliver on its lofty promises, especially in the face of existing economic and geopolitical pressures.Yet for its supporters, the Stargate Project serves as a rallying cry for renewed American leadership and an antidote to worries over China’s technological ascendancy. Proponents argue that accelerating AI research is paramount if the United States wishes to preserve not just military supremacy, but also the economic and cultural influence that has typified its global role for decades.Whether this bold project will succeed—or if it will devolve into a symbolic gesture—remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the Stargate Project has already reignited debate about how best to safeguard America’s strategic future and maintain the balance of power in the fast-evolving arena of artificial intelligence.

Europe’s arms money maze

Europe’s rearmament has acquired an uncomfortable companion: uncertainty about what the money actually buys. In Germany, an argument over defence-related borrowing has raised questions about whether exceptional debt is producing genuinely additional expenditure. In Estonia, unreliable inventory records and disputed ammunition contracts have brought ministerial accountability into the foreground. These are different problems, but they meet at the same point: a larger budget is not a reliable measure of a stronger defence.The contention that nobody knows what is happening to Europe’s weapons money goes too far. Budgets are published, procurement bodies operate and auditors are identifying failures. Nor do these cases establish that funds have disappeared into Russian hands or that the Kremlin engineered the difficulties. The more defensible conclusion is also more useful: Europe cannot judge rearmament by the volume of money announced. It must establish what has been purchased, accepted and made ready for use.That distinction matters strategically. An adversary need not steal the money to benefit from delays, unusable equipment or a loss of confidence in the governments spending it.What the €800 billion actually meansThe scale of the spending is substantial. Combined defence expenditure across the European Union reached €418 billion in 2025, with €454 billion estimated for 2026. Those annual totals should not be confused with the much larger, multi-year headline attached to the EU’s rearmament financing plan. The widely cited €800 billion is potential financing capacity, not a single fund already transferred to arms manufacturers. Its main components are approximately €650 billion in possible additional national expenditure enabled by fiscal flexibility over four years, and €150 billion in loans through the Security Action for Europe instrument, known as SAFE. The loans must be repaid; the additional national spending depends on governments choosing to use the available room.These distinctions are indispensable to any honest assessment. Permission to borrow is not an order placed with a factory. An order is not a completed delivery. Equipment delivered to a warehouse is not necessarily equipment that troops can operate, maintain and replenish. Treating all these stages as interchangeable allows governments to claim progress before the military benefit exists.It also creates a temptation to add together figures that describe different periods or overlapping flows of money. A credible account of rearmament should distinguish financing arrangements from annual expenditure, and both from verified outputs. Otherwise, the public is left comparing impressive totals whose practical meaning is unclear.Germany’s argument over additional spendingOn 10 September, the Ifo Institute challenged the use of Germany’s defence-related borrowing exemption. It calculated an €11 billion gap between additional borrowing and the year-on-year increase in the relevant expenditure. Ifo’s argument was that 38.5 per cent of the additional debt had not produced additional defence and security spending, instead freeing room for other purposes in the ordinary budget. The Finance Ministry rejected the comparison as legally and methodologically flawed. The exemption concerns qualifying expenditure above one per cent of gross domestic product, rather than an increase over the previous year. Ifo, for its part, said its analysis concerned additional spending, not constitutionality.This is not evidence that €11 billion was stolen. It is a dispute over the relationship between an exceptional borrowing mechanism and the political expectation attached to it. The difference is important: an arrangement can comply with its legal design while delivering less additional expenditure than citizens understand the announcement to promise.The practical question is whether new borrowing expands defence capacity or changes the way existing commitments are financed. Those outcomes can coexist within the same budget. Refinancing an established obligation may be lawful and fiscally useful, but it should not be presented as though an equivalent amount of new military capability has been purchased. Germany’s dispute therefore points to a straightforward transparency test. Governments should identify the expenditure that would have occurred anyway, the genuinely additional commitments and the delivery milestones attached to them. Without that comparison, the argument risks becoming a contest between accounting definitions while the central question—what the armed forces actually gain—remains unanswered.Estonia’s warning from the accountsIn Estonia, the problems are more immediate. Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur announced on 2 September that he would step down, accepting political responsibility for failures exposed in defence administration and procurement. His announcement did not amount to an admission of personal corruption.The National Audit Office issued a qualified opinion concerning defence inventories valued at approximately €1.2 billion because their quantities, composition and valuation could not be established reliably. It also questioned an unexplained retrospective adjustment of €99.7 million to the previous year’s inventory figures. That does not mean €1.2 billion of weapons has vanished. An unreliable balance is not the same thing as a proven loss. It means the records are insufficiently dependable to establish what the balance represents—a serious weakness in any organisation, and particularly consequential in one responsible for military readiness.Inadequate records can obstruct decisions long before a final financial loss is demonstrated. Commanders and purchasing authorities need to distinguish usable stock from equipment awaiting inspection, repair or replacement. If those categories are unclear, another procurement decision may rest on a mistaken understanding of what is already available.Auditing is therefore more than an exercise in retrospective blame. A trustworthy inventory helps determine what must be bought next, how urgently it is needed and whether previous purchases fulfilled their purpose. Poor accounting can undermine operational planning even where no theft is established.Paid for is not the same as usableEstonia’s ammunition procurement for Ukraine illustrates a second difficulty. The audit identified disputed advance payments and warned of a potential exposure to the state budget of around €70 million. That figure describes a risk, not a final, adjudicated loss.The controversy includes contracts involving the Italian company Datasel. Pevkur described ammunition delivered under the disputed arrangements as incomplete and of insufficient quality, rather than simply non-existent. Datasel disputes the criticism and has said that goods delivered and invoiced were worth approximately €58 million against about €59 million in advances. The company’s account is a contested position, not a judicial finding.The disagreement exposes a distinction that matters beyond this particular supplier. A payment record, an invoice, the physical presence of goods and acceptance of those goods for their intended use answer different questions. A supplier may point to shipments while a purchasing authority disputes whether the contractual requirement has been met. The existence of equipment does not, by itself, resolve an argument over quality or completeness.For Ukraine, the decisive consideration is usable military support. For the public authorities financing it, the additional questions are whether payment conditions were appropriate, inspections were timely and contractual protections can recover money when performance is disputed. Those questions should be settled through evidence and the relevant proceedings, not through premature declarations of guilt.The procurement lesson is nonetheless clear. Emergency purchasing needs traceable contracts, independently verified acceptance and a dependable record linking each payment to performance. Urgency may justify faster decisions. It cannot make the distinction between an invoice and a functioning delivery disappear.An oversight system split across institutionsEurope’s defence financing does not sit within a single system of scrutiny. National budgets, EU programmes, loans and off-budget arrangements have different institutional responsibilities. The European Court of Auditors’ September review described complex governance and uneven oversight arrangements, rather than a continent-wide absence of auditing.SAFE falls within the European Court of Auditors’ remit. The European Peace Facility, outside the ordinary EU budget, has its own College of Auditors. National defence expenditure is scrutinised through national institutions. The distinction is between different mandates, not between money that is automatically checked and money that is automatically unaccountable. The difficulty arises at the joins. A public explanation may follow the announcement of a financing package, while a procurement body follows the contract and an operational authority follows the equipment. Unless those accounts can be reconciled, citizens and legislators may struggle to establish the complete journey from political promise to accepted delivery.Secrecy complicates that task, but it need not prevent it. Publishing ammunition locations or technical vulnerabilities would be irresponsible. Giving properly authorised auditors access to contracts, inspections and payment records is a different matter. The need to protect operational information should not become a general excuse for withholding financial evidence.Nor should procurement integrity be treated as a rival to speed. Clearly assigned responsibility, verifiable milestones and early checks can prevent disputes from developing into expensive attempts to recover money after the event. The relevant choice is between controls that work during procurement and explanations demanded after something has gone wrong.Where Putin could benefitThese failures do not establish that Vladimir Putin has obtained everything he wanted. A Europe that turns rising expenditure into effective forces would represent a very different outcome. There is also no demonstrated Russian role in the particular German budget dispute or the Estonian accounting and contractual problems described here.The potential advantage for Moscow is indirect. Delayed or disputed deliveries can leave the intended recipient weaker than the expenditure suggests. Confusing financial claims can make it harder to defend further commitments. A succession of procurement controversies could erode confidence not only in individual contracts, but in the wider case for supporting Ukraine and strengthening European defence.That is a strategic risk, not proof of an accomplished Russian victory. The public identification of problems is itself evidence that scrutiny exists. A minister accepting political responsibility, auditors challenging unreliable balances and a government being pressed to explain its borrowing are mechanisms through which democratic systems can correct failure. Their value depends on what happens afterwards.The answer is neither to abandon rearmament nor to shield it from criticism. Governments should report progress in terms that connect money to results: contracts awarded, payments made, equipment accepted and capabilities available, with sensitive details reserved for secure oversight. Disputed transactions should remain visible until resolved rather than disappearing beneath the next spending announcement.Europe does not need to prove its determination by producing another larger number. It needs to demonstrate that the money already committed is becoming usable strength. Until it does, the distance between those two things remains an opportunity for the adversary it is trying to deter.