During a gala dinner of the Faro Foundation, the President Javier Milei He once again expressed his economic vision: he defended a minimal state, rejected and maintained any kind of “sector rescue” intervention Anyone who calls for microeconomic policy is actually promoting corruption and lobbying. According to the president, a liberal government should not “pick winners” but limit itself to guaranteeing basic rights such as life, liberty and private property.
The fragment of the speech was analyzed “QR!”the program that leads Pablo Caruso In Bravo TVwhere the reactions didn’t take long to arrive. For the panel, the President’s proposal is based on a false premise: that all economic actors start from the same starting point.
The panelist Irina Hauser He bluntly described the speech as misleading. “He’s talking about leveling the playing field when it’s been uneven since day zero,” he said, emphasizing that even in Milei’s own argument there seems to be a state role implicit: that of setting rules and burdens.
Mariano Hamiltona panelist on the program, went further and warned the president deliberately confuses the idea of support with privilege. “To say that supporting a sector leads it to ‘victory’ is to ignore that supporting it often does little to keep it from disappearing,” he noted. For the journalist, the assumption that the 45 million Argentines would start under equal conditions is “delirious”.
The economist goes in the same direction Hernan Letcher He challenged the idea that inequalities were virtuous. “The consumer is not the same as the owner of the supermarket, and the worker is not the same as the person who pays his salary,” he explained. According to Letcher, the state’s historical role is accurate balance structurally unequal relationshipsto prevent the “law of the jungle” from prevailing.
The debate also shifted to government-sponsored reforms. Caruso recalled that although the president is questioning where the resources for support policies will come from, the executive branch has pushed forward labor and tax reforms that reduce the contributions of the most concentrated sectors. “It is not an honest discussion about how to collect and distribute; political decision about who to take from and who to allow to earn more“, he explained.
Kast, the ultra-conservative who is not Milei and promises order in Pinochet’s shadow
One of the most questioned points was this Abolition of internal taxes on luxury goods included Labor reform. Letcher explained that the measure benefits consumption of very high value – such as diamonds, minted gold, airplanes, luxury cars and boats – and that while its fiscal impact is limited, its symbolic impact is enormous. “It has no influence on general consumption nor does it promote production: it benefits very few,” he stressed.
The discussion became even more tense during the analysis Distribution of discretionary funds to the provinces concurrently with parliamentary debate. The program detailed that in just one week, the government transferred more than 43 billion pesos in contributions from the state treasury to districts whose governors usually accompany the ruling party in Congress. These include Tucumán, Chaco and Misiones, with new transfers planned for Catamarca, Entre Ríos and Salta.
For Hamilton, this dynamic reveals a central contradiction in official discourse. “’Distribution’ is condemned when it involves public measures, but Funds are distributed to ensure legislative support“, he noted, questioning whether these practices would not trigger the same media scandal as other political negotiations.
Milei’s sudden generosity
Completing the program left an unsettling feeling. Caruso warned that many of these maneuvers occur “in plain language,” without concealing them and without provoking a social reaction commensurate with their seriousness. “It is no longer about discussing arguments, but about a different logic of power,” he concluded.
L.B
About The Author
