Until the 1940s, Argentina’s political economy was an archetypal example of agro-export model capitalism. Politics existed to serve Argentina’s elite landowning oligarchy whose interests were tied to foreign interests, particularly those of the British empire. Electoral politics was tolerated only so far as it did not interfere with the business of extraction. Argentina’s markets were never laissez-faire, but rather, cronyist. Monopolies like CADE supported politicians in return for capturing Argentina’s markets and state support. At one point, British shippers had the rights to transport 80% of Argentine beef exports and a British company became the beneficiary of loans borrowed from Britain by the Argentine state.

 Argentina’s historical trajectory underwent a reversal just as dramatic as its inception. The elites of today's Argentina are antithetical to those of earlier eras. Populist support gives statist and tight control of Argentina’s finances, industry, trade, and distribution of social services. Instead of using this power for good, Argentina’s politicians exploit it to enrich themselves and their cronies. 

Since that time I have found that almost all of the English language news media is missing crucial context about why Argentina, a country whose economic model involves heavy subsidization of economic and political activity, public industries, and the strongest labor unions in the world would suddenly inaugurate a libertarian “revolutionary” as president. 

Since Milei’s election, it has become very clear that ‘shock therapy’ a mix of currency devaluation and austerity will cause severe economic pain for the average Argentine and even Argentine businesses in the short run. But Juan Ignacio Castellini, former Head of the Justice of the Sarmiento Group, believes that setting Argentina down with a new path of economic development is worth it. Check it out.