Euro is far, also Euro is far more left leaning (I guess) than the US (even democrats in the US would be considered right form the center in Europe). But the real issue would be the lack of currency reserves - least I'd think Argentina might have more Dollar notes than Euro ones.
I don't know how this helps, though.
Argentina's peso ("left-leaning fact-based" currency) went from worth 0.35 US dollars to now 0.0029 US dollars in less than 5 years.
The elected president is on the quite right side of the spectrum, so associating with any left wing policies/countries would be very unlikely, given Argentina's currency dropped massively during the last years. He won vs a candidate who used to be a financial minister overseeing several hundreds percent inflation.
Technically, from a geography point of view, euro-using countries as official currency are closer than USD: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/outermos...
(I.e. French guiana's currency is the Euro)
The distance - far/close matters when it comes to the trading partners more than anything. The US and Brazil being the biggest ones[0], and the trade is in USD.
[0] https://www.indec.gob.ar/uploads/informesdeprensa/i_argent_0...
That used to be the case but it is true no longer, current 'Democrats' (between quotes because the DNC seems to be as democratic as the DRC from what I've seen) are comparable to centre-left parties in north-western Europe. The more activist wing of the 'Democrats' is comparable to socialist and communist parties in e.g. Sweden and the Netherlands.
Pro-Euro: Euro already is controlled by a wider range of countries and there is some incentive to match monetary policy to accommodate those wider circumstances. So a policy is less likely to just support a single countries unique situation and conflict with Argentina's situation.
Pro-USD: USD is already more widespread in South America and actively being used in Argentina right now. This advantage is very practical and concrete right now and trump's all else
I presume by Fed you mean the not-government 'federal reserve' which is a contractor to Congress which tinkers with monetary policy and sets the price of money. Federal Reserve quietly provided bailouts to Europe in 2008.
New York Times article,
'“an open facility where European banks could come and get dollars.”
So began what would become the biggest United States government bailout that most people do not know anything about.'
Argentina or Panama having a bit of an economic slowdown whilst the US is growing nicely isn't the Fed's problem: the monetary policy decisions will only take into account to the monetary policy needs of the US, and it's not particularly in the interests of the Fed to bail out Argentine bank reserve shortfalls unless the contagion is likely to hit the Us either.
this needs to be repeated. USD is already the way of doing business in the ARG, and this is essentially just calling it what it is.
this is also seen as a way to stabilize the back-and-forth economic choices that make the currency terrible.
makes sense in theory, but they're an export economy, and a strong USD will make it hard sell beef and mining products.
I've been in favor of abolishing the minting of physical US pennies, but I suppose this is one argument against it: other countries that use the dollar might actually find pennies to be useful.
Notes as money is bizarre share-cropping, and USA people would be reasonable to advocate for coins in larger denominations like 10 50 and 500 to avoid borrowing notes into existence.
https://www.usmint.gov/news/inside-the-mint/how-coins-are-ma...
"Federal Reserve Banks buy coins from the Mint at face value."
Even if it's not recorded as such, money is always a liability to its issuer, otherwise there would be no point issuing it.
Not in USA. US coins are fiat without a liability. This leads to people every few years thinking they discovered that coins are just fiat and then recycling the idea of minting some $1 trillion coins and paying off the federal debt. It is technically possible, there would be no debt for the coin issuance, and would likely lead to nobody willing to purchase future USA debt issuances.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trillion-dollar-coin.as...
Really bizarre are the gift shops at the US Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing where they have tours to watch the printing presses. They sell to tourists uncut sheets of dollars that they print. But they first buy the sheets at face value plus the printing costs from 'federal reserve' who bought the sheets at pennies per _sheet_ that Treasury just printed.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/chapter-5-federal...
"When purchasing the notes, the BEP authorizes the Reserve Banks to charge Treasury's general account for the face value of the notes plus the cost of printing."
No, though prove me wrong and show us the coin liabilities on USA balance sheet somewhere.
In practice a coin is a token that represents a liability at the Fed much like a deposit. That token can be used to claim an actual deposit at the Fed (by agents, not little people, obviously).
I'm not aware of a law that requires a coin be bought by the fed at face value. It just seems to be the historical norm. If you're aware of such a requirement please let me know.
In summary, the coins are not the "money", they're just tokens that for historical reasons the fed buys from the treasury at face value and can record at face value in their balance sheet. It could in principle just as easily be the case the fed is not required to balance with anything from the treasury (e.g. not T-bills) against new money creation - they're just forced to hand over the deposits to the control of the treasury. The net effect would be exactly like the coin case (hence the trillion dollar coin nonsense).
National debt is a primary tool to support growth.
Breaking glass windows also increases growth (or GDP) because it forces spending to replace the broken windows. Similar GDP increase when USA builds missiles to blow up bridges (over there somewhere) and later provides funds to US contractors to rebuild those bridges. GDP number go up, along with debt and interest costs.
It lasted about 10 years and was eventually abandoned. TLDR: "Simply put, the dollar peg overvalued the peso in the rest of the world, especially against a weak euro and the Brazilian real, reducing Argentina's competitiveness and compounding the account deficit."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1331248/main-trade-partn...
Pegging to the yuan might be the more interesting option since that has considerable risk but also I’d imagine China would look very favorably on it.
https://es-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Mercado_negro...
You can exchange dollars in any country and in many you can directly pay in stores if the storekeeper is flexible. You wouldn't call that a parallel dollar economy.
The only additional point in Argentina is thay they have an official exchange rate that is way way different from the true exchange rate (ie the one that arises from demand and supply). That's why you can exchange dollars through the official channels and get, say, 500 pesos, or you can exchange from an unofficial one and get 1000 pesos
Bonus question: Why not Euros?