You don't seem to be considering the possibility that he knew perfectly well what he was doing, and that this was intentional. Rug pulls are popular among celebrities.

You are right, I assumed he was principled and dedicated to the good of the country above all else. Should I reconsider that? Like I said, I read positive things about him and thought was a sincere person. If you have something else I should read, I would be very interested to know what to add to my list.

I've been following Argentina's struggles for a while given my time in Brazil and the parallels to hyperinflation so I was willing to consider his unorthodox approach, but perhaps it blinded me?

> I assumed he was principled and dedicated to the good of the country above all else. Should I reconsider that?

It's tough to imagine that you're being sincere. I have to assume you're not a US citizen or have not been paying attention for the past ~10 years?

In any case, yes - 1000%; reconsider your opinion on this matter. The man is a moron at best, and evil at worst.

edit:

and for what it's worth; broad statements like "principled and dedicated to the good of the country above all else" are almost universally untrue and lacking in nuance w.r.t. motives no matter which party holds the office of president.

He is talking about Argentinian President, not Trump

I don't think that's right.

> I've been following Argentina's struggles for a while given my time in Brazil and the parallels to hyperinflation so I was willing to consider his unorthodox approach, but perhaps it blinded me?

???

I really appreciate your comment. I'm being totally sincere.

I did see the news reports about him with a chainsaw. He seemed like a nut when I saw that.

And I then watched the Lex Friedman interview and read the profile in the New Yorker.

I was surprised in that my initial glance at him was not positive but my opinions shifted.

Please give me other nuanced and intelligent discussions. I'm sorry I missed the ones you read.

I am a us citizen. I will say the fact that Milei seems very enthusiastic about Trump is very damaging to his brand for me.

Check out some of the reporting from before the election https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2023/09/07/meet-javie...

Look at some of the actual details around his wish list, the fantasy of dollarization is a favorite of mine https://english.elpais.com/economy-and-business/2023-11-24/d...

Compare what's promised to what actually occurs. Did he attack the privileged, were the poor lifted out of poverty, has free enterprise restored a moribund economy? https://www.npr.org/2025/02/09/nx-s1-5280631/argentinas-rece...

I don't know how productive it would be to give you random examples as I am wuite biased and find just about all of his actions to be despicable. It sounds like you may be living in something of an echo chamber of sorts. I recommend seeking out news sources that may challenge your beliefs and relying less on social media and YouTube videos. I'm not really sure how to help you to be honest though. Are you watching/reading some form of news on the regular? For me it's NPR but I try to watch some conservative news as well to see what the other side is up to, how they're reacting.

that you mention lex and the new yorker in the same sentence is very damaging to your brand for me.

I also had a good impression from hearing him speak. He's clearly highly educated and intelligent. But he's also a supporter of Carlos Menem, a famously corrupt politician in the long history of corruption in Argentina.

Whether or not Milei truly wishes to help his country, or if he's using his power for personal gain, is difficult to say. As an outsider, I don't have an informed opinion. But I'm inclined to believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle. The reality is that the vast majority of people who seek political power are egomaniacs and sociopaths. Very few actually want to help their country.

There are some good takes in both directions throughout this thread. Based on talks I had with friends and family living there:

Reasons for liking him: he's bringing inflation down, he has been keeping his promises towards retirees, and he's been reigning in some egregious examples of corruption that previous administrations ignored because it gave them political power.

Reasons for not liking him: he's strangling Universities, rent prices are out of control and not properly reflected in the inflation index, and after being first row during Trump's inauguration he decided to withdraw Argentina from the WHO.

A friend of mine who doesn't like him described his policies as "Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec". I think there's a lot to it.

That rent prices are out of control is not true https://www.infobae.com/economia/2025/02/17/sin-ley-de-alqui...

The article explains that this is the first time since 2020 that prices stopped increasing, which doesn't mean they are at a level where people can afford them - the article itself attributes the lower purchase power of the average family as one of the main drivers for why they stopped raising. The article also explains that maintenance (expensas) are 22% of the final rent price and those increased 170% from last year. "We stopped raising prices because we priced everyone out" is definitely what I'd call "out of control".

Anecdotally I also know three families who had to move back to their parent's house because they were priced out of the rental market. I won't say that all of this is Milei's fault (although I do have thoughts about his handling of the Rents law), but nonetheless the current situation is far from good.

> this is horribly embarassing

He made a mistake and backtracked instead of instinctively doubling down. Count your blessings.

Sorry, when you are the president you don't get that leeway to make mistakes and then correct them by saying "sorry, my bad!" No way.

If I'm just a blogger on Twitter, then sure.

It is hard to tell whether the US president is more than an effective tweeter. That distinction is important to me.

His approval rating says otherwise

> Sorry, when you are the president you don't get that leeway to make mistakes and then correct them by saying "sorry, my bad!" No way.

What does "don't get to" mean? Descriptively, this is false; normatively, this seems like a completely impossible standard to hold presidents to. You want them to literally never make any mistakes?

I think not endorsing specific crypto rugpulls as a solution to help small businesses [on the day they rugpull] in the first place isn't a particularly high normative standard to hold public officials to, especially not public officials who claim to be experts in economic revitalisation. Owning mistakes feels like "with hindsight, I probably shouldn't have pursued this tax policy", not "with hindsight I probably shouldn't have been the prime pumper in a pump and dump scam, but now I'd like to put this experience behind me"...

(cf some fashion blogger with no understanding genuinely being able to claim that promoting crypto was an easily-made mistake)

Thank you, exactly. Anyone who isn't holding crypto to a higher standard cannot pretend they are well versed in economics.

I mean, the standard for politicians, especially US ones is to never ever admit mistake. If they do, they get no leeway. However, if they double down, they get their camp defend them up to absurdum.

So maybe, the "sorry, my bad" is the superior way about mistakes.

>Sorry, when you are the president you don't get that leeway to make mistakes and then correct them by saying "sorry, my bad!" No way.

Did you really put thought into saying this or are you just voicing absurdities for the sake of it?

Either you're saying that an all too human political leader/head of state should never once make any mistakes during their administration, or you're saying that they should double down on anything they claimed and never admit wrong-doing (Trump-style, essentially)

So which is it?

I'm saying crypto should be held to a higher level of scrutiny by everyone, and if you are the president of a country you should not involve yourself in crypto without thinking it through a bit.

You might disqualify yourself for running for office in the future if you want to continue to argue with me on this. </joke>

He met with the founder of this thing several times. They lowered the age allowable for trading to 13 years and up right around the time he met with these people. The con wouldn’t have worked without him spreading it. Multiple of his closest allies immediately replied that this was not a mistake.

The man as in an irredeemable narcissistic moron. We’ve had this conversation several times with the same conclusion over and over again. I get that not everyone is into Argentinian politics but by this point it’s well-established knowledge.

Ridiculous! His closest advisor, Conan, endorsed the era of treats and prosperity it would bring to all Argentinians!

[to boil the frog for others, he's claimed his dogs (Conan) are his closest advisors]

Have you considered they didn’t teach meme coins at his university?

He has access to the same resources that everyone here does, probably more actually. Instead of retweeting the first "interesting" thing that pops up on his feed, hear me out on this, maybe he could have quickly Google'd/DuckDuckGo'd/Kagi'd/Yandex'd this before he retweeted it.

No, they don't teach "meme coins" at university, but I don't think that's really relevant.

Or, perhaps he was just lying.

You got conned. Anyone who watches his actual interviews first hand can see that he’s mentally unstable, holds a degree from a third-rate university, and is more concerned with his own narcissistic tendencies than actually governing.

I do have to admit more and more Friedman seems like he is more intent on building his subscriber count than actually asking tough questions. I can't say I feel like his fact checking is worth anything if it ever was. I should have known better.

> he is more intent on building his subscriber count than actually asking tough questions.

It's quite a sad indicator of the state of knowledge in the world where Fridman is considered the more "intellectual" of pop podcasters when the most popular podcasts are crap like Rogan, Shawn Ryan, Candace Owens, and Call Her Daddy.

Because Fridman will literally have a guest with platform A, like Netanyahu, and agree on 95% of his controversial points with little pushback. And then immediately after have on Yuval Harari, with the opposite opinion on those controversial points... and agree with 95% again with little pushback. Fridman softballs and is almost useless except as a megaphone. You'd rather have him cut out and have Netanyahu and Harari debate on their own merits.

I don't actually see a problem with that ...

He is uncritical, yes. But he doesn't deny being uncritical.

It's a useful "service" to get people with diametrically opposite viewpoints to talk freely, and he does that well

The interviewer doesn't need to impose their world view on the guest, or the audience -- it's OK to let the audience make up their own minds.

Contradictions aren't inherently bad, either ... "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", etc.

It's a false dichotomy. Terry Gross does a great job of getting her subjects to talk freely, while still asking hard questions.

It's not useful if you don't push back on people who have agendas and who are willing to lie their teeth off to promote whatever grift they're pushing.

> The interviewer doesn't need to impose their world view on the guest, or the audience -- it's OK to let the audience make up their own minds.

What if the guest lies or omits crucial facts? How is the audience supposed to know that? Fact checking is the very basis of responsible journalism.

What if I go to a dinner party and someone lies or omits crucial facts?

I guess take it for what it is -- it's a conversation recorded on YouTube ... maybe don't be fooled by the suit and the mics. Anyone can buy those, there is no certification AFAIK :-)

(I'd also say that 95% of journalism you see on TV is not much different than a conversation recorded on YouTube, i.e. they don't do fact checking themselves.)

The dinner party isn't broadcast to millions of people. With a great audience comes great responsibility. "Just let people talk" doesn't cut it. Of course, there is also lots of bad journalism in traditional media.

> maybe don't be fooled by the suit and the mics. Anyone can buy those, there is no certification AFAIK :-)

:)

Staying their and listening to people make false claims over and over again without challenging them on any of the lies or grandstanding is not a service to anyone. At the very least, no one should be looking at a Lex Friedman interview hoping to hear the truth of any kind.

> Because Fridman will literally have a guest with platform A, like Netanyahu, and agree on 95% of his controversial points with little pushback. And then immediately after have on Yuval Harari, with the opposite opinion on those controversial points...

Isn't that his whole schtick? Letting people voice their different opinions? Yes his questions are soft. And yes, I'd love to see Netanyahu and Harari debate - can you make that happen?

Friedman is, like many people in this age of podcasters and influencers, another fool who's not only out of his depth in most interviews, but too self-centered to do anything to change it.

His political analysis when interviewing people in that area is laughable. When interviewing chess players it's clear even to me, a mediocre player who barely reaches 1500 in lichess, that he's totally out of his depth and wasting precious time asking generic questions.

Unfortunately the only good interviewer of this generation is the chiken wing guy.

Dwarkesh is basically doing what Lex tried to do early on before he became Rogan-lite. Looking at Lex’s range of topics in the last year it’s no wonder he’s out of his depth

Fridman gets his guests to open up, which is valuable, but yes he does that by being uncritical of basically all guests ...

For example, I didn't know who Vivek R was before a month or so ago, and I watched the Fridman interview with him. I actually thought he came off very well ... He got to hit his high notes

Then I watched this Ezra Klein interview, and I got a better picture - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY6NGom3gvU

Vivek got challenged a bit there, in a good way. I saw a lot more of the holes and inconsistencies

(Ezra Klein seems to be a reasonable centrist, more like the reporters of 20-30 years ago. After reading NYTimes since the 90's, I stopped taking at least half of NYTimes seriously maybe around 2015. They were/are literally trolling in their Op Eds for clicks, and greatly expanded that section. But there is still some stuff worth reading)

I also watched parts of Fridman's interview of Milei, and didn't form a strong impression, maybe because of the translation.

The Lex Fridman interview was awful. Milei hasn't said a single interesting thing. I was expecting a lot more from (I think) the first politician following the Austrian school of economics.

> I was expecting a lot more from (I think) the first politician following the Austrian school of economics.

This is exactly why you've heard only demagoguery; Austrian school is fringe.

I don't see how that follows.

Many of the people who appear to me to talk the most sense (eg: Tyler Cowen) follow the Austrian school. It being fringe does not mean they're wrong. It could be the mainstream is wrong. I'm not an economist and don't know.

In all likelihood, the reason they appear to talk the most sense to you is that both you don't understand what is wrong with them¹ and you never even read the actual theories they pose themselves against.

Anyway, the criticism about the Austrian school isn't even that it's wrong. It's that it's neither a theory nor a school of though. There isn't much "though" in it. But when you get to the views of an actual person, they will necessarily be more complete than the school, and need to be evaluated independently.

1 - "I can clearly see that objects stop moving without anybody messing with then. That Newton guy makes no sense whatsoever."

Fringe means that it attracts weirdos, demagogues etc, as things normally fringe for a reason, but even if they are not, people have so much reputational risk for publicly advertising these views, so that either suggests they are grifters, so they do not have reputation to start with or they have poor judgement.