Javier Milei announced the repeal of the Land Law: what the law says
The norm establishes a limit on the purchase of rural land by foreign citizens up to 1,000 hectares in the core area or a surface equivalent depending on territorial location.
At the same time, sets at 15% the limit on all ownership of domain or possession of fields in national territory for foreign persons, both natural and legal. The objective of the law is to put a limit on the foreignization of lands.
That alone, combined with the new tax laws where he raised taxes for local companies and lower them for foreigners, it's gonna end up destroying local companies and foreigners are gonna take over.
Argentina is over, forever, sold out to the global elites.
Raised taxes on exports (to companies that sell their products to the international market), and lower them on imports (products entering the country's local market).
It is a hostile policy to local companies, since internationally they will have to sell at a higher price, locally as well, and the products of foreign companies will have a lower price.
It is an explicitly anti-liberal and anti-libertarian tax policy. (It's called deindustrialization policy).
There is a reason why Donald Trump's protectionism made sense, how do you compete in a market where foreign companies have slave labor in Africa and Asia, and can afford to take your market with low prices and slowly destroy your companies that can't compete?.
In the short term you experience real price drops that solve inflation, but in the medium and long term your companies go bankrupt and are acquired by foreign companies, and have practically no competition.
This leaves your entire country completely dependent on mega corporations, billionaires and foreign states (who control the flow of products and production), who will have a very strong position of influence over your politicians in matters of diplomacy and law.
Raised taxes on exports (to companies that sell their products to the international market), and lower them on imports (products entering the country's local market).
I was asking for numbers, not an explanation.
And I'm not arguing for or against what he's done, just pointing out that it's not inconsistent with a libertarian philosophy.
And I'm also not arguing for or against libertarian philosophy.
Archive - https://archive.ph/Cr0X6
That alone, combined with the new tax laws where he raised taxes for local companies and lower them for foreigners, it's gonna end up destroying local companies and foreigners are gonna take over.
Argentina is over, forever, sold out to the global elites.
Raised them from what to what, and lowered them from what to what?
If they had protectionist tax laws to begin with, equalizing them, which is 100% in line with libertarian beliefs, would be exactly this.
Similarly, allowing foreign entities to buy land is 100% in line with libertarian beliefs.
Raised taxes on exports (to companies that sell their products to the international market), and lower them on imports (products entering the country's local market).
It is a hostile policy to local companies, since internationally they will have to sell at a higher price, locally as well, and the products of foreign companies will have a lower price.
It is an explicitly anti-liberal and anti-libertarian tax policy. (It's called deindustrialization policy).
There is a reason why Donald Trump's protectionism made sense, how do you compete in a market where foreign companies have slave labor in Africa and Asia, and can afford to take your market with low prices and slowly destroy your companies that can't compete?.
In the short term you experience real price drops that solve inflation, but in the medium and long term your companies go bankrupt and are acquired by foreign companies, and have practically no competition.
This leaves your entire country completely dependent on mega corporations, billionaires and foreign states (who control the flow of products and production), who will have a very strong position of influence over your politicians in matters of diplomacy and law.
Doesn't that sound familiar?.
I was asking for numbers, not an explanation.
And I'm not arguing for or against what he's done, just pointing out that it's not inconsistent with a libertarian philosophy.
And I'm also not arguing for or against libertarian philosophy.
You're pissing up ropes if you're hoping to get answers from the /pol/acks that flooded this site.
Wow, that's a lot of words to not answer the fucking question.