reuters.com
www.reuters.com
  • nkat2112@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    504·
    3 months ago

    It’s true that things were rough before Argentina’s Trump was voted in, but it’s now substantially worse - and in such a short amount of time too:

    BUENOS AIRES, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Argentina’s poverty rate rocketed to 52.9% in the first half of 2024, the government’s INDEC statistics agency said on Thursday, surging from 40.1% a year earlier.

    For the second half of last year, INDEC had reported a rate of 41.7%.

  • satanmat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    302·
    3 months ago

    So trickle down economics made things worse…

    Quick!!! More of the same thing will fix it , right?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
        41·
        3 months ago

        What’s funny is that there was a person here who was simping for Milei, constantly posting articles (often from unreliable sources) to talk about how great he is until they were temporarily banned for doing it and hasn’t been back since. I kind of wish they came back for this, except they never commented.

        • gcheliotis@lemmy.worldEnglish
          23·
          3 months ago

          …and that is the problem with banning people for their views… sooner or later an echo chamber becomes boring. And they too will probably go elsewhere, where their views will go unchallenged as well. Fast forward a few years and everyone becomes ever more convinced of their own sectarian “truths”.

          Unless he was particularly obnoxious about it, don’t know the story 🤷🏻‍♂️

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
            61·
            3 months ago

            They were banned for repeatedly posting from unreliable sources, or just outright Milei mouthpieces, to push their agenda after being warned to stop. See rule 3.

            Also, as I said, it was a temporary ban. I think a week.

            • gcheliotis@lemmy.worldEnglish
              26·
              3 months ago

              Ooph, there the same issue again, about what we consider “propaganda”. I have yet to meet someone with objective standards on this, who is able to hold people he agrees with politically to the same standard. Many on here also seem to hate the MBFC ratings that were added to at least create some baseline. So, at the end of the day the value judgements people make on these matters are more often biased than not. Anyway, I am actually interested in even “mouthpieces”, as I am always curious how the other side actually defends what they do, and they could be just marked as such for the avoidance of doubt.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
                5·
                3 months ago

                Okay, well you’re welcome to not consider state mouthpieces to be unreliable sources, but they are considered to be here.