Is the Expat party in Buenos Aires coming to an end?

[sergio]

Hey Sergio,

There's no denying that Argentina is in need of change, and I agree that the concept of universally free education can be debated, although many see it as a fundamental right. I'm not here to defend every aspect of Argentine society; there are many aspects, such as the treatment of young adults and children, that I find problematic and contributing to the country's dysfunction. I believe there's a lack of personal responsibility ingrained in Argentine culture that fuels this dysfunction. However, I'm struggling to find anything in Milei's impassioned speeches that convinces me he's the right person to bring about positive change. How many times have I heard "Puta" from that guy?

On the topic of hospitals, my wife works for a hospital that Milei said he intends to shut down. Milei mentioned his intention shut it down which alarms her and her friends, many of whom are doctors or medical technicians. They strongly assert that public hospitals in Argentina are generally better than private ones. While acknowledging the varying levels of quality among both public and private institutions, they argue that, on the whole, public hospitals outperform private ones.

Lastly, discussions about restaurants and food are just that—discussions about personal preferences. If it's not your cup of tea, why bother reading them? I don't follow those threads because I'm in another city and don't have the option to enjoy the restaurants they discuss. I'm not trying to give you a hard time; my initial reaction was to the idea that many expats might benefit from the peso's rise with inflation. Personally, I'm not pleased about it.

If you think public hospitals are better than private clinics, then use them and save your money.
The fact remains that Milei was elected President by a wide margin. It wasn't even close. Expats who disdain him will have to accept that he won through a democratic process. Rather than looking for things to criticise, let's be positive and hope that he succeeds for the benefit of everyone.

 

[Rob Smith]

Milei said to lift the Cepo it would take at least 18 months or more. What will happen?

How does he plan to deal with this? He could unify the exchange rates and have a pre-determined market rate, but that will likely lead to hyper-inflation. So does this big pro-market libertarian keep things intact? I would guess that he does something like let people pesofy via the CCL or people bringing in dollars up to $X per month, mainly targeting remote workers and PyME's.

Let's see once December 11 is here. But I don't think you can simultaneously say the peso has an expiration date and you have to continue using the pesos until then and expect business as usual.

 

[Huge Hurry]

I've observed widespread acknowledgment that Milei won, with no instances of denial from anyone, whether expat or not. It's entirely possible to accept his victory while harboring strong disapproval.

Human nature tends to lean towards complaining. The situation in the U.S. post-Biden's win in '20 through a democratic process stands as a stark contrast to what's being asked of expats (and assumedly Argentinos) who may not favor Milei. There was a notable lack of acceptance that Biden won and Trump lost through a democratic process, accompanied by criticism, negativity, and hopes for Biden's failure rather than success for the greater good. This resistance included attempts to delegitimize the outcome through baseless claims, numerous failed court challenges, recounts, and audits revealing a larger margin of loss than initially counted. The refusal to engage in the peaceful transfer of power, a tradition spanning over 200 years, was marked by defiance.

Any expressions of lament from expats regarding Milei's victory are incomparable. It's like comparing apples to bicycles. Expats and Argentinos are not responding to calls for storming the Capitol or engaging in violent acts. Their disappointment is voiced peacefully, akin to grieving or expressing frustration. There are no signs of it escalating into violence or evolving into a movement, and it's likely to subside soon. If there's any hope for Milei's failure, it likely pertains to his social issue goals rather than economic objectives aimed at improving Argentina's economy. Regardless of election outcomes, there will always be valid reasons for the opposition to criticize or voice discontent, depending on their position within the ruling party/opposition dynamic.

 

[Finance Prof]

I've observed widespread acknowledgment that Milei won, with no instances of denial from anyone, whether expat or not. It's entirely possible to accept his victory while harboring strong disapproval.

Human nature tends to lean towards complaining. The situation in the U.S. post-Biden's win in '20 through a democratic process stands as a stark contrast to what's being asked of expats (and assumedly Argentinos) who may not favor Milei. There was a notable lack of acceptance that Biden won and Trump lost through a democratic process, accompanied by criticism, negativity, and hopes for Biden's failure rather than success for the greater good. This resistance included attempts to delegitimize the outcome through baseless claims, numerous failed court challenges, recounts, and audits revealing a larger margin of loss than initially counted. The refusal to engage in the peaceful transfer of power, a tradition spanning over 200 years, was marked by defiance.

Any expressions of lament from expats regarding Milei's victory are incomparable. It's like comparing apples to bicycles. Expats and Argentinos are not responding to calls for storming the Capitol or engaging in violent acts. Their disappointment is voiced peacefully, akin to grieving or expressing frustration. There are no signs of it escalating into violence or evolving into a movement, and it's likely to subside soon. If there's any hope for Milei's failure, it likely pertains to his social issue goals rather than economic objectives aimed at improving Argentina's economy. Regardless of election outcomes, there will always be valid reasons for the opposition to criticize or voice discontent, depending on their position within the ruling party/opposition dynamic.

You have a super vivid imagination. Are you a producer/writer for CNN?

 

[Huge Hurry]

I don't bother with American-based TV news. It's a time-waster.

What exactly struck you as a product of a vivid imagination? The fact that nobody here is disputing Milei's victory? Or the abundance of instances in the U.S. where individuals behaved contrary to Sergio's expressed hope that expats disappointed in Milei's win wouldn't act in a similar manner? On the former, I haven't come across anything suggesting otherwise, but I'm open to examining links or watching videos that might prove me wrong or provide new information. Concerning the latter, there's ample video evidence and reporting from reputable independent news agencies around the world that verify these occurrences, making it clear that it's not a product of vivid imagination.

 

[Finance Prof]

I don't bother with American-based TV news. It's a time-waster.

What exactly struck you as a product of a vivid imagination? The fact that nobody here is disputing Milei's victory? Or the abundance of instances in the U.S. where individuals behaved contrary to Sergio's expressed hope that expats disappointed in Milei's win wouldn't act in a similar manner? On the former, I haven't come across anything suggesting otherwise, but I'm open to examining links or watching videos that might prove me wrong or provide new information. Concerning the latter, there's ample video evidence and reporting from reputable independent news agencies around the world that verify these occurrences, making it clear that it's not a product of vivid imagination.

You took considerable effort to portray Trump in a specific light but omitted that Democrats contested the legitimacy of the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. I wish for Milei to achieve his goals, but it's highly probable that his political adversaries will engage in extensive smear campaigns, doing everything in their power to ensure his defeat in the next election. Trump experienced four years of such challenges, and now they're attempting to impede his candidacy with baseless charges in court. Any disruption to the status quo that interferes with established interests triggers aggressive opposition, regardless of the country.

 

[Aussieland]

A CEPO doesn't necessarily entail an official dollar rate of 380/390/400 or even 900. Recalling when Macri reintroduced the CEPO in late 2019, the official rate was 60, while the blue rate was 70—similar to the margin during some of the CFK years. It's crucial to remember that, for the next three weeks, Milei lacks control over the official dollar, incurring significant costs for the government just to maintain its current position.

In my opinion, an early initiative could involve allowing all businesses to legally display reference prices in dollars, not just in pesos, as mandated by current consumer protection laws. Even if transactions continued in pesos due to a CEPO preventing direct dollar purchases, this approach could provide relative stability and a clearer reference point for the rest of the economy. It would give wages and other aspects something to catch up to, rather than perpetually chasing an elusive ceiling. Simultaneously, if the state refrained from printing more pesos to cover its expenses (via austerity and asset sales), it could establish a defined parameter of pesos in circulation. This scenario would require the economy to operate until the state accumulated enough dollars to cover its costs and lift the CEPO, providing people with easier access to actual dollars. The transition would likely trigger a series of negotiations, protests, and paritarias every other week until a "new" general level is reached. However, given the current economic landscape, with fewer zeros accompanying each adjustment, this process is already unfolding.

 

[Huge Hurry]

I don't take issue with challenging election results and have never stated otherwise. In my view, Trump had the right to contest those results, as he had an obligation to his supporters. Let's examine some distinctions between the 2020 election and those you mentioned.

The first difference lies in distinguishing between contesting election results and questioning the legitimacy of an election.

While I did acknowledge that Trump lost in almost all of the over 60 cases he and his legal team brought to court, you can verify this information from numerous independent, reliable news agencies. In contrast to the 2000 election, where a recount was halted to comply with Congress's set timeframe for result certification, Trump opted for a different path. He not only urged his followers to follow suit but actively encouraged them to disrupt the certification process. Violence wasn't a concern; in his words, "It's going to be wild!" All the points raised in this post can be substantiated by reputable, independent news agencies both domestically (US) and internationally.

In 2000, the infamous "hanging chads" led to a legal showdown in Florida, with both parties deploying legal teams. The Democrats were outmaneuvered by Roger Stone and his Brooks Brothers Riot. Despite bringing knives to a gunfight, the Democrats' loss was unsurprising. Bush fought harder, Gore didn't, and Bush emerged victorious. The Supreme Court ultimately settled the matter. On December 13, 2000, just over a month after the election and before the Electoral College votes were certified, Al Gore formally conceded, stating, "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession." In contrast, Trump has neither formally nor informally conceded to date and did not act in a manner promoting unity or strengthening democracy. In the January 6, 2000 session, twenty House members filed objections to Florida's electoral votes. Gore, presiding as President of the Senate, ruled these objections out of order, and the electoral votes of all 50 states were certified. Bush was sworn in on Inauguration Day, with Gore in attendance, marking a notable difference from the events of 2020.

In 2004 Kerry conceded his defeat to Bush on the day after the election. There were concerns about the process raised by both sides, but I don't see the point of bringing them up since they were raised by both sides, Kerry conceded, and obviously there were no issues as far as certifying the results of the Electoral College. Bush was again inaugurated and Kerry was there to witness it. Again, quite different than what happened in 2020. Here's a link on the controversies if you're skeptical that these aren't facts and instead the product of a vivid imagination or just interested:

2016. The Associated Press called Pennsylvania for Trump at 1:35AM EST, putting Trump at 267 electoral votes. By 2:01AM EST, they called both Maine and Nebraska's second congressional districts for Trump, putting him at 269 electoral votes, making it impossible for Clinton to reach 270. One minute after this, John Podesta told Hillary Clinton's victory party in New York the election was too close to call. At 2:29AM, the Associated Press called Wisconsin, and the election, for Trump, giving him 279 electoral votes. By 2:37AM, Clinton had called Trump to concede the election. On Wednesday morning at 2:30 a.m. Eastern Time (ET), it was reported that Trump had secured Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes, giving him a majority of the 538 electors in the Electoral College, enough to make him the president-elect of the United States, and Trump gave his victory speech at 2:50 a.m. Later that day, Clinton asked her supporters to accept the result and hoped that Trump would be "a successful president for all Americans."

There were controversies and concerns; like in 2004 coming from both sides. Jill Stein contested electoral votes in certain states, but she's Green, not Democrat, and as I mentioned, there's nothing wrong with contesting, but when you lose, you lose, and if you respect the democratic process you put on your big boy pants, admit defeat, and for the good of the country wish the winner success during their term. As in '00 and '04 elections you brought up, the '16 results were certified on the required dates. People took to the street in peaceful protest (as is their right as Americas) which were not called for by the loser Clinton. No actions were taken by Clinton to mobilize her supporters to deny the results, take over the Capitol Building, "fight like hell," and disrupt the certification process. The protests did not involve police officers being beaten by protestors and protestors did not search out elected officials inside (or outside of) the Capitol Building looking to hang them or otherwise bring violence.

There's nothing wrong with contesting results and using lawyers and the courts to fight as hard as you can for as long as you can right up until the moment where Congress fulfills their Constitutional duty to certify the results. But 2020 was the only year where that long tradition of respecting the democratic process and peaceful transition of power was not only ignored, but pissed on.

For the record, the last time I voted Democrat in a Presidential Election was Clinton in '92; more because I was tired of 12 years of Reagan/Bush than I was a fan of Clinton. I was so disappointed in the Clinton years that I didn't bother voting in '96 which was made easier since I was outside of the country in a remote location and didn't feel I had anyone to vote for anyway. In 2000 I voted Nader. Out of the country in '04 and '16 (were I also wasn't a fan of Hilary and didn't vote for her). I'm not a fan of Biden either. Obviously I'm not a registered Democrat. What I am is someone who respects the democratic process and who is against authoritarianism. I'm also someone who accepts the reality of a situation without feeling the need to make up stories or deny reality when things don't turn out the way I'd like them to. I remember what I was taught as a child playing sports and am either a gracious winner or accept graciously accept my defeat without whining about my loss. And since my residence is not even close to being a swing state I've never felt bad about not voting because unlike declaring a winner based on the popular vote, the Electoral College system makes it so that your vote doesn't really matter if you live in a solid red//blue state like Alabama, California, W. Virginia, Oregon, etc

As far as Milei, of course his opponents are going to smear him and work to ensure his defeat in the next election. It's called politics and it's how that game is played and has been played since politics has been around. Surely you don't get upset when Trump smears people and works to defeat them in the next election since part of Trump's whole schtick is to give people childish nicknames and smear them before the self-proclaimed Billionaire tries to sell common people red hats or flat out begs them to send him $. And his supporters love it when he does and repeatedly open their wallets to give their hard earned $ to the most successful businessman history has ever known - so successful he has to sell hats, bottled water, steaks, etc., and beg for $ . I can't understand why you'd be upset, take offence, or even bring it up as an issue if other politicians and their supporters use the same smear tactics that Trump uses? Maybe that lack of understanding explains why you believe the 2020 election was no different than 00/04/16? The Devil's in the details.

 

[earlyretirement]

Please everyone this is an Argentina forum. Let's try to stick to Argentina politics. Thanks!

 

[Larry]

While many are jubilant about Milei's victory, the festivities may be short-lived because he lacks the mandate to enact the sweeping changes he envisions. While I align with him on numerous policies, I diverge when it comes to dollarization due to various factors. As a capitalist, I advocate for limited government intervention, but I believe in having checks and balances to safeguard the most vulnerable in society. In Australia, subsidized medical care and scholarships play a pivotal role in sustaining their society. Embracing capitalism doesn't entail dismantling the system entirely, as Milei has fervently expressed on numerous occasions.

 

[Avocado]

. Education also requires reform, as there's no justification for affluent individuals to receive free university education.

Offering free university education is a form of state investment in the people, providing tangible returns in exchange for their tax contributions. It aims to prevent individuals from shouldering tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, a common scenario in many places. Free university education yields collective societal benefits and is generally considered a net positive. However, if the goal is to hinder education, then, in that case, it could be viewed as a negative.

 

[sergio]

Offering free university education is a form of state investment in the people, providing tangible returns in exchange for their tax contributions. It aims to prevent individuals from shouldering tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, a common scenario in many places. Free university education yields collective societal benefits and is generally considered a net positive. However, if the goal is to hinder education, then, in that case, it could be viewed as a negative.

In Argentina, universities can continue to offer free education to those with low incomes, but individuals with the financial means should contribute to the costs. These charges would be minimal compared to tuition fees in the USA. Additionally, there is a question of fairness in why Argentine citizens should bear the burden of funding the education of foreigners who come to Argentina solely for the advantage of free education. Reforming these aspects is necessary.

 

[Huge Hurry]

In Argentina, universities can continue to offer free education to those with low incomes, but individuals with the financial means should contribute to the costs. These charges would be minimal compared to tuition fees in the USA. Additionally, there is a question of fairness in why Argentine citizens should bear the burden of funding the education of foreigners who come to Argentina solely for the advantage of free education. Reforming these aspects is necessary.

In principle, I support the idea of reforming the current education system, but the challenge lies in determining the threshold that distinguishes those eligible for free education due to low income from those with sufficient means to pay. The task of drawing this line often falls to politicians, who may have ties to individuals with financial resources. It's a cautious expectation that politicians will act against the interests of those supporting them.

Like Avocado, I see education as a societal investment with broad benefits. It nurtures professionals like doctors and scientists and provides individuals, who might otherwise resort to crime, an opportunity for personal and societal improvement.

Regarding the reform of free education for foreigners, a possible approach is restructuring it so that they pay initially. After a designated period of residency, during which they contribute their education for the benefit of Argentina, they could be eligible for a refund. Alternatively, providing annual tax breaks over the same period might incentivize them to stay, aligning their investment in education with potential reimbursement. Exploring models from other countries could offer insights into structuring a reformed education system.

 

[Betsy Ross]

I believe that if Argentina undergoes dollarization, it will likely become less affordable for expats, leading to the potential departure of a significant number. This trend has been observed in Ecuador, where the adoption of the Dollar transformed the country from an extremely affordable destination to one that, while still accessible, is not as budget-friendly as before.

 

[Betsy Ross]

Have you noticed the more severe riots across the country in 2020 that the Democrats seemed to support? Did you observe the recently released security footage that presented a different narrative than what the Jan. 6th Commission portrayed? The footage showed Capitol Police firing rubber bullets and tear gas into the crowd, potentially fueling anger. The Jan. 6th Commission released only a select portion of this footage, while McCarthy and Johnson later released more comprehensive versions.

For instance, one individual charged with trespassing faced a terrorism enhancement by the DOJ, potentially resulting in a 20+ year sentence. However, security footage revealed him entering peacefully, spending 20 minutes looking around, and leaving without any violent actions. After receiving the terrorism enhancement, he tragically committed suicide. Another case involved the person wearing buffalo headgear, initially portrayed as a ringleader attempting to overthrow the government. However, McCarthy released security footage showing him peacefully walking around, escorted by Capitol police, with no violent behavior. He was released from prison shortly after this footage came to light.

The Jan. 6th Commission's willingness to misrepresent these individuals suggests a narrative intended to use against Trump for political purposes. Some believe this was motivated by Trump's perceived threat to the established order, particularly regarding endless wars that benefit defense contractors and fill campaign coffers across party lines. The widespread hatred for Trump might be obscuring a more nuanced reality. Despite his flaws, during his term, we experienced low inflation, low gas prices, a secure border, and fewer international conflicts. The pandemic disrupted these trends, but acknowledging Trump's positive aspects can be challenging amid deep-seated opinions. I encourage you to approach Milei with an open mind, just as you hope others do with Trump.

 

[Betsy Ross]

I don't take issue with challenging election results and have never stated otherwise. In my view, Trump had the right to contest those results, as he had an obligation to his supporters. Let's examine some distinctions between the 2020 election and those you mentioned.

The first difference lies in distinguishing between contesting election results and questioning the legitimacy of an election.

While I did acknowledge that Trump lost in almost all of the over 60 cases he and his legal team brought to court, you can verify this information from numerous independent, reliable news agencies. In contrast to the 2000 election, where a recount was halted to comply with Congress's set timeframe for result certification, Trump opted for a different path. He not only urged his followers to follow suit but actively encouraged them to disrupt the certification process. Violence wasn't a concern; in his words, "It's going to be wild!" All the points raised in this post can be substantiated by reputable, independent news agencies both domestically (US) and internationally.

In 2000, the infamous "hanging chads" led to a legal showdown in Florida, with both parties deploying legal teams. The Democrats were outmaneuvered by Roger Stone and his Brooks Brothers Riot. Despite bringing knives to a gunfight, the Democrats' loss was unsurprising. Bush fought harder, Gore didn't, and Bush emerged victorious. The Supreme Court ultimately settled the matter. On December 13, 2000, just over a month after the election and before the Electoral College votes were certified, Al Gore formally conceded, stating, "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession." In contrast, Trump has neither formally nor informally conceded to date and did not act in a manner promoting unity or strengthening democracy. In the January 6, 2000 session, twenty House members filed objections to Florida's electoral votes. Gore, presiding as President of the Senate, ruled these objections out of order, and the electoral votes of all 50 states were certified. Bush was sworn in on Inauguration Day, with Gore in attendance, marking a notable difference from the events of 2020.

In 2004 Kerry conceded his defeat to Bush on the day after the election. There were concerns about the process raised by both sides, but I don't see the point of bringing them up since they were raised by both sides, Kerry conceded, and obviously there were no issues as far as certifying the results of the Electoral College. Bush was again inaugurated and Kerry was there to witness it. Again, quite different than what happened in 2020. Here's a link on the controversies if you're skeptical that these aren't facts and instead the product of a vivid imagination or just interested:

2016. The Associated Press called Pennsylvania for Trump at 1:35AM EST, putting Trump at 267 electoral votes. By 2:01AM EST, they called both Maine and Nebraska's second congressional districts for Trump, putting him at 269 electoral votes, making it impossible for Clinton to reach 270. One minute after this, John Podesta told Hillary Clinton's victory party in New York the election was too close to call. At 2:29AM, the Associated Press called Wisconsin, and the election, for Trump, giving him 279 electoral votes. By 2:37AM, Clinton had called Trump to concede the election. On Wednesday morning at 2:30 a.m. Eastern Time (ET), it was reported that Trump had secured Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes, giving him a majority of the 538 electors in the Electoral College, enough to make him the president-elect of the United States, and Trump gave his victory speech at 2:50 a.m. Later that day, Clinton asked her supporters to accept the result and hoped that Trump would be "a successful president for all Americans."

There were controversies and concerns; like in 2004 coming from both sides. Jill Stein contested electoral votes in certain states, but she's Green, not Democrat, and as I mentioned, there's nothing wrong with contesting, but when you lose, you lose, and if you respect the democratic process you put on your big boy pants, admit defeat, and for the good of the country wish the winner success during their term. As in '00 and '04 elections you brought up, the '16 results were certified on the required dates. People took to the street in peaceful protest (as is their right as Americas) which were not called for by the loser Clinton. No actions were taken by Clinton to mobilize her supporters to deny the results, take over the Capitol Building, "fight like hell," and disrupt the certification process. The protests did not involve police officers being beaten by protestors and protestors did not search out elected officials inside (or outside of) the Capitol Building looking to hang them or otherwise bring violence.

There's nothing wrong with contesting results and using lawyers and the courts to fight as hard as you can for as long as you can right up until the moment where Congress fulfills their Constitutional duty to certify the results. But 2020 was the only year where that long tradition of respecting the democratic process and peaceful transition of power was not only ignored, but pissed on.

For the record, the last time I voted Democrat in a Presidential Election was Clinton in '92; more because I was tired of 12 years of Reagan/Bush than I was a fan of Clinton. I was so disappointed in the Clinton years that I didn't bother voting in '96 which was made easier since I was outside of the country in a remote location and didn't feel I had anyone to vote for anyway. In 2000 I voted Nader. Out of the country in '04 and '16 (were I also wasn't a fan of Hilary and didn't vote for her). I'm not a fan of Biden either. Obviously I'm not a registered Democrat. What I am is someone who respects the democratic process and who is against authoritarianism. I'm also someone who accepts the reality of a situation without feeling the need to make up stories or deny reality when things don't turn out the way I'd like them to. I remember what I was taught as a child playing sports and am either a gracious winner or accept graciously accept my defeat without whining about my loss. And since my residence is not even close to being a swing state I've never felt bad about not voting because unlike declaring a winner based on the popular vote, the Electoral College system makes it so that your vote doesn't really matter if you live in a solid red//blue state like Alabama, California, W. Virginia, Oregon, etc

As far as Milei, of course his opponents are going to smear him and work to ensure his defeat in the next election. It's called politics and it's how that game is played and has been played since politics has been around. Surely you don't get upset when Trump smears people and works to defeat them in the next election since part of Trump's whole schtick is to give people childish nicknames and smear them before the self-proclaimed Billionaire tries to sell common people red hats or flat out begs them to send him $. And his supporters love it when he does and repeatedly open their wallets to give their hard earned $ to the most successful businessman history has ever known - so successful he has to sell hats, bottled water, steaks, etc., and beg for $ . I can't understand why you'd be upset, take offence, or even bring it up as an issue if other politicians and their supporters use the same smear tactics that Trump uses? Maybe that lack of understanding explains why you believe the 2020 election was no different than 00/04/16? The Devil's in the details.

I didn't read all of your message, but I want to highlight that at the beginning, you mentioned that Trump lost all those cases. Not quite accurate. Those cases were dismissed without ever going to trial; the courts declined to intervene. This is a significant distinction from the prevailing belief that Trump lost in court. I don't have the time to delve into the details, but I suspect it follows a similar pattern. I hope Trump is reelected and can pardon himself from federal charges, sparing us the turmoil of enduring another four years of constant attacks and obstacles to his agenda.

 

[earlyretirement]

Please I'm going to ask again. Let's keep this thread on point about Argentina politics. Feel free to start a USA Political Thread if you want in the Expat Life Forum and name the thread with the USA Political Topic you want to discuss. Not everything has to be about Trump/Biden. People get tired having to read all of these posts on US politics which have nothing to do with Argentina's politics.

I'm going to warn officially and then if it keeps happening then delete those threads. Thanks in advance.

 

[Avocado]

In Argentina, universities can continue to offer free education to those with low incomes, but individuals with the financial means should contribute to the costs. These charges would be minimal compared to tuition fees in the USA. Additionally, there is a question of fairness in why Argentine citizens should bear the burden of funding the education of foreigners who come to Argentina solely for the advantage of free education. Reforming these aspects is necessary.

Determining who qualifies as low income and who doesn't is a complex task, especially if state employees are being laid off as part of Milei's initiatives. The annual calculation of such criteria would require additional personnel. Furthermore, someone classified as "high income" may still face financial constraints preventing them from affording a university education due to life circumstances. The current system, which provides free education for all, is regarded as fair and equal.

It's worth noting that other countries like Germany and Brazil also offer free university education for foreigners. Despite the low and inconsequential number of foreign students in Argentine universities, some argue that xenophobic sentiments may be fueling discrimination against this group.

 

[earlyretirement]

Determining who qualifies as low income and who doesn't is a complex task, especially if state employees are being laid off as part of Milei's initiatives. The annual calculation of such criteria would require additional personnel. Furthermore, someone classified as "high income" may still face financial constraints preventing them from affording a university education due to life circumstances. The current system, which provides free education for all, is regarded as fair and equal.

It's worth noting that other countries like Germany and Brazil also offer free university education for foreigners. Despite the low and inconsequential number of foreign students in Argentine universities, some argue that xenophobic sentiments may be fueling discrimination against this group.

For sure the educational reforms is a complicated matter. However, I totally agree with Sergio. The current system is a nightmare. Argentina is a VERY poor country. It should NOT be paying for FREE university for all the poor countries of Mercosur. I've met so many Venezuelans, Colombians, Peruvian's and many others that ALL studied FREE in Argentina.

Argentina has some of the best universities in South America. There is NO reason why a poor country should be subsidizing the education of ALL of South America. Their own citizens are one matter. But no reason my wife's family from Colombia should all be able to study free in Argentina. Granted, several members got their DNI and lived full time even after University, but Argentina can't afford that.

And the comical thing is that in their home countries, University is actually pretty expensive relatively speaking. My solution would be charging at a minimum what a similarly rated University was in their own country. Or some minimum tuition. It shouldn't be free to people that aren't citizens.

For sure, for citizens arguments can be made both ways but there are some difficult questions to ask. Who will pay for it? The current system is totally broken, IMHO.

 

[Betsy Ross]

Determining who qualifies as low income and who doesn't is a complex task, especially if state employees are being laid off as part of Milei's initiatives. The annual calculation of such criteria would require additional personnel. Furthermore, someone classified as "high income" may still face financial constraints preventing them from affording a university education due to life circumstances. The current system, which provides free education for all, is regarded as fair and equal.

It's worth noting that other countries like Germany and Brazil also offer free university education for foreigners. Despite the low and inconsequential number of foreign students in Argentine universities, some argue that xenophobic sentiments may be fueling discrimination against this group.

However, the economic conditions of those countries differ from Argentina's. Argentina finds itself in its current predicament due to offering benefits beyond its financial means, among other contributing factors. It is crucial for Argentina to adopt a realistic approach regarding its options. Sustaining expenditures with unavailable funds is unsustainable. There may be a need for improved public education to make citizens aware of the challenges the country is facing. If the public continues to demand the same level of services without recognizing the current impracticality, it becomes essential to reconsider until economic conditions improve, if they do at all.