fbpx
01 / 05
Milei Midterms: An Update on Argentina | Podcast Highlights

Blog Post | Economic Freedom

Milei Midterms: An Update on Argentina | Podcast Highlights

Chelsea Follett interviews Marcos Falcone about Milei’s recent electoral success and the economic reforms he might now pursue.

Listen to the podcast or read the full transcript here.

Joining me today is my colleague Marcos Falcone, a policy analyst focusing on Latin America at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He joins the podcast today to discuss the dramatic recent election win of President Javier Milei, who has led his party to a landslide victory in Argentina.

Let’s start with a bit of a history lesson. Argentina has a long history that has not always been a history of progress. Could you walk us through some of that background?

Argentina is one of very few countries in the world, and perhaps the only one, to have gone from being a developed country to a developing country. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Argentina was among the richest economies in the world. It was second to the US in terms of the net number of immigrants received. It also had extremely low taxes, low public spending, and very few regulations.

But, of course, international ideological trends also affected Argentina. Nationalism, corporatism, and fascism began to rise in popularity, Juan Domingo Perón came to power in 1946, and Argentina started to diverge from the rest of the world. Whereas much of the world opened up to trade during those years, Argentina became a highly closed, protectionist economy and missed out on all the benefits of trade that increased dramatically after the end of the Second World War.

When Argentina became a closed economy, special interests began to emerge, including trade unions and crony capitalists, who depended on Argentina remaining a closed economy, which in turn made it harder to re-liberalize Argentina’s economy. Governments couldn’t, for example, lower public spending, because people were counting on it. They couldn’t open borders because industries were dependent on them being closed. They couldn’t deregulate labor relations because of the unions. And so, we started to drift into a declining path.

On a happier note, Argentina also has a very long intellectual tradition of classical liberal thought. Could you tell us about that?

The architect of the Argentinian constitution was a classical liberal called Juan Bautista Alberdi. He was a lawyer, but like many intellectuals of the 19th century he wrote about many things, including economics and moral matters. The constitution he designed, which closely followed the example of the US Constitution, went into effect in 1853. It has suffered changes, but really no major changes were implemented until the mid-20th century. So, for almost 100 years, Argentina retained this very classical liberal constitution that greatly benefited the country.

Liberty was also at the forefront of Argentina’s politics and culture. At the end of the 19th century, both the ruling elite and the opposition had classical liberal ideas. The socialists, for example, were very much against protectionism and the creation of a central bank, because they thought it would be bad for workers. However, as fascism and communism began to rise in popularity, this classical liberal environment started to fade away, to the point that we had a Supreme Court that basically allowed the military to seize power in 1930. From that point, it would be over 50 years before Argentina had a fully democratic regime once again.

Still, even during the 20th century, Argentina had a very strong classical liberal tradition. For example, Alberto Benegas Lynch, who is a Cato adjunct scholar, founded a university called ESEADE, where classical liberal thought was spread. We saw the founding of various think tanks in the 1980s and 1990s within the classical liberal tradition, such as my previous employer, Fundación Libertad. We began to rebuild the classical liberal culture that had been lost in Argentina for so long, which also contributed to the rise of Javier Milei, who started out speaking at forums at classical liberal think tanks. I actually met him over 10 years ago.

So, Argentina initially had a strong classical liberal tradition, which it lost for a while but has now regained. And that’s one of the reasons why I’m actually optimistic about the future of the country.

Let’s talk about Milei’s victory. Walk us through what was going on going up to the election and the election itself, and why that outcome took so many people by surprise.

Javier Milei won the presidency in 2023, when many people thought that was impossible. Politicians in other parties actually thought that they were taking advantage of Milei’s presence because he would take votes away from their opposition. But we have to understand the context of Argentina to understand why Milei became popular. In 2023, Argentina had an annual inflation of over 200 percent, on the verge of hyperinflation. And the country hadn’t grown in about a decade.

Everyone who wanted to do business in Argentina knew that this was next to impossible because of how regulated the economy was, and there were also unbearable situations in daily life. For example, rent control was so stringent that many landlords decided not to rent their places, and this caused prices to go up. Ryan Bourne and I interviewed one person who told us that back in 2023, it was so expensive to find a place to live that it could be cheaper to live in a hotel.

So Argentina had been trying interventionist policies for a long time, and they were not yielding good results, and Javier Milei arrives, wielding a chainsaw, saying, “we need to cut spending, we need to slash public spending, we need to lower taxes, we need to deregulate, we need to open up the economy, and we need to dollarize.” And after he wins the presidency, so many people say, “A libertarian can’t last long into office. He will have to resign after a month if he tries to do what he says.” And well, Milei has been president for almost two years now, and many of the radical reforms that he announced have not caused any sort of upheaval.

I think that the most important reform was balancing the budget. Argentina had a 200 percent annual inflation rate because it was running deficits, and nobody trusted Argentina to pay back its debt, so all the government could do was print money. In just one month after taking office, Milei had balanced the budget—something everyone else had said was impossible. Ten days into his presidency, Milei repealed the rent control laws. One year after that decision went into effect, we saw prices going down in real terms by about 30 percent. We saw the supply of apartments triple in the city of Buenos Aires.

During the 2025 midterm election a couple of weeks ago, there was some pessimism that maybe the Peronists were going to win. Many people, including political analysts, were saying that Milei’s changes were so profound that people would not tolerate them, and this fueled a run against the peso. But Milei won over 40 percent of the vote, and this is bringing a new wave of optimism to Argentina because, since Milei previously only had about 15 percent of seats, there were many reforms that he couldn’t make. Now, while Milei still doesn’t have a majority, he needs fewer alliances to pass the reforms that he wants.

Let’s talk about some of those policies.

It seems like the priorities of the Milei administration will be to pass tax reform, social security reform, and labor reform.

In Argentina, taxes are not just high, but also very complicated and superimposing, meaning you have taxes on taxes. To give you an example, the last Doing Business report by the World Bank, which came out in 2020, said that a business in Argentina that paid all of the taxes it was legally required to pay would end up paying 106 percent of its income. That means you’d be better off not doing any business at all. So, you can imagine how complicated the tax system is in Argentina, because obviously, businesses can’t pay 106 percent of their income. The Milei administration could only make very limited changes up to this point because, constitutionally, he needs Congress to legislate over tax matters.

Argentina also has a very high degree of informality in its labor market because it’s very expensive to hire employees legally, and it can be even more expensive to let them go because of litigation. Businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, are constantly trying to avoid litigation because they know, due to the way that the judicial system is set up, if they face a lawsuit by a former employee, they’re going to lose. This needs to stop, and the Milei administration knows this and is going to push for labor reform.

When it comes to social security, Argentina has the common problem of an aging population. We have the typical Ponzi scheme, where if the base keeps growing, then there’s no issue, but if the population pyramid is no longer a pyramid, there’s likely not going to be enough people in the future to pay for those who are paying taxes today. Now, this is aggravated in Argentina’s case because of populist policies. For example, beginning in the 21st century, over a million pensioners were integrated into the system without having made any payments to social security beforehand at all. We’ve also had an increasing amount of fraud over the past two decades. It’s statistically impossible to have as many disabled people as Argentina seems to have. We see towns in Argentina in backward provinces where maybe 50 percent of all people are cashing in a disability payment. Those are the kind of things that the Milei administration will try to tackle.

I would also like to see more far-reaching trade liberalization and dollarization, because Argentina will eventually have another left-wing or Peronist administration. We’re in a democracy, governments change, and we haven’t really seen that the Peronist economic agenda is becoming more reasonable. So, we need to protect people, and particularly the assets of the people, and the best way to do that is dollarization.

Let’s talk a little bit more about dollarization because this is such an important policy issue in Argentina.

Milei promised to dollarize the economy back in 2023 in the context of near hyperinflation. Now, while annual inflation is still over 30 percent, the problem has become less salient, and it seems as though maybe you don’t need to dollarize if you can just get inflation back under control. But we have this problem, which we just saw before the recent elections, where whenever there’s uncertainty about the future in Argentina, you have a run against the peso, and people rush to buy dollars. This basically stops all economic activity because people don’t want to make decisions amid all the uncertainty. And what ends up happening is that the people who benefit are those with dollars, who are usually the richest ones, and the poorest suffer the most because they have the national currency that is constantly losing value. And in many cases, the people who have dollars don’t even invest them; they just keep the physical dollar bills, so this also takes money out of the financial system.

Argentines don’t need to live like this. We have seen examples of successful dollarization processes that have defended people against populist governments. Ecuador dollarized its economy 25 years ago, and after dollarizing, it had a left-wing administration led by Rafael Correa that lasted for ten years. Many people thought he could have been another Chavez. He wanted to turn Ecuador upside down and implement all sorts of interventionist policies. But the dollar was more popular than he was, and he couldn’t de-dollarize, so even though he did a lot of damage to the Ecuadorian economy, dollarization protected the value of their assets.

What are some of the potential implications for the broader region? Do you think that this renaissance of classical liberal or libertarian policy could catch on throughout Latin America?

I think Argentina could become an example that other countries in Latin America can imitate. In recent years, we have had different administrations in countries like Brazil, Chile, and Colombia that have gone left-wing, and in many cases, in more extreme ways than in the past. And in Latin America, presidents who are not left-wing tend to be more conservative or nationalistic. So, Argentina is relatively alone in the region, but I hope that Milei becomes a sort of beacon that can help libertarian politicians in other countries rise to prominence.

We are seeing that in Chile, where even though the most popular figure right now is a communist, you also have a libertarian candidate who might go to the runoff against the communist and potentially win. And that could undo a lot of the bad policies that Chile has recently engaged in.

Reuters | Motor Vehicles

Tesla Supervised Self-Driving Software Gets Dutch Okay

“Dutch regulators approved the use of Tesla’s self-driving software with required human supervision on highways and city streets in a European first for the electric car maker, which hopes to see similar action from the rest of the European Union.

The Netherlands’ approval for the technology, called Full Self‑Driving Supervised, which can steer, brake and accelerate a car, follows more than 18 months of tests and analysis by the Dutch vehicle authority RDW.

‘Proper use of this driver assistance system makes a positive contribution to road safety,’ RDW said in a statement on Friday, adding that it would also submit an application for the technology to be used throughout the EU.”

From Reuters.

Sustainable Bus | Motor Vehicles

Norway Approves Driverless Karsan e-Atak Operation Without Driver

“The Norwegian Public Roads Administration has granted authorization to transport operators Vy and Kolumbus to operate an autonomous bus on regular public routes without a safety driver.

The deployment involves the Karsan e-ATAK platform equipped with autonomous driving software supplied by ADASTEC and supported by the xFlow fleet management system developed by Applied Autonomy, according to a press note by Applied Autonomy.

The milestone represents a transition from supervised autonomous operations to fully driverless service within a controlled public transport environment. The vehicle is integrated into Stavanger’s public transport network since 2024, following deployment’s kickoff in 2022.

Within Karsan 2025 results presented in March, the manufacturer stated that is working on removing the safety driver from autonomous vehicles and aims to start fully driverless operations in Stavanger by the third quarter of 2026.”

From Sustainable Bus.

Blog Post | Housing

The End of the Housing Affordability Crisis

The decline of housing affordability has been a policy choice.

Summary: Americans have enjoyed extraordinary gains in material abundance, yet housing in recent decades stands out as a stubborn exception. Home prices in many parts of the United States have risen faster than incomes, placing growing pressure on renters and first-time buyers. The problem is not an inevitable market failure but the predictable result of supply constraints—especially land-use regulations—that can be reformed to increase affordability.


Americans have seen tremendous advances in the availability and abundance of material goods. As Marian L. Tupy and Gale Pooley from the Cato Institute have shown, the most basic necessity of food became eight times more affordable over the 100 years up to 2019, relative to average wages (the food inflation after 2019 set us back a little bit, but the long-run trends are still quite favorable). This increasing abundance is not limited to food alone, as a wide variety of finished goods have become much more affordable in recent decades.

These positive trends are well known for goods and even some services, such as cosmetic surgeries, but a common objection, both on social media and in real life, is: What about housing? That is a fair question, considering that Americans spend about 25 percent of their pre-tax annual income on housing, which has been a fairly constant share of their income for most of the past 125 years. Given the large share of the budget that housing costs represent, and the failure of housing to decline as a share of the budget as other necessities did, it is worth investigating the problem further.

On housing, the critics do have a point: Housing costs across the US and many other nations have quickly outpaced income growth in recent years. While we shouldn’t be nostalgic for the housing of the 1950s—houses were about half the size of today’s and had fewer amenities we now consider standard, such as air conditioning—nostalgia for the housing of 30 years ago might be justifiable.

Since 1994, two common measures of housing prices, the Case-Shiller Index and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Median Sales Price data, have increased faster than most measures of income, including median family income and average wages. And unlike the change since the 1950s, the recent increase in housing prices can’t be primarily explained by houses getting bigger: The median square footage of new homes sold has increased only 16 percent since 1994 and has even been falling in the past decade.

Even more so, to the extent housing has become more expensive relative to wage growth in recent years, the trend could worsen over the next 30 years—unless we quickly change policy to allow the supply of housing to increase.

It may seem puzzling that housing could remain roughly the same share of income on average in the US, even as housing prices have increased faster than incomes in recent decades. This seeming puzzle can be resolved by thinking about two different kinds of households: renters and homeowners. While renters and homeowners may certainly be different in many ways—renters tend to be younger, poorer, and so on—there is a fundamental difference in how they experience increases in the price of housing. Renters are typically subject to new market-rate rents on a regular basis, often annually. However, if homeowners remain in the same house they are generally insulated from these changes, with only insurance and property taxes possibly increasing annually, not their principal and interest on the mortgage.

These intuitions are borne out in the data. According to the BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey, in 1984 the share of income that renters spent on housing was about 30.4 percent, which rose over the next four decades to 34.4 percent. Homeowners saw the opposite pattern, with the share of their income spent on housing falling from 27.7 percent in 1984 to 22.6 percent in 2024. The overall average has been fairly stable, but the experience of renters and homeowners has diverged.

The Facts of Housing Unaffordability

Historically, the rule of thumb in the United States is to spend no more than 30 percent of income on housing—though as we saw above, on average Americans spend less than that. But averages can obscure cost burdens for some households. According to an analysis of the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey data by Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS), fully one-third of US households spent over 30 percent of their income on housing, and 16 percent of households spent over half of their income on housing in 2024. The number of cost-burdened households has been steadily rising in recent years, as the price of both homes and rentals has increased faster than incomes in most of the US.

We can see the problem of rising home values relative to income by looking at another rule of thumb: Home prices should be in the range of three and five times a household’s annual income. In 1994, out of the United States’ 387 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), 263 had median home prices that were less than three times the median household income (the data once again come from Harvard’s JCHS). Only 12 MSAs in 1994—mostly in California and Hawaii—had ratios above 5.0.

Fast-forward to 2024, when there were 114 MSAs above the 5.0 ratio of median home prices to income, and those were scattered all over the country. Instead of being in just California and Hawaii, they were also in previously affordable states such as Montana, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Arkansas. In 2024, the number of MSAs with price-to-income ratios below 3.0 had dwindled to just 32, many of them in the dying Rust Belt. And you don’t even need to go back to 1994 to see the dramatic change. As late as 2019, there were still well over 100 MSAs with a price-to-income ratio below 3.0.

While the majority (241 MSAs) are still within the suggested range of three to five times a household’s income, many are pushing toward the upper end of that range. Given the trend—the median ratio crept up from 2.65 in 1994 to 4.27 in 2024—it is not unreasonable to expect the ratio to continue to increase, absent any changes in policy.

The challenge of housing affordability is not unique to the United States. Using the home-price-to-income ratio from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), since 1994 the US saw home prices increase by 20 percent more than incomes did, meaning that housing is more expensive in real terms. Some other countries were in a much worse situation: Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom all had over 80 percent increases in the ratio of housing prices to income. Not every country followed the same pattern, though. In New Zealand, the price-to-income ratio rose by 126 percent between 1994 and 2021. The ratio declined to 80 percent in 2024. And Japan’s price-to-income ratio fell by 25 percent from 1994 to 2024. However, even Japan has recently seen a modest increase in the ratio, by about 14 percent in the past decade. We’ll look at New Zealand and Japan in more detail below.

The Fix for Housing Affordability

But something can be done. While there have been several political solutions proposed, most of those focused on the demand side, such as subsidies to homeowners or renters. Those kinds of solutions are suboptimal because they increase demand, which will only further increase prices if supply does not also increase. The real problem is on the supply side: There is not enough new housing being built in the places people want to live and of the size people want. What is preventing additional building? In most of the US, it is land-use restrictions such as zoning and other policies that limit the density of new homes. Australia and countries across Europe have implemented similar policies that limit the construction of housing in various ways, primarily in the first half of the 20th century. Price increases did not show up immediately, because in most places restrictions were not binding constraints; there was plenty of land in favorable locations until recent decades.

A major restriction on the supply of housing comes in the form of single-family zoning, which prevents multifamily housing (everything from duplexes to skyscraper apartments) from being built in residential areas. A 2019 analysis by the New York Times found that about 75 percent of residential areas in US cities are reserved for single-family homes. In some cities that figure may reach over 85 percent. Of course, most families probably aspire to eventually own a single-family home, but the zoning laws force most land to be dedicated to this form of housing for everyone. That contributes to making housing unaffordable for many younger families today.

Land-use restrictions limit supply in ways that go beyond merely proscribing that most lots be reserved for single-family homes. For example, regulations will often require lots to be of a minimum size, which is counterproductive because land area is often the most expensive part of the property in urban settings, and the regulation forces families to purchase more land than they want. Regulations also set a maximum amount (a common range is 40–60 percent) of the lot that can be covered by the building itself, essentially forcing homes to have large lawns. Again, many families might want a large lot with a large lawn, but these regulations require it for everyone. The problem is that the less land dedicated to the home itself, the less land there is for other homes in the same area. These rules preclude single-family home types that were common in the past in large American cities, such as row houses or townhouses, which typically occupy most of the small lots they sit on.

Zoning Reforms Work

Would reforming land-use regulations really increase the supply of housing and make it more affordable? The available evidence indeed suggests it would.

One example of reform is New Zealand’s largest city, Auckland, which in 2016 reformed residential zoning to allow for more intensive housing—duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and the like—on most residential land. This process is referred to as “upzoning.” The results were staggering: As documented in a paper published in the Journal of Urban Economics, construction boomed, with permits doubling in five years. The economists who studied this reform found that rents were 26–33 percent lower than they would have been without it. Rents kept skyrocketing in the rest of New Zealand but stabilized in the parts of Auckland that were upzoned. As mentioned above, New Zealand is notable for seeing its home-price-to-income ratio fall after 2021: As rents stabilized and incomes continued to grow, the ratio declined.

Another example comes from Houston, the fourth-largest city in the US. Houston has long been known as the shining example of a major US city that never adopted citywide zoning, even though some neighborhoods have private deed restrictions that incorporate features similar to zoning. But despite eschewing traditional zoning, Houston still has land-use regulations of various sorts. For example, like most cities, Houston prescribed a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Because people would’ve been paying for more land than they needed, alternate forms of housing such as townhomes were less likely to be built.  First in 1998 and then in 2013, Houston reduced the minimum lot size to just 1,400 square feet in parts of the city. As Mercatus Center economist Emily Hamilton shows, there was a boom in construction following the reforms. Despite adding over 1 million people between 1970 and 2020, Houston still managed to have median home prices below the national average.

If Houston and Auckland demonstrate the power of local reform, Tokyo shows what is possible when a nation treats housing as essential infrastructure rather than a matter set by local competing interest groups. As urban scholar André Sorensen details in The Making of Urban Japan (2002), the country stripped municipalities of the power to block code-compliant projects, effectively turning zoning into a national “right to build” rather than a discretionary local negotiation. The results of this policy choice are astonishing. According to a 2016 analysis by the Financial Times, the city of Tokyo consistently builds more new housing each year than the entire state of California or the whole of England, despite having little empty land to spare. By removing the “veto points” that plague Western cities, Tokyo has achieved the status of a growing, vibrant mega-city where rents have remained flat for decades.

Allowing the Market to Increase Supply Keeps Housing Affordable

As families become richer and the population grows, there is increasing pressure on housing prices in desirable locales. The natural market response to increasing prices is to increase supply. Unfortunately, in much of the US and the rest of the developed world, governments have put artificial barriers in place to prevent this market response. While the housing shortage was created by the political process—through the establishment of zoning and other land-use regulations—the solution does not need to come from governments in the form of subsidizing demand. Instead, to unleash the forces of the market and human initiative, governments need to ease regulations on supply.

Land-use regulations are not the only interference in the market process that makes housing less affordable. Some forms of trade policy and protectionism can also harm home prices. For example, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) estimates that recent tariff increases for lumber and other inputs can add at least $10,000 to the average price of a home. Even more costly are building regulations, which the NAHB estimated could exceed $90,000 for a typical home in 2021 and were around 40 percent of the cost of multifamily housing such as apartment buildings. While not all of these regulations could be eliminated immediately, the best thing governments can do to address the affordability issue in housing is to figure out how they can get out of the way.

NPR | Energy Production

Nuclear Safety Rules Rewritten to Accelerate Development

“The Department of Energy has made public a set of new rules that slash environmental and security requirements for experimental nuclear reactors.

Last month, NPR reported on the existence of the rules, which were quietly rewritten to accelerate development of a new generation of nuclear reactor designs.

The rule changes came about after President Trump signed an executive order calling for three or more of the experimental reactors to come online by July 4 of this year — an incredibly tight deadline in the world of nuclear power. The order led to the creation of a new Reactor Pilot Program at the Department of Energy.”

From NPR.