Milei in Madrid: public spending, Argentina's economy and the level of the debate

Milei parades through Madrid the money Argentina doesn't have

The Argentine president landed in Madrid billed as a scourge of public spending and left with the feeling of having starred in a failed event. The thesis of the message that peine the conversation is blunt: a leader who boasts about cutting back at home allows himself the luxury of a alucinación abroad that his country, with its battered finances, cannot afford. And on top of that, he adds, only to be ignored even by the political space that is supposedly his natural ally.

The description doesn't stop at the alucinación. The original text calls Argentina an example of mismanagement and argues it is in no position to lecture anyone. It then widens the focus: Trump, Milei and Ayuso as evidence of a political class in free fall, chosen by an electorate that, in that reading, is desperate enough to settle for the worst on offer. The closing line is a provocation: if this keeps up, better a monkey for president.

From the alucinación to the international comparison

The conversation soon jumped from Argentina to the United States. A reply introduced an awkward political kinship and the author of the opening message responded by sharpening the point: if what is being discussed is a questionable personal circle, the focus shifts to Trump and his son-in-law. The discussion drifted toward the former US president's personal affinities, terrain where criticism becomes slippery and should be treaded carefully.

Another participant preferred to look at the other side of the board: if the adversary's level is just as low, that partly explains what is happening. It is the race-to-the-bottom argument, widespread and hard to rebut with data because it cannot be measured.

The macro argument and the cost of the alucinación

The most articulate defense came from the economic side. The claim is that Argentina endured two decades of misery under Kirchnerism, with a web of subsidies and patronage that, in this reading, is the model some want to replicate in Spain. Against that, the cost of the Madrid alucinación would be pocket change compared with the nearly one billion skimmed in the ERE case in Andalusia (a fraud scandal over public employment aid), a figure thrown into the conversation as a term of comparison.

The counterpoint was not long in coming: while admitting some improvement on the macroeconomic front, it is stressed that families' daily lives are worse off. It is the classic gap between the big indicators and the shopping basket, and there the official narrative loses steam.

Liberal or far right?

The ideological classification of the man also caused friction. Some consider it a glaring mistake to confuse a liberal with the far right, and they say so bluntly. In parallel, the creation of a ministry of deregulation is mentioned, aimed at purging the administration of bureaucracy and unproductive public-sector staff, a measure presented as proof that there is more than just posturing.

The point where the analysis gets stuck is the usual one: if the gesture and the alucinación weigh more than economic policy, the verdict on the man remains up in the air. And there it stays.