• DeadHorseX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m not a libertarian, I’m a social democrat.

    The last century has been a total and unmitigated disaster for Argentina. The two options Argentinians had in this election were:

    1. More of the same by the guy who oversaw inflation reaching 160% (100% chance of things getting worse)
    2. A total wild card (99.9% chance of things getting worse)

    Unsurprisingly, they went for the latter. I don’t think anti-libertarians get to gloat in this context, given it’s the Argentinian establishment which has overseen one of the most remarkable examples of total state-collapse and economic failure in modern history.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. More of the same by the guy who oversaw inflation reaching 160% (100% chance of things getting worse)
      2. A total wild card (99.9% chance of things getting much worse)

      FTFY

    • ragica@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t actually know anything. But casually to me it looked like a choice between 160% chance of it getting worse and a 300% chance of getting worse. And it’s not very surprising at all in these circumstances many go for the latter for all sorts of reasons (and delusions). But I don’t actually know anything.

      • DeadHorseX@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        You should probably read at least a little about Argentina’s recent history before commenting then…

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s bad math. Yes, if you put the same people in office. There’s nearly 100% chance that they will continue doing what they have been doing. Good or bad. But if you put a lunatic with a grudge against reality in office. Who is aligned, or would align himself with the people who caused the problem before. You have 150% chance that things will get worse.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, it was a jab at the logic. Things can always get worse. Always. Change for the sake of change is a bad proposition. So now the people causing the problems before aren’t in direct control. They have a go between patsy. Poised to push awful social oppression openly that they’d likely only thought about in wet dreams. And a large chunk of misguided populous supporting it. Because “it’s different”.

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The calculation shouldn’t be “chance of things getting worse”, but “expected value of how much worse it’ll get”.