Argentina Is Proving Socialism’s Failures Can Be Reversed

In the early 1900s, Argentina ranked among the richest countries in the world. Its GDP per capita sat comfortably alongside the likes of France, Germany and Australia. Immigrants flocked there seeking opportunity. Buenos Aires was called the “Paris of South America.”

A century later it had become a byword for economic mismanagement, chronic inflation and decline. What happened? Decades of populist, high-spending, interventionist policies — the Argentine variant of what many call socialism or Peronist clientelism — steadily eroded the foundations of prosperity.

Then, in late 2023, Javier Milei took office with a chainsaw and a clear message: the party was over. Two and a half years later the results are hard to ignore.

The Numbers Tell the Story

Inflation 

       

Source https://inflationcompare.com/argentina/10-years

When Milei was sworn in, annual inflation stood at roughly 211%. By the end of 2025 it had fallen to 31.5%. Monthly rates that once hit 25% are now hovering around 2%. That is an 85% reduction.  

(Source: INDEC official data; interactive charts at inflationcompare.com and indicadores.ar)

Fiscal accounts  

Argentina recorded consecutive primary fiscal surpluses in 2024 and 2025 — the first such streak in nearly two decades. The government is on track for a third. 

Source: IMF 2026 Article IV Consultation and Argentine Ministry of Economy

Growth  

After a necessary contraction of about 1.3% in the adjustment year of 2024, the economy expanded 4.4% in 2025. Projections for 2026 sit around 3–3.5%.  

(Source: IMF Staff Report, May 2026)

Poverty

Poverty peaked above 52% in the first half of 2024 amid the initial shock. By the second half of 2025 it had fallen to 28.2% — the lowest reading since 2018. Extreme poverty (indigence) dropped even more sharply.  

(Source: INDEC)

These are not cherry-picked figures. They come from Argentina’s official statistics agency and the International Monetary Fund. Charts of the inflation collapse, the rebound in activity, and the poverty trajectory are freely available from INDEC, the IMF DataMapper, and independent trackers such as MacroMicro.

How Did It Happen?

Milei’s approach was straightforward, if politically brutal: eliminate the fiscal deficit, stop printing money to cover it, cut wasteful spending and subsidies, and begin dismantling the thicket of regulations and currency controls that had strangled the private sector. He reduced the number of ministries, fired thousands of unnecessary public employees, and prioritised energy and mining investment.

The temporary US currency swap line in late 2025 (of which Argentina drew only a fraction and later repaid in full) provided liquidity during a market wobble. It was not the cause of the turnaround. The heavy lifting had already been done through domestic policy discipline.

The Longer Lesson

Argentina’s century-long decline was not inevitable. It was the predictable result of successive governments treating the economy as a political patronage machine rather than a system that rewards work, saving and investment. Price controls, export taxes, monetary financing of deficits and endless redistribution produced the classic sequence: shortages, black markets, capital flight, inflation and falling living standards.

Venezuela offers the more extreme version of the same movie. Once one of Latin America’s wealthiest nations thanks to oil, it has suffered one of the largest peacetime collapses in modern history under the “21st-century socialism” of Chávez and Maduro. GDP has contracted dramatically, millions have fled, and hyperinflation destroyed the currency. The pattern is consistent: when governments expand far beyond their means and attack the institutions of private property and free exchange, prosperity evaporates.

Closer to home, some Democrat-led states and cities in the United States have experimented with elements of the same playbook — high taxes, heavy regulation, aggressive rent controls, and growing public-sector dependency. The results are visible in housing shortages, business flight and rising homelessness in places that once thrived. The contrast with more market-oriented states is becoming harder to dismiss.

Determination Matters

Milei’s experiment is still young. Real wages have been slow to recover, unemployment remains elevated in some sectors, and political opposition is fierce. Sustained success will require continued fiscal discipline and deeper structural reforms.

Yet the early evidence is encouraging. A country that spent decades proving that bad policy can destroy wealth is now demonstrating that good policy — applied with determination — can begin to rebuild it.

The lesson is not complicated. Prosperity is not the natural state of nations. It is the product of sound money, limited government, secure property rights and the freedom to trade and innovate. Abandon those principles and decline follows. Restore them, and recovery becomes possible.

Argentina is giving the world a live demonstration. Other countries would do well to watch closely.

The Surcharge Finally Gets the Boot

At long last, the Reserve Bank of Australia has announced that from 1 October 2026, businesses will no longer be allowed to add surcharges to most card payments.

My reaction?

About time!

Regular readers will know this has been a long-running irritation of mine. Back in 2016 I wrote Credit Card Surcharge Humbug, and eight years later I was still at it with Minor Surcharge, Major Irritation. It seems I have an unusually long memory when it comes to being charged an extra $1.37.

But finally, common sense has prevailed.

The World's Most Annoying Magic Trick

We've all experienced it.

The menu says $24.00.

You tap your card.

"That'll be $24.42."

Where did the extra forty-two cents come from?

"Oh, that's the card surcharge."

It always struck me as bizarre that accepting payment was treated as some kind of optional extra rather than simply another cost of doing business.

Why This Change Makes Sense

Every business has overheads.

Rent.

Electricity.

Insurance.

Staff wages.

Accounting.

Cleaning.

None of these appear as separate items on your receipt. They are simply built into the price.

So why should card processing be any different?

In 2026, accepting electronic payments isn't a luxury—it's a normal part of running a business. The RBA has rightly concluded that separate surcharges have outlived their usefulness.

The Price Should Be the Price

The beauty of the new rules is their simplicity.

If the menu says $24, I should pay $24.

No mental arithmetic.

No tiny sign beside the EFTPOS terminal.

No nasty surprise just as I'm reaching for my wallet.

Will businesses still have to pay merchant fees?

Of course they will.

But they'll simply do what they already do with every other business expense—include it in their pricing. That's how virtually every other cost of doing business is handled.

A Small but Welcome Victory

This isn't the most important economic reform Australia has ever seen.

But it removes one of those small, unnecessary irritations that consumers have been putting up with for years.

After a decade of complaining about card surcharges, I'm delighted to see them finally shown the door.

From 1 October 2026, the price on the tag should once again be the price you actually pay.

What a wonderfully sensible idea.

Never Again Starts Here

The establishment of Australia's Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion marks an extraordinary moment in our nation's history.

Royal Commissions are reserved for our gravest national failures. That we now require one to investigate antisemitism should alarm every Australian.

For decades Australia prided itself on being one of the safest places in the world for Jewish people. That reputation has been shattered.

Following Hamas' barbaric massacre of 7 October 2023, Australia witnessed an explosion of antisemitic incidents unlike anything seen in generations. Jewish schools required armed security. Synagogues were vandalised. Businesses were boycotted because they were Jewish-owned. University campuses became hostile environments. Protest marches featured slogans that many interpreted as glorifying terrorism or advocating violence.

Then came the unimaginable—the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi that claimed innocent Australian lives and finally forced the nation to confront what had been growing in plain sight. In response, the Federal Government established the Royal Commission to examine both antisemitism and the broader question of social cohesion.(Royal Commission on Antisemitism)

The Commission has an enormous responsibility.

But before reinventing the wheel, it should ask a simple question:

What have other democratic nations done better?

No Western country escaped the surge in antisemitism after October 7. Yet some governments responded far more decisively than Australia. Their experiences provide valuable lessons.

Germany – Zero Tolerance Means Exactly That

No country carries a greater historical responsibility than Germany.

Perhaps because of that history, German leaders moved quickly to make clear that support for Hamas or antisemitic intimidation would not be tolerated.

Authorities:

• prosecuted incitement and glorification of terrorism;

• banned demonstrations where organisers promoted Hamas or celebrated the October 7 attacks;

• increased police protection for Jewish schools and synagogues;

• strengthened surveillance of extremist organisations; and

• reinforced the message that antisemitism is incompatible with Germany's constitutional values.

Germany understood something Australia seemed slow to appreciate:

Freedom of speech does not include freedom to intimidate or glorify terrorism.

Austria – Education and Enforcement Together

Austria adopted a different but equally instructive approach.

Rather than relying solely on criminal law, it strengthened its National Strategy Against Antisemitism by combining:

• criminal enforcement;

• improved protection for Jewish institutions;

• Holocaust education;

• monitoring of extremist activity; and

• coordinated government leadership.

Austria recognised that education matters—but education alone cannot stop organised hatred.

The law must also have teeth.

France – Protecting Public Order

France has long struggled with antisemitism and therefore recognised the danger early.

Following October 7, French authorities:

• prohibited demonstrations celebrating Hamas;

• intervened quickly when protests crossed into support for terrorism;

• deployed thousands of police to protect Jewish institutions;

• publicly condemned antisemitism from the highest levels of government.

France still experienced significant antisemitism.

But it drew a clear line between peaceful political protest and public support for terrorist violence.

That distinction matters.

United Kingdom – Treating Antisemitism as a Security Issue

Britain also saw a dramatic rise in antisemitic incidents.

Its response focused heavily on security.

Government funding increased protection for Jewish schools, synagogues and community organisations.

Counter-terrorism agencies intensified monitoring of extremist groups, while political leaders repeatedly reinforced that Jewish citizens should never have to fear practising their faith.

Again, Britain has not eliminated antisemitism.

But it demonstrated that governments have an obligation to protect vulnerable communities rather than merely condemn attacks after they occur.

Australia's Response

Australia certainly was not inactive.

Governments eventually strengthened hate speech legislation, increased security funding and established the Royal Commission after the Bondi attack. The Commission's interim report has already recommended stronger counter-terrorism coordination and additional measures to improve security.(Royal Commission on Antisemitism)

However, many Australians believe these measures came far too late.

While other countries acted quickly to define clear boundaries, Australia appeared hesitant.

Many observers believe authorities were often reluctant to enforce existing laws against intimidation, public incitement or support for terrorist organisations. Universities struggled to protect Jewish students. Police responses appeared inconsistent between jurisdictions. Political leadership sometimes seemed more concerned with avoiding controversy than confronting extremism.

Whether one agrees entirely with that assessment or not, one fact is undeniable:

Australia has reached the point where a Royal Commission has become necessary.

That alone suggests our earlier response was inadequate.

The Common Lessons

Looking across Germany, Austria, France and Britain, several themes emerge.

Successful governments generally:

• acted early rather than waiting for violence to escalate;

• enforced existing criminal laws consistently;

• distinguished legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy from antisemitic hatred;

• protected Jewish communities through visible security;

• prosecuted support for terrorist organisations;

• demonstrated clear political leadership;

• treated organised antisemitism as both a law-enforcement and national security issue.

None of these countries solved the problem.

But all demonstrated that governments are not powerless.

Leadership matters.

Recommendations for Australia's Royal Commission

The Royal Commission has an opportunity not merely to document failures but to recommend reforms that restore confidence and prevent history repeating itself.

Based on international experience, I believe it should consider the following recommendations.

1. Adopt Genuine Zero Tolerance

Public support for designated terrorist organisations should always attract swift legal consequences.

There should be no ambiguity.

2. Treat Organised Antisemitism as a National Security Issue

Where extremist networks coordinate intimidation or violence, responsibility should rest not only with police but also with ASIO, the AFP and national security agencies.

3. Enforce Existing Laws Consistently

Australia already possesses many of the necessary laws.

The challenge has too often been inconsistent enforcement.

Justice delayed quickly becomes permission granted.

4. Strengthen Visa and Immigration Controls

Support for terrorist organisations or repeated incitement to hatred should carry serious immigration consequences for non-citizens, including visa cancellation where appropriate.

5. Hold Universities Accountable

Every Australian student should be able to attend university without intimidation.

Universities that repeatedly fail to provide a safe learning environment should face meaningful financial and regulatory consequences.

6. Expand Protection for Jewish Institutions

Security funding for schools, synagogues and community centres should become permanent rather than reactive.

Citizens should not need to fear attending school or worship.

7. Improve Education

Holocaust education remains essential.

But it should be accompanied by broader education about democratic values, religious tolerance, freedom of expression and the dangers of political extremism.

8. Improve Intelligence Sharing

ASIO, the AFP, state police and community organisations should operate through integrated intelligence-sharing arrangements to identify emerging extremist threats before violence occurs.

9. Increase Institutional Accountability

Government agencies, universities and police should publicly report on progress implementing the Commission's recommendations.

Transparency builds confidence.

10. Protect Freedom of Speech While Opposing Hatred

Australians must remain free to criticise governments—including Israel's.

But there is a fundamental distinction between political disagreement and intimidation of Jewish Australians.

A mature democracy can protect both free speech and public safety.

The Real Test

The Royal Commission will undoubtedly produce a lengthy report.

The real question is whether Australia has the political courage to implement it.

History shows that hatred grows when governments hesitate.

Germany, Austria, France and Britain have all learned—through painful experience—that early intervention is vastly preferable to later regret.

Australia now has the opportunity to learn from those experiences rather than repeating their mistakes.

If this Royal Commission merely produces another report that gathers dust, it will have failed.

If, however, it restores confidence that every Australian—regardless of religion—can live free from intimidation and violence, it may become one of the most important Royal Commissions in our nation's history.

The victims of Bondi deserve nothing less.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 34 of 2026

    

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• Europe's Betrayal of the Iranian People
• Trump, Iran and the Endless Negotiations
• The Case Against mRNA for Flu
• Six Charts Put Climate Alamism Into Perspective
• Speak ....If You Dare!
• The Surcharge Finally Gets The Boot
• Argentina Is Proving Socialism's Failures Can Be Reversed

Cartoon of the Day

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Speak ....If You Dare!

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Whether or not Voltaire ever uttered those exact words, they long captured the spirit of Western liberal democracy. The principle was simple: bad ideas are defeated by better ideas, not by intimidation.

Somewhere along the way, that principle was turned on its head.

Today, it is no longer enough to disagree with someone. Increasingly, they must be silenced, shamed, de-platformed, or destroyed.

The irony is striking. Those who most loudly proclaim themselves defenders of tolerance have, in many cases, become remarkably intolerant of views they dislike.

Debate Has Been Replaced by Denunciation

Not long ago, a disagreement over immigration, gender ideology, Islam, climate policy or multiculturalism would have sparked an argument.

Today it is just as likely to spark an accusation.

Question mass immigration and you may be labelled a racist.

Question aspects of transgender ideology and you are branded transphobic.

Criticise Islamist extremism and you risk being called Islamophobic.

Question climate models or the economic wisdom of Net Zero policies and you become a "climate denier."

Notice something important about these labels.

They are rarely arguments.

They are conversation stoppers.

Once someone has been successfully branded with one of these labels, many people feel no need to engage with what they actually said. The label itself becomes sufficient reason to dismiss them.

This is not debate.

It is social censorship.

The Dictatorship of Virtue

An excellent recent essay from the Gatestone Institute describes this phenomenon as a "dictatorship of virtue." The article argues that many Western societies have replaced the pursuit of truth with the pursuit of ideological conformity. Increasingly, expressing the "wrong" opinion can carry social and professional consequences entirely disproportionate to the words spoken. (Gatestone Institute)

In such an environment, virtue is no longer demonstrated by listening or persuading.

It is demonstrated by identifying heretics.

From Words to Intimidation

Perhaps even more disturbing is how quickly disagreement has evolved into intimidation.

People have lost jobs.

Speakers have been shouted down.

Universities have cancelled lectures.

Businesses have been boycotted because of opinions expressed by owners or employees.

Ordinary citizens have become afraid to express perfectly lawful opinions in public.

This "cancel culture" does not require government censorship.

It works because people learn that speaking honestly may come with a heavy personal cost.

The result is self-censorship.

And self-censorship is often far more effective than official censorship.

Meanwhile, Calls for Violence Are Increasingly Normalised

Here is where the inversion becomes truly disturbing.

While ordinary citizens are condemned for expressing controversial opinions, slogans that many interpret as encouraging violence are increasingly treated as legitimate political expression.

The slogan "Globalise the Intifada" is one obvious example.

Supporters often argue that "intifada" simply means "uprising." Critics point out that the term is historically associated with waves of terrorist attacks that deliberately targeted civilians. For that reason, many Jewish organisations regard the slogan as a call to extend such violence globally.

Whether one agrees with that interpretation or not, surely a slogan that many understand as advocating violence deserves at least as much scrutiny as someone questioning immigration policy.

Yet in many public discussions, the opposite seems true.

"Death to the IDF"

The same pattern appears with chants such as "Death to the IDF."

Supporters sometimes argue they are referring only to a military organisation.

Others hear an explicit call for the killing of individual soldiers—many of whom are ordinary young men and women performing compulsory national service.

Again, the point is not whether every listener interprets the slogan identically.

The point is the double standard.

A citizen expressing scepticism about climate policy may be publicly condemned within hours.

A crowd chanting slogans that many interpret as advocating violence often receives far less condemnation.

The Trump Exception

The same inconsistency has appeared in American politics.

Following repeated assassination attempts against Donald Trump, social media has continued to host countless comments openly wishing for his death or encouraging further violence.

Imagine the reaction if similar comments were directed toward many other political leaders.

The outrage would be immediate.

Standards should not depend upon whose side someone is on.

Threats of violence are wrong regardless of the target.

Australia Is Not Immune

Australia has increasingly experienced similar trends.

Recent reports of school students chanting "Kill Pauline Hanson" should alarm every Australian—not because everyone agrees with Senator Hanson, but because normalising political violence against elected representatives corrodes democracy itself.

Disagree with her policies.

Challenge her arguments.

Vote against her.

But teaching young Australians that political opponents deserve death rather than debate represents a dangerous moral failure.

Even when public figures attract strong criticism, leaders should be quick to condemn calls for violence rather than remaining selectively silent. 

Freedom of Speech Was Never Meant to Protect Only Popular Opinions

Freedom of speech has never existed to protect opinions everyone already agrees with.

Popular opinions require no protection.

The entire purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular opinions.

That does not mean freedom from criticism.

Robust debate is healthy.

Strong disagreement is healthy.

Mockery can even be healthy.

But intimidation, threats, organised cancellation, and attempts to destroy livelihoods simply because someone holds a different opinion are not.

The Slippery Slope

History repeatedly shows that once society accepts censorship for ideas it dislikes, the list of prohibited ideas never shrinks.

It grows.

Yesterday's unacceptable opinion often becomes tomorrow's accepted wisdom.

Many beliefs now considered mainstream—from women's suffrage to civil rights and same-sex marriage—were once denounced as dangerous or offensive.

Progress depends upon allowing people to challenge prevailing orthodoxy.

We Need to Recover Liberalism

The answer is not to silence the other side.

It is to defend one principle consistently.

No one should be threatened for expressing lawful opinions.

No one should lose their livelihood simply because others disagree.

And no political movement should receive a free pass for slogans or rhetoric that appear to glorify or encourage violence.

Freedom of speech is not tested when we defend views we already support.

It is tested when we defend the right of people to express views we dislike.

Western civilisation did not become strong because everyone agreed.

It became strong because disagreement was permitted.

If we forget that lesson, we risk replacing the marketplace of ideas with something far darker: a culture where fear, labels and intimidation determine who is allowed to speak.

That is not progress.

It is the quiet abandonment of one of the greatest freedoms our civilisation has ever achieved.