“It’s a real shift worth celebrating, given that most investors did not have confidence in his ability to reduce the deficit just a few weeks ago. If anything, perhaps he’s going overboard in some ways.”
Javier Milei, Argentina’s newly elected libertarian and self-described “anarcho-capitalist” president, is embracing sweeping reforms to save the country’s struggling economy, even in the face of overwhelming obstacles.
Despite challenges arising from lawmaker opposition and a soaring inflation rate that has plagued the country for years, Milei’s “shock” adjustment actions have improved market and investor confidence both among the Argentinian population and abroad. Milei inherited a 140% inflation rate, an impoverished population and hundreds of billions in debt when he took office in December.
Milei acknowledged on the day of his inauguration that Argentina’s economy would temporarily get worse while he embraced “shock” adjustments to start making fixes.
“They have ruined our lives … There is no money!” Milei said during his inauguration speech. “Therefore, the conclusion is that there is no alternative to adjustment and no alternative to shock … this is the last straw to begin the reconstruction of Argentina.”
One of Milei’s first actions as president was to slash Argentina’s bureaucratic ministry from 18 to nine in a bid to reduce government spending, fulfilling a promise he made on the campaign trail, according to Reuters. Milei and his supporters saw several of the agencies as ineffectual and bloated with cash, including the Ministry of Transportation and Public Works, Tourism and Sports and the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, which were absorbed by other existing ministries, according to the CATO Institute.
Milei also allowed the value of the peso currency to plummet by 50% in December to reduce export costs while also increasing the import costs, according to The Associated Press. The goal is to close the trade gap, making Argentina a bigger global trade competitor and stem the flow of money leaving the country, which would increase the stockpile of its exhausted foreign currency reserves.
The eventual plan for Milei is to replace the peso currency entirely with the U.S. dollar, another promise he made on the campaign trail, according to NPR. The U.S. dollar is prized in Argentina because it is generally stable and holds its value longer than the peso.
Temporary tax hikes were imposed by Milei’s administration to reduce the national debt and start balancing the budget according to the AP. Argentina’s budget deficit currently sits at 3%, and Milei has promised to balance it this year, according to Reuters.
Milei sent an omnibus reform bill to Congress in December that would privatize state-owned companies and raise export taxes, and remove limits on bonds issued overseas and on debt restructure rules, according to Reuters. He also issued a separate presidential decree in December to deregulate Argentina’s economy.
These actions are already having positive impacts. Argentina’s monthly inflation slowed down to 15.3% in February, much lower than the spike in December, according to Reuter’s forecast. The country also saw a monthly budget surplus in January for the first time in over a decade.
“The Milei administration has inherited a steep stabilization task, but has already taken some important steps toward restoring fiscal sustainability, adjusting the exchange rate, and combating inflation,” U.S. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen said during a press conference in late February.
Argentinian citizens have deposited over $2.3 billion in dollar-denomination banks since Milei took office, restoring the entirety of the banks’ losses from the last year and signaling that the population feels stability, as withdrawals typically increase during unsteady times, according to Bloomberg. Argentina’s bonds are at four-year highs and the country’s risk index has fallen to a two-year low, according to Reuters.
“The market is becoming very optimistic about Javier Milei’s conviction,” Javier Casabal, a Buenos Aires-based fixed-income strategist at Adcap Grupo Financiero, told Reuters. “It’s a real shift worth celebrating, given that most investors did not have confidence in his ability to reduce the deficit just a few weeks ago. If anything, perhaps he’s going overboard in some ways.”
Milei still faces several roadblocks. Inflation is still at record highs and poverty continues to consume much of the Argentinian population. Major provisions in Milei’s reform bill were blocked in early February by the country’s Congress, which he has referred to as a “nest of rats,” according to Reuters
Milei vowed to Congress during a speech on March 1 that he would “speed up” his reform plans, encouraging them to join his efforts but warning that he did not need them to accomplish his goals, according to Reuters.
“We won’t back down, we’re going to keep pushing forward,” Milei said. “Whether that’s by law, presidential decree or by modifying regulations.”
Milei’s government is now considering breaking up the reform bill and passing provisions separately through Congress, according to Reuters. He is requesting lawmakers to agree to a 10-point social pact, which would include negotiations in discussions on economic reform, by May 25.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
New government data shows that wind power generation fell in 2023 despite the addition of new capacity, a fact that energy sector experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation demonstrates its inherent flaw.
Wind generation fell by about 2.1% in 2023 relative to 2022 generation, despite the 6 gigawatts (GW) of wind power capacity that came online last year, according to data published Tuesday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). That wind power output dropped despite new capacity coming online and the availability of government subsidies highlights its intermittency and the problems wind power could pose for grid reliability, energy sector experts told the DCNF.
The decrease in wind generation is the first drop on record with the EIA since the 1990s; the drop was not evenly distributed across all regions of the U.S., and slower wind speeds last year also contributed to the decline, according to EIA. The Biden administration wants to have the American power sector reach carbon neutrality by 2035, a goal that will require a significant shift away from natural gas- and coal-fired power toward wind, solar and other green sources.
A table depicting the decrease of wind power generation in 2023 relative to 2022. (Screenshot via U.S. Energy Information Administration)
“Relying on wind power to meet your peak electricity demands is gambling with the grid,” Isaac Orr, a policy fellow at the Center of the American Experiment who specializes in power grid-related analysis, told the DCNF. “Will the wind blow, or won’t it? This should be a moment where policymakers step back and consider the wisdom of heavily subsidizing intermittent generators and punishing reliable coal and gas plants with onerous regulations.”
Between 2016 and 2022, the wind industry received an estimated $18.6 billion worth of subsidies, about 10% of the total amount of subsidies extended to the energy sector by the U.S. government, according to an August 2023 EIA report. Wind power received more assistance from the government than nuclear power, coal or natural gas over the same period of time.
“This isn’t subsidies per kilowatt hour of generation. It’s raw subsidies. If it were per kilowatt hour of generation, the numbers would be even more extreme,” Paige Lambermont, a research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the DCNF. “This is a massive amount of money. It’s enough to dramatically alter energy investment decisions for the worse. We’re much more heavily subsidizing the sources that don’t provide a significant portion of our electricity than those that do.”
“Policy that just focuses on installed capacity, rather than the reliability of that capacity, fails to understand the real needs of the electrical grid,” Lambermont added. “This recent disparity illustrates that more installed wind capacity does not necessarily correlate with more wind power production. It doesn’t matter how much wind you add to the grid, if the wind isn’t blowing at peak demand time, that capacity will go to waste.”
Wind power’s performance was especially lackluster in the upper midwest, but Texas saw more wind generation in 2023 than it did in 2022, according to EIA. Wind generation in the first half of 2023 was about 14% lower than it was through the first six months of 2022, but generation was higher toward the end of 2023 than it was during the same period in 2022.
In 2023, about 60% of all electricity generated in the U.S. came from fossil fuels, while 10% came from wind power, according to EIA data. Beyond generous subsidies for preferred green energy sources, the Biden administration has also aggressively regulatedfossilfuels and American power plants to advance its broad climate agenda.
Biden’s Climate Bill Boosted An Offshore Wind Giant, But His Economy Brought It To The Brink https://t.co/AF7SPT2FNu
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) landmark power plant rules finalized this month will threaten grid reliability if enacted, partially because the regulations are likely to incentivize operators to close plants rather than adopt the costly measures required for compliance, grid experts previously told the DCNF. At the same time that the Biden administration is effectively trying to shift power generation away from fossil fuels, it is also pursuing goals — such as substantially boosting electric vehicle adoption over the next decade and incentivizing construction of energy-intensive computer chip factories — that are driving up projected electricity demand in the future.
“The EIA data proves what we’ve always known about wind power: It is intermittent, unpredictable and unreliable,” David Blackmon, a 40-year veteran of the oil and gas industry who now writes and consults on the energy sector, told the DCNF. “Any power generation source whose output is wholly dependent on equally unpredictable weather conditions should never be presented by power companies and grid managers as safe replacements for abundant, cheap, dispatchable generation fueled with natural gas, coal or nuclear. This is a simple reality that people in charge of our power grids too often forget. Saying that no doubt hurts some people’s feelings, but nature really does not care about our feelings.”
Blackmon also pointed out that, aside from its intermittency, sluggish build-out of the transmission lines and related infrastructure poses a major problem for wind power.
“Wind power is worthless without accompanying transmission, yet the Biden administration continues to pour billions into unreliable wind while ignoring the growing crisis in the transmission sector,” Blackmon told the DCNF.
Another long-term issue that wind power, as well as solar power, faces is the need for a massive expansion in the amount of battery storage available to store and dispatch energy from intermittent sources as market conditions dictate. By some estimates, the U.S. will need about 85 times as much battery storage by 2050 relative to November 2023 in order to fully decarbonize the power grid, according to Alsym Energy, a battery company.
The White House and the Department of Energy did not respond to requests for comment.
Last November, Premier Danielle Smith announced that her government will give up to $1.8 billion in subsidies to Dow Chemicals, which plans to expand a petrochemical project northeast of Edmonton. In other words, $1.8 billion in corporate welfare.
And this is just one example of corporate welfare paid for by Albertans.
According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, from 2007 to 2021, the latest year of available data, the Alberta government spent $31.0 billion (inflation-adjusted) on subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select firms and businesses, purportedly to help Albertans. And this number excludes other forms of government handouts such as loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory or tax privileges for particular firms and industries. So the total cost of corporate welfare in Alberta is likely much higher.
Why should Albertans care?
First off, there’s little evidence that corporate welfare generates widespread economic growth or jobs. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary—that subsidies result in a net loss to the economy by shifting resources to less productive sectors or locations (what economists call the “substitution effect”) and/or by keeping businesses alive that are otherwise economically unviable (i.e. “zombie companies”). This misallocation of resources leads to a less efficient, less productive and less prosperous Alberta.
And there are other costs to corporate welfare.
For example, between 2007 and 2019 (the latest year of pre-COVID data), every year on average the Alberta government spent 35 cents (out of every dollar of business income tax revenue it collected) on corporate welfare. Given that workers bear the burden of more than half of any business income tax indirectly through lower wages, if the government reduced business income taxes rather than spend money on corporate welfare, workers could benefit.
Moreover, Premier Smith failed in last month’s provincial budget to provide promised personal income tax relief and create a lower tax bracket for incomes below $60,000 to provide $760 in annual savings for Albertans (on average). But in 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the Alberta government spent $2.4 billion on corporate welfare—equivalent to $1,034 per tax filer. Clearly, instead of subsidizing select businesses, the Smith government could have kept its promise to lower personal income taxes.
Finally, there’s the Heritage Fund, which the Alberta government created almost 50 years ago to save a share of the province’s resource wealth for the future.
In her 2024 budget, Premier Smith earmarked $2.0 billion for the Heritage Fund this fiscal year—almost the exact amount spent on corporate welfare each year (on average) between 2007 and 2019. Put another way, the Alberta government could save twice as much in the Heritage Fund in 2024/25 if it ended corporate welfare, which would help Premier Smith keep her promise to build up the Heritage Fund to between $250 billion and $400 billion by 2050.
By eliminating corporate welfare, the Smith government can create fiscal room to reduce personal and business income taxes, or save more in the Heritage Fund. Any of these options will benefit Albertans far more than wasteful billion-dollar subsidies to favoured firms.
