President Javier Milei defended his economic program on Monday, and said that Argentina is not currently experiencing a financial crisis [2, 7].
This stance comes as the administration faces mounting criticism over the financial stability of Argentine households and a sharp rise in private debt. The president's refusal to intervene in private lending disputes signals a strict adherence to his libertarian philosophy of minimal state interference.
Returning to the Casa Rosada after a period of reserved activities at the Quinta de Olivos—which reports place between 23 and 45 days [2, 3]—Milei met with his cabinet for three hours [2]. During the session, the president focused on reforms the administration intends to push through Congress [2].
Addressing concerns over family indebtedness, Milei dismissed the idea that the government should provide aid to those unable to pay their debts. He said that private parties should settle their disputes among themselves [5]. This comment follows reports that approximately 5.8 million people are currently facing delinquency of more than 90 days [6].
Milei attributed the current state of family debt to the previous administration, and said the Kirchnerism movement was responsible for the record levels of delinquency [5]. He argued that the national economy is in a stronger position now than it was in December 2023 [1].
When questioned about the pace of economic recovery and the impact on family consumption, the president noted that Argentina is not a developed nation. "No somos Suiza," he said [1].
Despite the high delinquency rates, the president continued to deny that his management of the economy has deteriorated [4]. He maintained that the current path is the only viable way to ensure long-term stability, even as critics point to the immediate hardship faced by millions of citizens [3, 4].
“"No somos Suiza"”
Milei's refusal to address the 5.8 million citizens in deep debt underscores a high-stakes gamble on 'shock therapy' economics. By framing private debt as a non-government issue and blaming previous administrations, the president is prioritizing macroeconomic indicators over immediate social relief. This approach risks increasing political friction with the working class while attempting to signal fiscal discipline to international markets.
