A Dispatch From Buenos Aires: The Buenos Aires Experiment

On a Thursday morning in August 2026, the Alvear Palace Hotel where I was staying was filled with the country’s governing class. President Javier Milei arrived to deliver the closing address at the twenty-third annual Council of the Americas conference and was joined over the course of the morning by his economic minister, his chief of cabinet, his foreign minister, his deregulation minister, four provincial governors, and the country managers of Glencore and Newmont weighing whether to commit capital to Argentine mining and energy. I was not in the room, but the unusually heavy security was impossible to miss passing through the lobby. It was, in miniature, the entire argument of this essay: a government’s credibility, and the money behind it, being negotiated in real time, in the salon where breakfast and afternoon tea are normally served.

Every prosperous nation tells itself a comforting story, one so deeply embedded in the national consciousness that it rarely needs to be spoken aloud. Strong institutions, stable currencies, functioning markets, and rising living standards seem like the natural condition of successful societies. Recessions come and go, governments change, parties alternate in power - yet beneath the noise of everyday politics lies a quiet confidence that the foundations themselves are permanent.

History suggests otherwise. Prosperity is not permanent; it is inherited, and like any inheritance it can be preserved, strengthened, neglected, or consumed. Nations seldom become poor overnight. More often they gradually spend the institutional capital accumulated by previous generations, until they discover that what once seemed permanent was in fact remarkably fragile.

Few countries illustrate this lesson more vividly than Argentina. Walking through Buenos Aires for the first time is disorienting precisely because the city refuses to conform to its reputation. Along Avenida Alvear and the ten plus lanes of Avenida 9 de Julio, the grand boulevards, elegant apartment buildings, magnificent bookstores, and unmistakable European character suggest confidence rather than decline - the city has long styled itself the “Paris of South America,” and on these streets the comparison does not feel like flattery. Recoleta feels as sophisticated as Paris, its boutiques and parrillas doing brisk business a few blocks from the Cementerio de la Recoleta, where Argentina’s political and landed elite - Eva Perón among them - rest in a necropolis as ornate as the neighborhood around it; Palermo Soho has the creative energy of Barcelona; San Telmo, a short walk south, trades that polish for a bohemian mix of modern-art museums, sprawling antiques markets, and street murals; and the Teatro Colón, where a visitor might catch a performance of Otello, stands comfortably among the world’s great opera houses, still serving an audience that has weathered every crisis this essay describes. Nothing about the city looks like the capital of a country that has spent a century wrestling with inflation, debt crises, and recurring economic disappointment.

That contradiction is what makes Argentina worth studying closely. This is not a country that failed for lack of resources, talent, or access to global markets - it possessed all three in abundance. At the start of the twentieth century, Argentina ranked among the wealthiest nations on earth, with income per capita rivaling much of Western Europe. British capital financed railroads across the pampas; Argentine grain and beef fed Europe; Buenos Aires became one of the world’s busiest and most cosmopolitan ports. An economist in 1910 asked to name the countries most likely to dominate the twenty-first century would almost certainly have placed Argentina near the top of the list. Instead, it became one of modern history’s great economic mysteries - and it is now the site of the most ambitious libertarian experiment any democracy has attempted in a century.

Javier Milei did not win the presidency in 2023 by promising incremental reform. He won it waving an actual chainsaw at campaign rallies, promising to “blow up” the central bank, and telling Argentines flatly that “there is no money” - no hay plata - left to keep financing the state that had governed their lives for eighty years. It is worth taking the scale of what followed seriously, because it is genuinely unusual among modern democracies.

On his first day in office, Milei cut Argentina’s cabinet from eighteen ministries to nine, and later to eight. Within a year his administration had fired more than 37,000 public employees - a figure that rose past 53,000 within two years - and abolished roughly a hundred secretariats and subsecretariats along with more than two hundred lower-level bureaucratic departments. The vehicle for much of this was Decree 70/2023, quickly nicknamed the Megadecreto, an executive order of hundreds of articles that deregulated rent contracts, labor rules, trade licensing, and price controls in a single stroke. By the government’s own count, Argentina implemented more than 1,246 separate deregulations by August 2025 - roughly two every day of Milei’s presidency - touching pharmaceuticals, agriculture, tourism, energy, real estate, and food imports. Rent control and the mandatory minimum three-year lease term, both blamed for a collapse in the supply of rental housing, were repealed by decree within weeks of his inauguration.

This is, by any measure, one of the fastest peacetime shrinkages of a modern state. It is also, tellingly, a story about institutional method as much as ideology: much of it was accomplished not through ordinary legislation debated and passed by a Congress in which Milei’s party held a small minority of seats, but through decree - a legally permitted but historically contested presidential power in Argentina, and one that predecessors of every political stripe have leaned on during emergencies. Whether dismantling the regulatory state by executive decree strengthens or quietly undermines the very institutional norms this essay is concerned with is a question worth sitting with, and one this essay returns to.

The intellectual scaffolding behind these decrees is unusually explicit for a head of state. Milei is a trained economist who describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist and, in his more cautious moments, a “minarchist” - the libertarian term for someone who believes the state’s only legitimate function is to protect citizens’ security so they can exercise personal freedom. He has named his cloned mastiffs Milton, Murray, Robert, and Lucas, after Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Lucas Jr., and he quotes Friedrich Hayek and Rothbard’s writing on the non-aggression principle in interviews and floor speeches with the fluency of a graduate seminar rather than a stump speech. In one address at Bar-Ilan University he described capitalism as “God’s law” and called Karl Marx “a satanist.” Whatever one makes of the rhetoric, this is not a politician borrowing free-market language for cover. It is closer to an attempt to govern a G20 economy according to a specific, textbook Austrian and Chicago-school inheritance - which is precisely what makes Argentina such a consequential test case rather than merely another populist swing of the pendulum.

The clearest illustration of the gap between libertarian theory and Argentine practice is dollarization - Milei’s signature campaign promise and, for many of his supporters, the entire point of the exercise. Replacing the peso with the US dollar and shutting down the central bank was meant to remove, permanently and by design, the government’s ability to finance itself by printing money, which is the mechanism behind Argentina’s repeated inflationary crises. It was the one reform that could not be reversed by a future government tempted by the same shortcuts as the last one.

It never happened. Within months of taking office, Milei’s economy minister, Luis Caputo - a veteran of the conventional financial establishment rather than the libertarian movement - was signaling that dollarization remained, at best, a medium-term aspiration. Milei himself later explained the retreat in overtly political terms, telling interviewers that pursuing it immediately risked impeachment, and that in a country accustomed to state control, “you can’t force things on people.” In its place, the government adopted a policy of permitting “currency competition” - letting Argentines transact in dollars, pesos, or even bitcoin - while retaining a floating exchange-rate band and, crucially, keeping the central bank fully intact, still holding a monopoly on bank licensing and still requiring domestic banks to hold peso-denominated government debt.

This is not a footnote; it is the detail that most sharply divides Milei’s admirers from his critics within his own intellectual tradition. The Austrian economist Saifedean Ammous, sympathetic to Milei’s stated aims, has argued bluntly that keeping the central bank while abandoning dollarization guarantees a continuation of peso inflation - that Argentina under Milei still ranked among the highest-inflation economies in the world well into his third year in office, whatever the improvement from 2023’s catastrophic baseline. In late 2025, Argentina required a currency-support arrangement brokered in part through the Trump administration’s Treasury Department to stabilize the peso within its band - a form of outside backstop that sits uneasily next to the imagery of a government “dynamiting” its way to monetary independence. The most radical plank of Argentina’s libertarian experiment, in other words, is the one plank that was never actually tried.

Financial capital is familiar territory. Businesses invest it to expand production; governments borrow it to finance infrastructure; economists measure human capital through education and skills; sociologists speak of social capital to describe the trust and networks binding communities together.

Institutional capital is different. It is the invisible asset that makes prosperous societies possible: an independent judiciary, a professional civil service, a stable currency, reliable public statistics, secure property rights, predictable regulation, a tax system broadly accepted as legitimate, and a political culture that respects constitutional limits even when they become inconvenient. None of these appear directly in measures of national wealth, yet all of them contribute to it. They are the quiet infrastructure of prosperity - built over decades, and, as this essay argues, weakened surprisingly quickly. This is the lens through which Argentina’s libertarian experiment is worth judging: not whether it is ideologically pure, but whether it is rebuilding this quiet infrastructure or merely rearranging who controls the shortcuts.

Countries rarely become poor because they suddenly abandon everything that made them prosperous. They become poor because they slowly consume the institutional capital accumulated by previous generations, usually without realizing they are doing so. The process is subtle: no government announces that it intends to undermine confidence in the currency, no parliament votes explicitly to weaken the rule of law, and no electorate consciously chooses long-term decline. Each decision, viewed individually, looks understandable - a temporary subsidy becomes politically impossible to remove, a modest deficit seems manageable while interest rates stay low, a regulation meant to protect one industry gradually expands into another, price controls appear necessary to shield consumers, a central bank accommodates government borrowing during an emergency.

None of these decisions looks revolutionary. Each solves an immediate political problem, and each has advocates who can explain why, under present circumstances, this particular exception is justified. The difficulty is that prosperity is rarely destroyed by one decision; it is eroded by thousands. Over time, exceptions cease to be exceptional, and temporary measures become permanent features of policy. Citizens, businesses, and investors adapt, and the economy keeps functioning - but increasingly under different incentives than the ones that created prosperity in the first place. Eventually the cumulative effect becomes impossible to ignore: inflation accelerates, investment slows, capital leaves, talented people emigrate, and public trust weakens, prompting politicians to respond to each new problem with another exception. The cycle reinforces itself. Looking backward, historians identify the pattern with remarkable clarity; living through it, almost no one recognizes it, because institutional decline rarely feels like decline. It feels like adaptation.

Perhaps no phenomenon illustrates this more clearly than inflation. To economists it is a monetary variable; to ordinary citizens, it is something far more personal - it changes how people think. Money performs an extraordinary social function by letting present effort be exchanged for future security: a family saves because it believes today’s income will retain value tomorrow, a business invests because it expects future returns to justify present sacrifice, a young couple takes on a thirty-year mortgage because the currency itself is expected to remain reasonably stable.

Persistent inflation dissolves these assumptions. Saving becomes speculation, planning becomes guessing, and the future itself becomes less certain, so citizens start making decisions based on what protects them from uncertainty rather than what creates the greatest value. The economy changes long before official statistics capture the transformation - which is why inflation is ultimately a crisis of confidence rather than merely a rise in prices. Confidence may be the single most underestimated source of national prosperity: people invest, banks lend, entrepreneurs hire, and scientists pursue uncertain research because each trusts that the future will reward the effort. Destroy that confidence and every other institution begins to weaken. Argentina did not merely experience inflation; it experienced the gradual erosion of confidence itself.

If institutional capital is the right lens, it should also be the right test for Argentina’s libertarian experiment - not “is Milei right or wrong” but “is this program rebuilding the quiet infrastructure of prosperity, or simply running a different kind of short-termism under a different flag.” The record so far is genuinely mixed, and it is worth taking both columns of the ledger seriously rather than picking the one that confirms an existing view.

On the rebuilding side: annual inflation fell from 211 percent in December 2023 to 33.8 percent in July 2026, when monthly inflation was 2.1 percent, the government posted a primary surplus and Argentina’s first annual financial surplus in fourteen years and Fitch upgraded Argentina’s sovereign credit rating from CCC+ to B- as country risk fell sharply (INDEC, 2026; Fitch Ratings, 2026). Perhaps the single clearest sign of returning confidence is one most visitors would once have needed a black-market contact to understand: the gap between the official exchange rate and the informal “blue dollar” rate, for decades the most honest barometer of Argentine confidence, has nearly collapsed, both now trading around 1,500 pesos to the dollar - I changed money myself at roughly 1,490 during a week in the city - compared with a spread of hundreds of pesos just a few years earlier. The old two-tier habits still linger at street level: many retailers knock 10 percent off the price for cash, and paying by card - a holdover from the era when foreign cards were routed through a far less favorable exchange mechanism - still routinely requires producing a passport number at checkout. A price that once required a cueva to discover is now, more or less, the official price - a genuinely rare achievement for a country with Argentina’s monetary history, and one that even skeptics of Milei’s broader project tend to concede.

On the other side of the ledger, the method of stabilization has produced its own strains, and these are easiest to see in the costs that do not show up in a headline inflation figure. Buenos Aires subte fares rose from 757 pesos in late 2024 to 1,260 pesos in January 2026 to 1,621 pesos by July - a cumulative increase above 1,300 percent since transit subsidies began unwinding in late 2023, even as general inflation slowed. Transport now consumes roughly 43 percent of an average metropolitan household’s services budget, itself up more than ninefold in two years (IIEP-UBA/CONICET, 2026). Rents in dollar-denominated neighborhoods like Palermo and Recoleta - now the near-universal standard for leases in those areas - have risen 15 to 30 percent in dollar terms since 2024. Unemployment rose from roughly 5.7 to 7.8 percent, real wages have only partly recovered from the initial shock, and net foreign reserves remain negative even as gross reserves improve (Economics Observatory, 2026).

The social cost of the adjustment shows up directly in the streets, and in a specific and telling irony: a government elected to shrink the state has repeatedly relied on the state’s coercive machinery to push its program through. The CGT, Argentina’s main labor federation, staged its fourth general strike against the Milei government in February 2026 over a labor reform bill, with union leaders claiming roughly 90 percent compliance and clashes between demonstrators and police outside Congress; a further strike in April broadened the unions’ demands to include emergency pension increases for retirees whose benefits have been eroded by years of inflation, alongside a running weekly protest outside Congress that has continued for well over a year. Some academic critics go further, describing Milei’s combination of rapid deregulation by decree, hostility to organized labor, and centralization of executive power as a form of “authoritarian liberalism” - freedom for markets pursued through methods that bypass the ordinary, slower work of legislative consensus (Ferre, 2025). Whether or not one accepts that framing, it points at a real tension: a program justified almost entirely in the language of individual liberty has, in practice, depended heavily on concentrated executive authority to overcome a Congress that would not otherwise deliver it.

Argentina’s experience strengthens the libertarian case against fiscal indiscipline, monetary manipulation, and pervasive state control. But it also exposes the limits of libertarian economics when reform lacks legislative legitimacy and durable institutional support. The right test for any reform program, of any ideological flavor, is whether it restores predictable, broadly legitimated rules or merely substitutes one set of politically convenient shortcuts for another. Two years into the experiment, Argentina has bought back real institutional capital - a more credible currency, a functioning fiscal surplus, and a historic narrowing of the gap between the official and black-market exchange rates - while still running down two other kinds: the accumulated patience of workers, retirees, and commuters absorbing a historically severe adjustment, and, more subtly, the ordinary legislative habit of building durable reform through Congress rather than decree. Whether that trade proves sustainable, and whether reforms built on executive shortcuts outlast the executive who signed them, is precisely the open question the country now faces.

A fair critic would argue that “institutional capital” is too tidy a frame for a messier reality. Argentina’s troubles have as much to do with structural political economy - chronic federal-provincial fiscal conflict, a commodity-dependent export base exposed to global price swings, and a political system that rewards short electoral cycles over long-term planning - as with any slow erosion of trust. On this view, the 2001 default was not simply the endpoint of gradually consumed institutional capital but a discrete crisis produced by a specific and avoidable policy choice: pegging the peso to the dollar in the 1990s and defending that peg long after it had become unsustainable. Some economists would add that framing decline as gradual erosion understates how much Argentina’s fate has hinged on a handful of sharp, identifiable decisions rather than thousands of invisible ones.

A second and quite different dissent comes from within libertarianism itself, and it cuts against the essay’s framing of Milei as institutional capital’s champion. Critics like Ammous argue that a government which retains a central bank’s monopoly on currency issuance while abandoning dollarization has not actually removed the mechanism of monetary unreliability, only slowed it down - meaning the credibility gains celebrated above could prove temporary rather than structural. A related critique, from academic political science rather than libertarian economics, holds that concentrating reform-making power in executive decrees rather than legislation is itself a form of institutional shortcut, whatever the ideological content of the reforms being pushed through. On this view, Argentina has not escaped the pattern this essay describes - governing through exception rather than durable rule - so much as changed which exceptions are being made and in whose favor.

These critiques have real force, and are worth taking seriously rather than dismissing. But they are compatible with, rather than a refutation of, the institutional-capital frame. Discrete shocks like the 2001 default do not arise from nowhere; they arise because years of smaller exceptions - a peg defended past its logic, a deficit financed by debt rather than reform, a subsidy no government would remove - leave a country with no cushion when a shock finally arrives. And a reform pushed through by decree, however well-designed, remains more fragile than the same reform passed by Congress and absorbed into ordinary legislative practice, precisely because a future president can undo by decree what a decree created. Institutional capital is best understood not as a substitute for structural, historical, or ideological explanations but as the reserve that determines how much shock a country can absorb, and how durable any given reform will prove, before a slow erosion becomes a sudden collapse.

Argentina is not unique; it is simply further along a path that many democracies occasionally glimpse but rarely acknowledge. Postwar Germany faced a currency all but destroyed by hyperinflation and chose, under Ludwig Erhard, to abolish price controls virtually overnight alongside a hard currency reform in 1948 - a politically risky choice that rebuilt monetary credibility fast enough to anchor the subsequent Wirtschaftswunder. New Zealand, after decades of subsidy-driven stagnation, undertook the sweeping deregulation and fiscal restructuring of the mid-1980s known as “Rogernomics,” trading a sharp short-term recession for a more durable, rules-based economy. Several Eastern European states, after the collapse of communism, rebuilt institutional capital nearly from scratch - independent central banks, new courts, and credible property rights - with wildly varying speed and success depending on how quickly those institutions gained public trust rather than merely legal existence.

None of these reforms were painless, and none avoided serious political conflict. Each nevertheless discovered that rebuilding institutions requires a form of patience that democratic politics rarely rewards in the short run. That is the pattern Argentina is now testing again.

One of the more striking features of contemporary politics across the developed world is the growing reluctance to discuss economic trade-offs honestly. Governments promise expanding public services alongside lower taxes, larger pensions despite aging populations, greater investment without more borrowing, cheaper energy alongside ambitious environmental commitments. Political debate increasingly resembles a competition between aspirations rather than a discussion of priorities, and arithmetic quietly disappears from the conversation. Argentina is a reminder that arithmetic eventually returns - not because economics is ideological, but because resources remain finite. Every generation inherits difficult choices, and the only real question is whether those choices are made deliberately or imposed later by circumstance.

The true experiment taking place in Buenos Aires, then, is not simply a test of libertarianism in the abstract - it is a test of whether a specific, textbook version of libertarianism, implemented by a true believer with an unusually free hand, can do the one thing every ideology eventually has to do: build institutions durable enough to outlast the person who built them. That is a much older question than Hayek or Rothbard: can a free society persuade its citizens to accept short-term sacrifice in exchange for long-term renewal, using methods legitimate enough that the renewal survives the next election? Whether Argentina ultimately succeeds remains genuinely uncertain - economic history seldom produces immediate verdicts, and policies celebrated today may disappoint tomorrow just as easily as policies criticized today may prove transformative. What seems harder to dispute is the diagnosis: prosperity cannot survive indefinitely if the institutions it depends on are gradually consumed - and a libertarianism that dismantles the state by decree, however much inflation it tames along the way, still owes the same debt to legitimacy and durability that toppled the statism it replaced.

That is not an Argentine lesson. It is a human one. Buenos Aires’s magnificent architecture reminds visitors of extraordinary confidence; its economic history reminds them that confidence alone was never enough. Civilizations are sustained not merely by ambition but by institutions worthy of that ambition - institutions that are painstakingly built, surprisingly easy to neglect, and, once neglected, extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. The Buenos Aires experiment is therefore not ultimately about one president, one election, or one economic philosophy. It is about whether prosperous societies still possess the wisdom to recognize that prosperity itself is not the inheritance. Strong institutions are. Prosperity is simply what they produce.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INDEC). (2026, August 13). Índice de precios al consumidor: July 2026.

Associated Press. (2025, March 2). In address to Congress, Argentine President Milei promises IMF deal and lauds economic wins.

Economics Observatory. (2026). Argentina’s second test: Can the Milei government deliver lasting growth?

Fitch Ratings. (2026). Fitch upgrades Argentina to ‘B-’; outlook stable.

International Monetary Fund. (2026). World Economic Outlook, April 2026: Argentina country notes.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Publishers.

Infobae. (2026, July 1). Aumentos en colectivos, subte y trenes: cuánto costará viajar a partir de julio.

Buenos Aires Herald. (2026, February 19). General strike was ‘tremendous,’ with 90% observance, CGT says.

France 24. (2026, February 20). Argentina’s striking workers clash with police over Milei labour reforms.

Rio Times Online. (2026, April 7). Argentina CGT strike grounds 258 flights.

Vásquez, I., & Sutter Schneider, G. (2025, March). Javier Milei and the legitimacy of libertarian policy. Cato at Liberty Blog, Cato Institute.

Cato Institute. (2025, October). Liberty versus power in Milei’s Argentina. Cato Institute Free Society.

Christian Science Monitor. (2024, October 23). Argentina’s Javier Milei wants to end socialism - everywhere.

Al Jazeera. (2026, June 6). Argentina’s ‘madman’: Inside the world of Javier Milei.

Ammous, S. (2026, June). Milei’s Austrian scam by the numbers. The Unz Review.

Reason. (2024, April 9). Milei sets aside dollarization plan due to politics.

Ferre, J. C. (2025). The rise of Javier Milei and the emergence of authoritarian liberalism in Argentina. Latin American Research Review, 60(4), 965-976. https://doi.org/10.1017/lar.2025.10