 Welcome back to Radio Rothbard. I'm Ryan McMacon, executive editor with the Mises Institute and with me, of course, is my co-host, so Bishop, and it's Thanksgiving week. And so if you are a resident of Argentina, you might be thankful this week for the election of Javier Malay, who, no matter what you think of the guy, couldn't possibly make things worse. So there's that, and and probably will move things in a better direction. I would expect. So that's the big news this week. So we're gonna talk a little bit about that, but not specifically about Argentina. I think we're at the phase now, now that Malay won the presidency with a surprisingly good margin of 56 percent and is certainly the most libertarian candidate I've seen elected as any head of state since the 19th century. We could go back, we could talk about, like, I mean imagine if Grover Cleveland were running for president today, his views would be considered like off the wall crazy libertarian. But that was the 1880s. This is now. And so those sorts of views then, probably the closest we've seen in a long time, are Javier Malay. And this isn't a tiny country either. You know, we've talked a bit about El Salvador and the Bitcoin thing. Well, that's a country of under 10 million people. And and extremely poor. Whereas Argentina, this is a middle-income country in spite of all of their repeated financial crises imposed upon them by their horrible regimes. And it's over 40 million people. So this, you know, the almost as big as Spain. I mean, this is not a tiny and significant country. And the fact that it's not poor helps as well. So we're going to talk about what now? What do you do now that Malay has been elected? What does he have to do? Because some, you know, we've had lots of really enthusiastic people who've responded. And if you've gone to Mises.org, you've noticed lots of people are very, very happy about the outcome in the election. And I totally get it. There's good reason to be very happy about the outcome of this election. But we don't want to count our chickens before they're hatched, because many things can still go very, very wrong. And one of the big risks is a phenomenon that Nikolas Kaczynski, who's from Argentina, has covered in a article on Mises.org from, boy, like seven or eight years ago, where he talked about, here's the thing that often happens in Latin America. You get a bunch of leftists into power. They run the economy into the ground, and then things start to turn bad. So then they elect a more free markety sort of candidate. Things are so bad, though, that this free market candidate in one term is not able to turn things around. So then he gets blamed for all the unemployment and inflation that results from the policies of the earlier left wing administrations. And then they vote him out and say, oh, look, just the latest evidence that free market stuff doesn't work when the reality was the whole system was screwed up by years and in Argentina's case, decades of center left or even far left policy. So that's the risk here is that things are so bad that if Malay isn't somehow able to turn things around to some extent immediately, he just gets voted out in a few years and they say, look, we tried that right wing thing and it failed. So this is something that we need to be aware of that there's a real risk. And so, of course, we want Malay to have some sort of early victories. But we got a long way to go. And so we're going to talk a little bit about what can he do because simply simply getting elected doesn't mean he can just do whatever you want. There's going to be resistance. There are other interest groups that matter. And so, though, let's just wait. We haven't really heard from you yet in the wake of the election. So just give us your your general impressions of what this means. Look, I think this is a very the reason for optimisms out there, like the excitement, I think is well placed if for no other reason. If, you know, regardless of the outcomes of this administration, it shows that a candidate who was not hiding, you know, often you'll get libertarians and throughout the world, right? That feel that the need to to moderate their views that are perhaps business people that have very strong opinions about the virtues of capitalism, but do not have necessarily the depth of the intellectual defenses of it, the kind of philosophy behind it. And here you have someone who, you know, was talking about Austrian economists when being interviewed by Dr. Carlson, someone who sounded like Walter Block talking about the virtues of libertarianism in a variety of public policy realms that made education a key component of his campaign. Someone who is an intellectual, someone who was published with David Halden and Philip Bagus if you have about neoclassical economics and making critiques on this. So a genuine libertarian, you know, Austrian economist, intellectual running a democratic campaign that was not only able to win with, you know, some you're just getting a plurality of the vote, but winning with 55 percent of vote, a candidate that sparked enthusiasm, particularly with younger generations of Argentines that have dealt with the economic devastation of pronest policies. You know, say what you will, whatever the outcomes is, you know, whatever comes next, the fact that a campaign like this can be successful in a major country, as you mentioned. Is, I think, a very encouraging dynamic for the power of these ideas, the viability of these ideas at a time where a lot of the conversation, particularly in the U.S., right, is that we have to have to put the libertarian horse away. You know, the the national conservatives and the like that, you know, that we have to break away from libertarian ideas in order to attract a large populist following. No, Malay was a populist. He was a libertarian populist. He articulated a very radical libertarian vision and he was rewarded through a democratic process doing it. That is a positive thing. Now, the difficulty is what comes next? And if you look down, we're going to have a very quick transition period from one government to the other. We know that the the Argentine deep state, that professional political class of the non-eluctants, right, you know, they are feeling very few of them voted from Malay. You know, the public sector aspect of the the Argentine economy is going to be doing everything they can to subvert and hurt that transition in order to create that dynamic that you described of, you know, when he's back on the ballot in four years, have a complete reversing back to the norms and the like. You also have the fact that, you know, he is his government, his party, the libertarian party, did not take over the government at other levels. So there's going to be a tremendous amount of. So we are going to see some levels of moderation dealing with the legislature and the aspects that come in place there. That being said, though, that the margin of his victory, the fact that the third place political candidate was a, you know, center right conservative type candidate there. Hopefully there is a enough of a coalition that can be built. And better off also Malay, I don't think is blind to any of this sort of stuff. I do not think that he's going into this office naive of the difficulties that he has coming up. And obviously a key part of his campaign is destroying the Argentine Central Bank and allowing for monetary choice to get away from the devastation of triple digit inflation that the Argentine population has gone through with the decay of their peso. And that is something that is achievable. You know, obviously being a lot of the focus has been on dollarization. You know, while as Americans, I understand why we would be skeptical by anyone would want to go on to the Federal Reserve, you know, with all the issues that we have. But again, relative to the peso relative, you know, to the euro or any other sort of global currency out there that's understandable for why that is seen as kind of the next step there. While other possibilities, you know, he's spoken very highly of Bitcoin, you know, a fair ball of gold and other assets there. Being able to achieve that, I think is going to be very vital for him to start achieving manageable successes. He's also already starting to his roll out on closing up government agencies. He announced one, I believe, is the Department of something to do with with women's issues and the like. You know, that's very, very quickly in the chopping block. And what was great to see is that after his victory speech, you know, there's there's a tendency to reach a handout to the other side to immediately start moderating your positions to kind of maintain a position of, you know, focusing on modest reforms. And so all that great campaign rhetoric was out the window. His speech, while it was a lot more sober, while it was, you know, it was not him sort of, you know, doing his fist pumps and his sort of rock star routine, it was it was a presidential message. But it was also a radical message, you know, he was still describing his battle as the Argentine people versus the parasitic class. And so he's going to need talent around him. It's going to be very interesting to see who he is able to bring in to the country to help transition this government. Because again, you're going to have all of these roles. And as we saw play out with the Trump administration that ran on during the swamp, then immediately brought in a bunch of Bush cronies to manage a lot of the most important positions that he had, being able to bring in talent that is going to be able to align with his vision is going to be extremely important. I'm going to be very fascinated to see, for example, you know, how many people from from Brazil might end up in Argentina. Obviously, a little bit of a language difference between Portuguese and Spanish, but, you know, maybe they can work that out. But that's going to be his top priority is going to need to be surrounding himself with people that don't simply want the position because it is open, but some people that align with the vision that he has campaigned on. And if he can start eroding away some of these agencies, obviously, along with, you know, dollarization itself, moving away from the peso is not enough. He's going to have to significantly cut spending. Cutting spending is going to create issues both with, you know, a drop in benefits and the like, which is never easy for a population that has become dependent upon them. But you're going to be dealing with a lot of hopefully unemployed folks within that parasitic class that he campaigned on that are going to create issues is going to be an interest group there. There's going to be doing everything they can to subvert this. But, you know, I think he ran on economic reforms. He's going to need to be able to put those in place as quickly as possible. And thankfully, I think one of the things that's going to work to his advantage is that immediately after his election, we saw the valuations of Argentine companies go up. I think that you're going to see a lot of encouragement from international investment play a role within this. You know, he, you know, there's been some criticisms of his foreign policy from friends of ours. And I understand that Malay took a very pro US stand, which includes kind of the bundle of allies, including Israel within that. I understand why American libertarians would have a concern within that. But ultimately, you know, given the affairs of international relations, you know, kind of which umbrella he's going to kind of align Argentina in, he's going to need, you know, American companies, he's going to need Western nations helping invest in that country to help elevate the very real economic issues that create an environment where someone like a Javier Malay can win. Because it's a very tall task ahead. But thankfully, I do not think that this election did not come from as a fluke. Again, I don't know if Donald Trump in 2016 really expected him to win the next day. So there's a lot of catching up to do when it came to creating a staffing up cabinet. I think Malay is someone who's coming into this sober minded in the real challenges ahead, because winning election is difficult. That is, particularly with a campaign as radical as he ran on as a very, very tall feat in itself, governing is significantly harder. But getting those those early victories, getting some of the big reforms that he ran on in and having the fruits of that not going to happen right away. But, you know, being in a situation where two or three years from now, you know, we can start seeing real green shoots in the Argentine economy. You know, that is going to end up dictating his success. He's getting more than four years to do what he wants to do. And I think El Salvador is a example of, you know, what can be accomplished off, so there's a heavy focus on law enforcement going after the gangs and cartels that has been a big component to what the big Kelly's popularity, which is not simply in El Salvador, but throughout South America. There's polls out there showing a more popular than the Pope and many South American countries. But I think even having the example of what the Kelly has been able to do, you know, I've been very strong on crypto and Bitcoin, you know, bringing in some of those some kind of these new ideas that there is something of a model in place. There is a country within the region that can be an asset and ally here. And ultimately, the reason why this election matters is that if you have an El Salvador and if you have an Argentina that is able to actually elevate the well-being of their citizens, then we now have as a model that other countries can adopt to dealing with these global problems of debt and inflation and the like. And if you have workable models out there, then that more than anything else can help spread the triumph of these ideas within these governments to have not simply be an asset, something that Argentinians can be thankful for, but create a dynamic where other South American countries, maybe other European countries, hopefully even America will see that you can have an appreciation of respect for free markets, capitalism, the philosophies of Marie Rothbard and Van Mises and functionally govern a society and decay. Yeah, if Malay can somehow find a way to convincingly turn the economy around somewhat, that would be extremely helpful in providing a new model because most Americans probably don't know that that the the idea of pro-market laissez-faire reforms are still tainted and made to look bad by their association with Chile's reforms under Pinochet for decades after that. It was, oh, well, look, the yeah, Chile's really now the wealthiest country in Latin America, lots of growth. They embraced free trade and more controlled social spending, and they really turned that country's economy around. But at what cost? Look, we can we can see that that laissez-faire guys that that deep down they're all like Pinochet and they massacre people, they disappear people. And there's been this long association between free markets and military dictatorships that the left has tried to exploit for a long time. Now, in reality, there's no connection between the two. It's just a pure coincidence that Pinochet, desperate to end inflation and turn the economy around, decided to give these free market people a chance. I mean, the guy was a lifelong government employee was certainly no ideologue, certainly not an economics professor, doesn't know anything about that. He just got lucky. He picked some guys, told them to fix the economy and they managed to by embracing some free market stuff. But the left ever since then has always said, hey, look, free market economics, that's a thing that dictators do. And we're in favor of democracy and freedom. And that has helped sustain the left for a long, long time. So if Malay, who clearly is not any sort of far right guy, even though the press keeps trying to pin on him this idea that he's some sort of old school, uniform, wearing military guy, which is, of course, just to look at him, obviously, isn't the case. They're going to try and pin that idea on him and connect him to right wing dictatorships, because that's still very much a thing in Argentina is the left is still churning out pop culture about the old dictatorships from the 80s and all of that stuff that's very much alive in their minds. So they're going to try and connect Malay to that. But if he can provide a new model where it's like, hey, look, we embraced libertarianism and it helped people immensely that would somewhat help really defeat the left on on this decades old issue of tying free markets to dictatorships. And so let's hope that can happen. It doesn't make any sense, but that's how democratic politics often works is just kind of these bizarre coincidences are pulled together to prove some kind of causality that doesn't really exist. And that's certainly been an issue for a long time. But yeah, looking at where he is, I think we need to we're going to find out in the near future how tolerant the Argentine public is of free markets, of lowering government spending, of what we would have to describe as austerity. I mean, that's that's the only way to get away from huge amounts of inflation that they've managed to put in place for years and all of the financial crises as well. And it will be inescapable if they do actually abandon the pace and embrace the dollar because they're not going to be able to just print up new dollars in order to fill that gap of deficit spending. They are going to be forced to implement some level of austerity. And many people are going to hate that. The government class especially is going to hate it. Pensioners are probably going to be rallied by the left down there. And he's going to encounter a lot of resistance to that. So the question is, what can he offer in in place of that to convince people that it will be OK? And this is where so much of it then in the end is going to come down to what latent classical liberalism and libertarianism is still in the back recesses of people's minds. This idea of, yeah, you shouldn't print money. How many people actually believe that on some level or recognize that is probably right, whether they were willing to vote for it or not? How many people recognize that runaway government spending is is ruining the economy? Many people, they they they know that on some level, but they certainly were never willing to vote for that. So that's going to have to be exploited. Whatever ideological reasonableness remains is going to have to be discovered. And those people are going to have to be convinced. And this is, to some extent, why some of these free market people are actually able to succeed every now and then, with Malay being the most certainly libertarian of them, is that, yeah, liberalism, 19th century free market liberalism has had some measure of success in Latin America. These are European influenced countries. They speak a European language. They have access to that tradition. And you don't see anything like that in South Asia, in East Asia, because it's just that's not part of the tradition at all. It is it has made some inroads in Latin America. And some people still value that. The question is, is it enough to make Malay successful? And so can he can he convince people to go along with it? Or are they so far gone ideologically that as soon as he's not able to show immediate success, well, then he's a lame duck president. Nobody wants to hear from him. He loses seats in in local elections then. And the government class just builds up more resistance against him. So a lot of it's just going to depend on the ideological state that the overall public is in right now. Now, the economy was so bad that people were voting largely on non ideological lines, where it's just like things are terrible. We need to do something. And they weren't their minds weren't poisoned enough against the idea of free markets. They were able to give it a chance. They were they were willing to give it some chance because they saw that maybe there was some value there. And again, that's just based on what the existing ideological milieu is in the country. There were enough intellectuals, enough people that that put libertarian ideas into the ether, into the air that people thought, we'll give it a try. And if you are a middle class Argentinian, I mean, you just know how bad things have gotten. I mean, I'm reminded of an old joke like Argentinian. If you know South Americans who aren't Argentinians, they like to tell jokes about Argentina, because Argentinians Argentines have such a reputation for being such arrogant jerks who look down their noses on the rest of Latin America. So if you know Peruvians, they love to to tell jokes about Argentines. And one one that I always got a laugh out of that they would tell is here's a joke, the Argentine in Argentina team goes to visit an orphanage in Russia or some other poor country. And one of the orphans says, it breaks my heart to see those poor eyes filled with sadness and hopelessness. So you can see how Argentinians have been beaten down so much by their horrible economy, by their repeated financial crises that I mean, of course, they were willing to try something new. But boy, I mean, the clock is ticking and they're going to have to he's going to have to make inroads on two fronts. First of all, he's going to have to show some sort of success and be very successful in communicating the benefits of his policies. And the other side of it is just going to have to be people like us at the Mises Institute, who publish articles, pamphlets, write books, communicate the ideological side of things, because the only way he's going to be able to sustain success and make inroads is if a stable and growing portion of the population is willing to, if not love free market stuff, which they're probably not going to at least tolerate it. So he has to he's got two fronts. He's got he's got to be able to be a politician and convince people to go along with this program, but also the people who support him are going to have to push the ideology that could keep him in power. And so if if neither of those things work, he's just going to be out and free market stuff is going to be bad mouthed for the next decade again. And it'll be interesting too, because, you know, there is one of the assets that free market reformers have had in South America, you know, while the excesses of Pinochet's war on communists within Chile, had a large collateral damage element that is still used against him, he also had the advantage of kind of using that as a as a rally the flag sort of dynamic where you can have a little more flexibility with radical domestic reforms. If you are attacking the other, if you're attacking a threat, you're obviously big Kelly and Al Salvador again, as we mentioned that his crackdown on drug cartels in the establishment of security has been a major asset as popularity, which has given him more leeway to deal with some of his economic focuses like Bitcoin. Another example of one of those Latin America Spanish South American free market reformers that have also is a very convenient bogeyman for South American leftists is Alberto Fujimori with Peru, who embraced a very free market path in terms of relative relative free market path for Peru, but then he was also fighting the shining path and you know, communist terrorist groups within his country. And that kind of helped balance out some of these concerns. It's going to be interesting because someone from Malay's perspective, who has a very libertarian view on drugs, it'll be interesting to see how he balances the security dynamic of dealing with some of the Argentine drug related crime with social policies, perhaps for a more liberalizing environment in that regards and be interested to see how that dynamic plays out there. But the problem is is that as you as you mentioned, case in Pinochet, the case of Fujimori, you get you had a lot of collateral damage that came with their regimes and also one of the biggest challenges that Malay is going to have that we see throughout whenever you go from transitioning from state owned enterprises and nationalization of various aspects of the economy to the private sector. The risk of corruption is very, very high. We saw this play out with post Soviet countries and their transitions to privatization. You saw us play out in the history of the United States, right, with the allies of Alexander Hamilton buying up a whole bunch of national debt on the cheap and then getting bailouts from the Hamiltonians push to pay back debts at the full dollar cost. And there's nothing that can quickly skew and can so totally devalue any sort of populist movement that you've built around you than corruption. And whenever this is not to say, obviously, the corruption that goes on with communist countries and state controlled agencies, right? That is that is part of the system there. It's kind of how the way the corruption in many ways is how it is able to operate to any extent. But there's something about that element of private corruption that hits just differently within a political process. And so that's going to be if there's anything that could very quickly derail a Malay administration, it will be people that utilize and try to take advantage of this process of expanded privatization to enrich themselves. Sometimes it might not even be even the perception of it is one of the biggest risks that he's going to have in with the economic reforms that he wants to put in place and having a strong check on that is going to be necessary for dealing with all this sort of stuff because then you see a lot of improved, you know, a relatively better administrations so quickly brought down over this dynamic that if there's anything that's going to be, I think that to me is the greatest threat that in life faces, even more so than some of the political challenges is people that whether it's himself or the people that he puts in place, trusting people that are going to take advantage of the situation, that I think is one of the real biggest risks out there. And I think that it's going to be very interesting to see how can someone with views that are clearly not the dominant views that the Argentine version of the deep state are going to hate so much. How does that play out? How do you deal with that? And we're saying he has to deal with it, but I don't have specifics as to what exactly he should do. And I'm certainly no expert on how the government works down there. Now, there to some extent, this is simplified for for Malay in terms of his job is easier because the foreign policy issue is not a major issue there, where in the United States, foreign policy dominates, you're not no one is allowed to oppose the Empire. And that's true, of course, in Argentina also is if Malay had come out against the US Empire and had run on some sort of we're going to we're going to throw the Yankees out and we're going to join the the anti US coalition, that would have been something else entirely that would have been a different element. And you would have seen a lot more opposition, I think, from the US establishment. But as it is, foreign policy is kind of irrelevant, at least in the global stage when we're talking about Argentina, because they they're just not a military power. Now, potentially, they could be if they enacted policies that made them rich. And they could they would then have lots of resources to play with, but but they don't. And so have kind of made themselves irrelevant in terms of foreign policy. And so it just it doesn't matter that much what their position is in terms of do they support Russia or not, that sort of thing. So if you were looking at, gee, how do we get somebody like Malay in America? That's going to be a very added and complicating factor. I mean, that's that's really why Ron Paul didn't get farther than he got. Was all these people who said they were freedom loving libertarians, but their minds are so poisoned by pro CIA, pro regime propaganda that we all heard the common refrain of, oh, I support Ron Paul, except on foreign policy, because if you don't support constant warfare, you can't possibly be president of the United States is is the deep states position in America right now. So that's that definitely makes things harder if we're trying to apply this to an American model or to an American model. Nevertheless, I think it will be very instructive for us and also show that when as we see the public really oppose Malay, I think that will really demonstrate elements of the public, right? Obviously, slightly more than half of the public is willing to give Malay a chance. But the question is they can change their minds right now. They can change their minds tomorrow afternoon. They could have changed their minds yesterday. And so we'll see how long that that support lasts. And in America, too, the same thing would have to happen is, OK, let's say you got someone who was truly a real free market reformer, which, of course, Trump doesn't count. Trump has always been kind of a blank slate sort of guy with no real free market agenda. He embraced that because he thought it would make him popular. And then he hired a bunch of people who hated that that agenda. So let's let's consider like a truly libertarian candidate. How do they do it? Well, you could, through some flu, get that guy into office. But the question is, then, how do you enact policy? And we've already seen how that would work, because your own party would turn against you if you tried to do any sort of policy that was really against what the swamp wanted in terms of foreign policy, in Trump's case, and that you would you would face tons of opposition, not just from the other side, but from your own people. And that would have to be dealt with the only way that ultimately in the long run that you can overcome that is when you have an ideological shift in the country, when the public is willing to say, yeah, we've had enough with this entire regime that we really don't trust anyone who's currently in there, and we're going to support the outsider against all of this stuff. But that that's not what happened with Trump. You still had plenty of Americans who were quite happy with the way that the regime runs foreign policy and with Social Security and with all of that, there was real no opposition to that, certainly not sufficient opposition to the central bank. So there was there's not really enough of an ideological shift that an outsider could really embrace. And the problem that we often face is that people want to skip that part is they they think, oh, well, let's just elect a libertarian and they'll start imposing all sorts of great policies that will save America. Well, you can't do that when the public isn't enough on your side. And I don't know if the public is enough on Malay side. Maybe it is. But in America, I think we've seen repeatedly that it's not. And a lot of people, they have a problem coming to terms with that. They they say, well, the reason we don't win these elections is because there's cheating. Well, OK, there might be cheating, but that's not the only reason you're not winning these elections. If you're some diehard free market guy, you're not winning those elections, because lots of people disagree with you. Look at all those abortion elections that the anti-abortion people keep going down in flames. I think this this perfectly displays sort of that flawed thinking, whereas, boy, we could just get these things in front of the silent majority on the ballot. They'll all show that they agree with us. They'll all come down on our side. Well, they don't. You're skipping the part where you're changing public opinion. And so you need to work on that first. If you're going to get people into office, they're going to be able to sustain the public on their side. You keep losing these elections against abortion because the public doesn't agree with you in enough numbers. You weren't able to get enough. So let's say there was cheating against Trump. Well, if you had gotten a high enough percentage, they wouldn't have been able to cheat enough to overturn that, or it would have been obvious that there was a groundswell of support for Trump. That wasn't there. He was never able to overcome all sorts of opposition from a variety of states. So many of these elections continued to be so close. And why are they so close? Because half the country is dead set against any sort of free market libertarian ideas and then probably an additional quarter of the population is fairly indifferent and isn't really on board with it. But I hear all the time from readers, from people who are criticizing the Mises Institute. But well, it's enough with this idea stuff. It's time to mobilize. It's time to elect people. And of course, my thinking is, well, it's nice that everyone at your gun club agrees with you. It's nice that people who you spout off to at the grocery store and politely nod and agree with you about all of these libertarian ideas that you tell them. But the fact of the matter is we got a long way to go in terms of convincing the public. And that's some groundwork that has to be done before you can get someone in and also give them what they need in terms of success, in terms of not voting you out after a few years and also electing other people who will help support you once they're in office. And so there's plenty of work that needs to be done, both here and in Argentina on that. Absolutely. And again, clearing out the bureaucratic state that's going to be the top priority going forward. You know, as we saw, this is why Patrick Newman and I are such so so fascinated by the example of Andrew Jackson is that that rotation of the professional political class, I mean, you know, Jackson fired more DC bureaucrats than any administration of war and combined. You know, that rotation of that guard is going to be so important on the foreign policy side. It's going to be interesting. He's already making some statements about the Falkland Islands. The UK is not particularly interested in reevaluating that situation, though that might help kind of play into what I was mentioning earlier about the need to have sort of that sort of outside sort of agitation as a means of kind of keeping the population behind you, the public behind you. Yeah, I'll be very interested to see how he deals with the legislature going forward because there's kind of two different tax that he can can go with. One is, you know, can how much support is there to give him a portion of his agenda, particularly his priorities? And how much are they going to be just a entrenched opposition to him? And so if you end up having a dynamic where the president is having to go after the legislature, you know, that might should should Malay be able to maintain personal popularity around him as an individual, then maybe that can help bear fruits when future elections come up and remaking it. But unfortunately when it comes to some of these other positions like the Supreme Court, while Malay has the ability to appoint people to Supreme Court that has to go through the Senate like it does in the United States, you know, he is going to have to figure out what strategy he that you know, there's different strategies can go with here. Again, one's going to require moderation. One is going to go on the attack. You know, does if you go on the attack, the that that brings in two concerns about, you know, how can a constitutional process be used against them by the legislature? You know, what are the ways there that they're going to use to try to undermine and try to restrict any effectives that any effectiveness that he can have? Are there certain priorities that he has in the short term can help get him can help sow some of the seeds that he believes will bear the fruit that will improve the economic well-being of the population only seed an upward a start of a trend upwards that can then help further consolidate his power in future elections and the like? You know, this is this is why like often when you have very radical reforms go through, whether it's free markets or communists, it ends up becoming a requiring a far more sort of autocratic role because the ideology of the government beyond the presidency is going to be opposed to a lot of some of these extreme reforms. So, you know, it is it is a very difficult situation. You know, unfortunately, being the president does not make you the king. There's going to be things that he cannot do. But hopefully with if he's able to achieve again, some of his trade reforms that he wants, if he is able to get again, and I think this is precisely why, you know, one of the questions out there is, oh, why is he embracing the dollar versus, you know, putting in place a bunch of inflation hawk, you have economists in charge of the Bank of Argentina, he might know a few, you know, why not try to reform the central Bank of Argentina and try to implement some sort of sound money policy within the nation, rather than exporting your foreign policy to DC. And I think that dynamic of understanding that within the Bank of Argentina, you're always going to have levels of political influence. You're going to have that class of people that are going to be very difficult to remove en masse within that body, the extent to which having the peso controlled by, you know, maintained within Argentina, you know, helps play that enabler role that central banks always play, simply cutting that out entirely, removing removing that dynamic from the equation and simply exporting your monetary policy of the Fed for all the problems that it has. I think that is a an example of thinking about this sort of personnel, this incentive dynamic that is beyond, that goes beyond ideology that goes to this inherent corruption aspect of the state. And so I think that's one of the reasons why that approach is what he has embraced. And one of the reasons why I'm very, you know, I'm interested to see how it plays out, because again, you know, again, for all the problems Fed has, all the problems the dollar has, if if they if they can use the monetary side of things to force discipline on in terms of the physical matters that the legislature is going to have a large role in playing, then that might be the only way of important sort of discipline that he is he is looking for in some of these areas. All right, well, with that we'll wrap up this episode of Radio Rothbard. Thank you for listening. And we'll be back next week with with more. And so we'll see you next time.