When the United States gave 40 billion aid to Argentina, I always feel that there are many ways here, and it is not as simple as giving generously on the surface. Have you ever wondered why the United States handed money when Argentina was going to elect Congress? Isn't this a coincidence?

Let's talk about the current situation in Argentina first. There will be mid-term elections on October 26, and all 151 seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives will be re-elected. The current President Milei is in a panic at the moment.

He is a right-wing populist leader who came to power in 2023. He has carried out many radical fiscal austerity policies before, such as cutting public spending on a large scale and firing civil servants. It really worked at first, suppressing high inflation and even eliminating the fiscal deficit.

But the good prospect is not long, the recent economic growth has fallen, also exploded corruption scandals, support rate tossed down. his lead free forward party was in the field, in a hurry to take the seat of parliament to promote the policy, this election for him is a life-and-death war, the lack is the strengthening agent that can stabilize the situation.

At the same time, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced in Washington that he would push the private sector into a $20 billion funding mechanism to save Argentina¡¯s economy.

Coincidentally, this mechanism can also be matched with the US$20 billion currency swap line just set up by the U.S. Treasury, which adds up to exactly 40 billion.

As soon as the news came out, the Argentine stock market immediately rebounded. It looks quite life-saving, right? But don't forget that Argentina has been trapped in debt pressure over the years. It has had to rely on external funds to alleviate the debt crisis several times before. Isn't the 40 billion this time the timely rain Milei needs most before the election?

But what does America do for charity?The money was conditional from the beginning.When Trump met Milay at the White House, he said directly: If you fail, we will no longer be generous with Argentina.

Later, Besant added a soft word, saying that support was not targeted at elections and was only linked to policies. In fact, it translated to that Millet had to get a legislative veto in Congress and keep pushing good policies recognized by the United States, otherwise the money would be gone.

Millais is not stupid either. He immediately picked up the conversation, saying that he would promote the concept of freedom by 2027 and ensure the support of the United States. He also vowed that he would not change his path during his term of office, but would engage in a set of tax cuts, deregulation, and growth promotion. laissez-faire policy. To put it bluntly, it is to tie its own policies to American money.

Many countries are forced to change policies in order to get help, and the outcome of the policy and the needs of their own countries are not sorry, and in the end people's livelihoods contradictions are more serious, which is not a good precedent.

And this matter has caused a lot of controversy. Democrats in the United States directly scolded the Trump administration: The country is facing a government shutdown, but they still think about aiding foreign countries first? The Argentine economic community is also muttering: Will the United States secretly interfere in its monetary policy through currency swaps?

There is also the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as one of Argentina¡¯s main creditors, not only approved $2 billion in financing, but also acknowledged the wave of U.S. cooperation, looking like an international joint effort to save Argentina, to think carefully, is it not to follow the pace of the United States?

Actually, I'm quite worried about Argentina. The 40 billion yuan looks like an emergency, but it's actually more like shackles. In the short term, money can ease debt pressure and help Millais stabilize the election; But what about the long term? Milei's austerity policy has already shown side effects. If he is led by the United States again, he is likely to lose policy autonomy, but it will shake his ruling foundation.

More importantly, this aid can be sustained, depending on the results of the Millie election. Experts say that the United States wants to consolidate relations with the Millie right-wing government and also want a free economic model in South America, but the reality is: Millie won, can the policy be sustained for a long time, will the United States add more conditions, are unknown numbers;

Mills lost, the $40 billion probability was broken, and Argentina could fall into a debt failure + economic stagnation.

After all, the result of Argentina's economy is a long-term structural imbalance and policy instability, relying on the United States in this short-term redemption, can not solve the fundamental problem at all, or it will become the game of American geography, one day the American interests have changed, the first to be abandoned may be it.