The Economist: So you will raffle your presidential salary?
Javier Milei: [Nods] Mhmm.
The Economist: And you would give up your presidential pension
Javier Milei: Obviously.
The Economist: How would you respond to protests against you?
Javier Milei: With the law.
The Economist: What would happen to the welfare state?
Javier Milei: It is the enemy, so we are going to dismantle it. But with a transition.
The Economist: And how are you going to negotiate with the unions and social movements?
Javier Milei: I do not see a problem with the unions. And with respect to the social movements, they will have to be reorganised in such a way that there are no political operators who benefit from managing welfare plans, what we in Argentina call the managers of poverty.
The Economist: I am surprised that you say there is no problem with unions.
Javier Milei: I don’t see that there is a problem with the unions. The problem is how you approach the problem with the unions. If you are going to approach the problem of the unions as Juntos por el Cambio [the centre-right coalition] does, which wants to kill them, well, they will defend themselves. If you try to understand what is going on in the labour market you might have some chance of dealing with them in a way that you can find a solution.
The Economist: So if you want to make a labour reform, you will negotiate with them.
Javier Milei: It is going to have to be a consensus solution. Notice I didn’t say [the laobur reform] would go to a plebiscite. It is a consensus reform.
The Economist: What would the relationship with the IMF and the Paris Club be like?
Javier Milei: We would have no problem with the IMF because the [austerity package] we propose is much tougher than what the IMF proposes.
The Economist: Are you going to privatise public companies?
Javier Milei: Yes.
The Economist: All of them?
Javier Milei: As many as I can.
The Economist: YPF? [the state oil firm]
Javier Milei: First it must be reconverted and then privatised. After we make the energy system run again and rebuild YPF, then it can be sold.
The Economist: What is the plan regarding the implementation of dollarization? Are you looking at Ecuador or El Salvador as models?
Javier Milei: We have five different alternatives. What you have to rescue is $40bn dollars. There are $10bn dollars of monetary base and $30bn dollars of Leliqs. There is a part that has cash, the central bank.
Why do economists get it wrong? They measure net international reserves and they don’t have to measure that. They have to measure [the central bank’s total] reserves. So, there you have [enough] to rescue the monetary base.
And then you have $120bn dollars of face value government securities, which you have to reconvert to market value and do the financial engineering to redeem the Leliqs.
Suppose they are trading at 25%, you have just $30bn.
The Economist: I don’t understand the process of changing Leliqs from pesos to dollars....
Javier Milei: Because you have assets in the central bank, government securities of the equivalent of $120bn dollars. So, if you assume that they were traded at 25 cents, today the securities are traded above 30 cents, but if they were traded at 25, there you have $30bn dollars to redeem the Leliqs with. So how you solve the Leliqs question is a problem of financial engineering. But that is one methodology, there are other methodologies.
You can do it with insurance companies. And you can use those $120bn dollars of guarantees for insurance in case you have a run. Then, you could give public securities in dollars to the banks for the Leliqs. And if there were a run and they needed to liquidate that, you have an insurance on the other side with which you would respond with physical dollars in case of a run.
When you look at the composition of the banks, of their balance sheets, the run would hardly exceed $15b dollars. So it is much easier to structure this insurance operation.
There are different alternatives to do so. There is Emilio [Ocampo]’s alternative, there are several.
The Economist: So it is not that you are going in with a fixed plan for how to dollarize, but are rather evaluating various options.
Javier Milei: We have five alternatives, and the key is, what are the market conditions when we take power?
The Economist: What do you mean?
Javier Milei: Because there are solutions that in one context can work and in another context cannot. So, we are looking for alternative solutions so that when we arrive, if A does not work, we will go with B, and if not we will go with C and so on. Because we have the conviction to close the Central Bank.
The Economist: After the PASO, the reaction of the markets was actually negative due to fears of growing instability.
Javier Milei: No, that is the reading made by the Juntos por el Cambio. And in fact they are no longer a viable [electoral] option.
Today we would say that the only real dispute is between us and Unión por la Patria [the Peronist coalition also running for the presidency].
The Economist: So if you get to December [when the new government assumes power], and you have won, and the market is freaking out, unlike you expected...
Javier Milei: Well, but that has to do with the problems of this government. Because Juntos por el Cambio tried to say that this [the negative market reaction] was my fault and that is false. I mean, how is someone who is pro-market going to be rejected by the market? That would be strange.
The Economist: I have talked to several people who told me that what they fear is a lack of governance and more instability as a result. Because you are going to have a minority in Congress.
Javier Milei: Well okay, but supposing that were true, the problem then is that this country is unviable. If you believe that there is going to be a governance problem by applying the right ideas, then the country is unviable. [...]
[Juntos por el Cambio] also don’t have a majority. They do not have the majority. Not only do they not have a majority, but as if that were not enough, they are also unwilling to apply the measures that Argentina needs. So what kind of governance are you talking about? [...] Then the argument does not make sense.
The problem is that many investment banks are advised by local economists who are not only brutish, but also work for politicians.
The Economist: So in your reading, why are so many economists saying that dollarisation is not viable in Argentina at this time?
Javier Milei: Because they are brutes, because they are ignorant. I have to be discussing dollarisation with people who do not know what a general equilibrium model is, nor what a flow model is, nor a general equilibrium model of stocks, they do not have a good base of micro-foundations, besides they have no knowledge of finance to understand a balance sheet restructuring problem! These are the basic elements that you have to understand in order to understand dollarization and I have to argue with people who do not know about them.
It’s like wanting to discuss Pontryagin’s maximum principle with people who can’t even add with an abacus. Well then, if it seems impossible to them, of course it is, because they are ignorant.
The Economist: And if you eliminate the central bank here, wouldn’t Argentina still be governed by a central bank, but just by the Fed instead?
Javier Milei: But again, it is a system of currency competition. That is to say, you can liquidate the central bank in dollars, but the currency you use can be any currency.
I mean, that’s another part of intellectual dishonesty.
The Economist: So the idea is that for a period of time there would be a system of competing currencies?
Javier Milei: There will always be that, there will always be currency competition.
The Economist: And in this context, the dollar has won
Javier Milei: Well Argentines have historically chosen the dollar, but it does not have to be the dollar. If you are an oil company, you can make your contracts in WTI, who cares? If you are in gas, in BTU. And if you are a farmer and you farm soybeans, you can choose the price of soybeans in Chicago.
The Economist: But if the government’s big goal is to eliminate the central bank and at the end of the day you will still be dependent on the US central bank [is that a contradiction]?
Javier Milei: The main objective is to exterminate inflation.
The Economist: By eliminating the central bank
Javier Milei: The central bank is a major cause of inflation. And yes it is a philosophical question because stealing is wrong.
It is up to the agents to decide whether they want to be robbed by the American state, by the European Union or by the...
The Economist: So the Fed is fine, but the central bank of Argentina is not...
Javier Milei: No, neither is the Fed.
The Economist: But it is the lesser evil.
Javier Milei: Yes, now we are getting there! That is the point. If I tell you there was a central bank that generated 100% inflation during the 21st century, what would you call it?
The Economist: You would call it a scam.
Javier Milei: Well, it is indeed a scam and well, the Federal Reserve is just that.
The Economist: A scam.
Javier Milei: All central banks are a scam. The Federal Reserve in the last... so far in the 21st century, it has generated 100% inflation.
So the US central bank, the Federal Reserve is bad. Then there are central banks that are very bad. Then there are those that are appallingly bad. And then there is the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic, which is the worst thing in the universe.
The Economist: Could crypto play a role?
Javier Milei: No, no... I don’t know, that is the decision of agents. For example, in Guatemala, companies engaged in coffee production issued their own currency.
In fact, currency is a private sector invention, not the invention of a bureaucrat.
The Economist: Let’s say the issue of dollarizing the Leliqs is solved, how will you convert the base, the $10bn?
Javier Milei: You have the alternative of Ecuador or you have the alternative of El Salvador. Ecuador told people that in three months they had to dollarize, they had to convert. What is the problem? There was an operational problem because they needed the small bills, they could not solve it in three months. They ended up solving it in nine months. In the case of El Salvador, they let people convert whenever they wanted to. And it took twenty-four months.
The Economist: Would you set a deadline?
Javier Milei: No. But when two-thirds of the base is converted, it is as if you have a plebiscite and you end up converting it unilaterally.
The Economist: And the dollars that already exist, which are outside the system but are held by Argentines, what will happen to them?
Javier Milei: They are going to come back and that will allow us to create a capital market.
The Economist: Will they return to Argentine banks?
Javier Milei: I do not know if it will be to Argentine banks, but it will be to the new capital market that we are going to create.
The Economist: And in your mind, how long would all this take?
Javier Milei: It can take from nine months to 24 months.
The Economist: In your opinion, why did convertibility fail [a programme in the 1990s which pegged the Argentine peso to the US dollar]?
Javier Milei: First, because it was not irreversible. And when the politicians ran out of the possibility of obtaining debt financing, they took to the central bank. The problem is always the same, it is the thieving politicians.
When they could not steal any more, they did not implement austerity. They went back to their monetary gambits and robbed us with an inflationary tax.
The Economist: Wouldn’t some of the proposals you make, such as cutting public spending, make the situation even more difficult for the poorest?
Javier Milei: No, this is not true. The situation is going to be difficult for criminals, not for the vulnerable.
The Economist: But that’s a slogan.
Javier Milei: No, that is a lie. That is a lie because the [spending cut] is made on the items from which politicians steal. For example, cutting public works, making them null and void, and moving towards a system of private bidding like the Chilean style, that is where thieving politicians and businessmen lose.
The Economist: Are you going to cut welfare spending?
Javier Milei: No.
The Economist: So you wouldn’t touch welfare plans?
Javier Milei: No.
The Economist: You wouldn’t reform them?
Javier Milei: We would reconfigure them, but we wouldn’t reduce them.
The Economist: How would they be reconfigured?
Javier Milei: They would be used so that you can get out of poverty.
But you do not leave [the welfare system] without funds. You get the middlemen out of the way and reconfigure [welfare] into a programme where you can ensure that [those who depend on welfare plans] are going to be fed, that they are going to be healthy and that this will allow them to have access to education.
The people from the Ministry of Human Capital are reconfiguring all the plans so that people can be fed, so that people can be healthy, and from there, they can be integrated into the educational system.
The Economist: And isn’t that a type of welfare state?
Javier Milei: It’s actually a transition. But you change the logic of social policy.
The Economist: And the idea is that at the end you have to work or you lose access to welfare?
Javier Milei: Exactly, but first we have to create the conditions for you to be able to work. Because if you don’t create them, you end up hurting the victim, when you have to go against the victimizer.
The Economist: So in the first years of government welfare would not be removed.
Javier Milei: I never said that welfare would be removed. During the first years we would try to reconfigure [handouts] so that social policy would not be centred around welfare, but around human capital.
The Economist: And can you explain to me how that would work? You would give people a term of a couple of years, and if they don’t get a job, you would take the handouts away?
Javier Milei: No, no, no, because the problem is that you have so much damage to the social fabric that it requires a lot of work on children and family, it requires a lot of work on health...and only when you tackle that, it starts to have effects on education.
And then you make the leap from education to work, that should be a long-term state policy.
Nobody can believe that they are going to solve this problem in less than 15 years. In other words, what we are willing to do is to set up a programme so that in 15 years time this will no longer be a problem.
The Economist: Give me a concrete example of that transition. If I get state welfare...
Javier Milei: You will continue to receive it but with other services that you will have to get in order to be able to work on your human capital.
The Economist: Other services?
Javier Milei: Of course, it’s not like you’re going to receive handouts and stare at the ceiling.
The Economist: Are you saying there are going to be conditions? What would the conditions be?
Javier Milei: Exactly. I mean, making sure that people are fed, making sure that people meet parameters of basic health care.
The Economist: What do you mean, they would have to be vaccinated?
Javier Milei: You would have to comply with all that, exactly. You would have to send your children to school.
The Economist: Is that not already the case with the existing Universal Child Welfare scheme?....
Javier Milei: Well, okay, but they’re not working. But it’s fine, but you have to...You also have a lot of programmes and then you have to...you have to streamline them and do it with a criterion that has to do with getting people out of welfare and teaching them how to fish.
The Economist: And would there be other goals, for example, would you have to show that you are looking for a job?
Javier Milei: Exactly. But again, the work part is the last part, because there, when you reach the last part, and you have the training, and you are in the right condition, well, okay, then you will receive job offers. Maybe the first one you reject, the second one you reject and the third time you reject, you will lose the handout.
But there is a whole process until you get there. I mean, not understanding that process can do a lot of harm in human terms.
The Economist: So: at the beginning of the interview you said the welfare state is an enemy. But to dismantle it there needs to be a transition and other reforms would come first [before dismantling welfare]
Javier Milei: Of course. And yes, you have to lay the groundwork for the transition. In the long term, the Ministry of Human Capital would lose meaning if everything worked well. It exists because the reality does not work well. So, since it doesn’t work, you have to build a system that takes you out of it. That is a bridge to work.
The Economist: You said you don’t have a problem with the unions, but the teacher’s unions, for example, would have a problem with the transition?
Javier Milei: Why?
The Economist: Don’t you think they would have a problem with the voucher system you propose? Wouldn’t you also touch their pensions?
Javier Milei: No. Acquired rights are acquired rights, you cannot touch them. So, what you have to do is to build the transition to the new system. But that requires a state policy where you say, well, I want to go towards a system of freedom, but the problem with the system of freedom is that I start from something that is super contaminated with socialism.
Now, if I want to make it instantaneous, it blows up. When you look at this, there is a question of sustainability and social licence.
For example, fiscal policy. What is sustainable? That you generate policies to pay the debt. The issue is whether society will support it. Well, if society slaps you in the face, you will not be able to apply that policy.
So what you have to look for is that a policy should also have social licence. Why? Because if you want to apply the reform of an ideal system in a situation where everything is broken, the problem will generate social chaos, so the remedy ends up being worse than the disease.
[...]
The Economist: Are you talking to unions and social movements right now?
Javier Milei: I talk to the actors who want to be part of the new liberal, prosperous and powerful Argentina. Anyone is welcome.
The Economist: Sure, but there are many who don’t want that.
Javier Milei: Well, it will end up being defined at the ballot box by the Argentine people who want to be [free].
The Economist: And what would you do against crime?
Javier Milei: The law would have to be complied with. We are working on a new internal security law, a new national defence law, a new intelligence law, on reforming the penal code, on reforming the criminal code and on reforming the prison system.
The Economist: That’s a lot.
Javier Milei: Yes, well, we take things seriously.
The Economist: [Milei’s running mate for vice president] Victoria [Villaruel] would be in charge of that.
Javier Milei: Yes, security and defence would be under Victoria’s command.
The Economist: Because of some statements she has made about the military dictatorship, do you think there could be a backlash? [Editor’s note: Ms Villaruel has criticised the judicial processes that led to the prosecution of generals that committed crimes against humanity during Argentina’s dictatorship]
Javier Milei: Again, that kind of thing clears itself up when you hear her speak. It happens that the left is very intolerant and lies at the same time.
The Economist: How do you define what happened in Argentina between 1976 and 1983? [Editor’s note: the years when a military dictatorship ruled]
Javier Milei: That there was a war. There was a war between a group of subversives who wanted to impose a communist dictatorship, and on the other side there were security forces that overreached in their actions. And since you are the State and you have the monopoly of violence, you are obliged to preserve order but without violating the law. Therefore, violations of the law should be punished. But there were crimes on both sides, not only on one side.
Since you have a monopoly on violence, you cannot play outside the rules of the game even if the other person does so.
In other words, the terrorists played outside the rules of the game, but that does not give you the right to play outside the rules of the game, because you are the state. The state has the monopoly of violence and has the mechanisms to work against it, but within the rules of the game. And if you do not comply with them, you have to sit out.
Not everything goes, no, not everything goes. It is worth playing by the law.
The Economist: Was there state terrorism?
Javier Milei: Of course there was state terrorism.
The Economist: How many people disappeared?
Javier Milei: Check it on the page, the number is there.
The Economist: What place do you want Argentina to occupy in the world?
Javier Milei: May it be a beacon of light for the free world. We stand in defence of freedom, in defence of peace, in defence of democracy, and we will always be on that side.
The Economist: With whom would you do business?
Javier Milei: Commercial relations are a problem of individuals in which the state should not interfere. You can trade with whomever you want.
The Economist: But you mentioned that you would break off relations with China and Brazil.
Javier Milei: That is political.
If you want to buy, sell and make deals with the Chinese or whoever you want, I have no problem. It is your problem.
But my political alignment is with other people. That is to say, I cannot have political alignments with those who do not respect freedom, with those who do not respect life, with those who do not respect democracy.
The Economist: You would not advance in free trade agreements through Mercosur because Brazil is involved?
Javier Milei: What does free trade look like? Free trade does not include the state. It is a private decision, so you can trade with whomever you want.
The Economist: So your government would not sign free trade agreements?
Javier Milei: Why do I have to be involved in transactions with private parties?
If you want to trade with Brazil, do it, if you want to trade with China, do it, it is your problem as a private person. Tariffs should not exist. Free trade does not include the government interfering in private decisions.
What I will have an influence on is geopolitics, on strategy in terms of geopolitics.
The Economist: But some government measures will have an impact on trade.
Javier Milei: Sure, but once you are competitive fiscally and on the labour side you can open up unilaterally.
Then you have the political part, and that is different. We are going to be aligned with those who defend freedom, peace and democracy.
The Economist: What do you think of Mercosur?
Javier Milei: That it is a commercial failure that has not gone beyond the category of a customs union that only generates trade diversions and damage for all those who live in the region. Here I am aligned with [Uruguayan President Luis] Lacalle Pou, in that I believe that Mercosur is a failure. It has not served the people, it has only served for business between politicians and businessmen.
The Economist: Lacalle Pou wants to leave in part to sign a free trade agreement with China...
Javier Milei: That is Lacalle Pou’s problem, but let’s say that Mercosur does not work, as it is.
The Economist: Would you take Argentina out of Mercosur?
Javier Milei: It seems to me that Mercosur does not work, and I am going for an agenda of unilateral opening. Once the reforms associated with this unilateral opening are finished, I do not believe in the government managing trade.
The Economist: And you don’t care that Mercosur may be about to sign a free trade agreement with the European Union. Would Argentina go its own way?
Javier Milei: Argentina would go its own way. Why does the state have to regulate who I can and cannot buy from?
The Economist: Would you try to bring Argentina into the OECD?
Javier Milei: It would be good for Argentina to be where the advanced countries are. But I will not align my fiscal policy with theirs. Because I think that they tax too much.
The Economist: The model is clearly not Norway...
Javier Milei: No, the model is not Norway.
The Economist: Is there a country model you want to follow?
Javier Milei: Ireland. In terms of freedom. In fact it is a miracle, it is the Celtic miracle. It was one of the most miserable countries in Europe and today it is one of the best countries in Europe. It has a GDP per capita of $120,000.
In 30 years, if I am not mistaken, the GDP per capita increased sixfold, from 20,000 to 120,000. And that is because they made pro-market reforms.
Where you give way to freedom, society flourishes. Not only economically, but it flourishes also in social aspects. There is a phrase by [Frédéric] Bastiat that is wonderful, which says: “Where commerce enters, bullets do not enter.”
And there is another wonderful phrase that is by Bertrand de Jouvenel who says: “Where there is a market, manners are sweet.”
Because your only mechanism to be successful in capitalism is to serve your fellow man with better quality goods at a better price. You may hate the other person, but you are obliged to treat him well.
The Economist: So for you the pro-market reforms also helped end Ireland’s civil war?
Javier Milei: Exactly. Wars are always driven by states, not by individuals.
The Economist: Beyond Ireland, are there other models?
Javier Milei: Yes: New Zealand and Australia.
The Economist: What would you do with the Falkland Islands/Malvinas?
Javier Milei: We believe that regarding the Malvinas Islands issue, first of all, the solution cannot be war. We do not believe in that.
Secondly, we believe that we could move towards a solution such as the one that England tried with China in the case of Hong Kong.
But it should also take into account the decision of the people living on the islands.
In other words, it would have to be something that arises from a negotiation through diplomatic channels. It cannot include violent solutions and it cannot violate the rightsand decisions of individuals. In other words, it would be a consensus solution that would obviously take time.
But there is no worse management than the one that is not done. So it is a matter of sitting down, negotiating, talking, thinking about it and trying to find a solution.
The Economist: Are the Malvinas Islands Argentine?
Javier Milei: They are Argentine because within the logic of how sovereignty is defined, they are within our territorial zone.
But the solution cannot be bellicose, it has to be a diplomatic solution involving Argentina, England and the inhabitants of the island.
The Economist: And in what sense is Hong Kong a model?
Javier Milei: Well, there was an agreement between England and China that set certain conditions, and Hong Kong went back to being part of China and it was an agreement between China and England.
The Economist: And what do you think about China? What would bilateral relations with China be like in your government?
Javier Milei: It does not respect the conditions on which I decide who my allies are. Freedom, democracy, peace.
So it doesn’t fit my...it doesn’t meet those parameters.
The Economist: You wouldn’t sit at a table with Xi Jinping?
Javier Milei: [Pause] Not as a strategic ally. If Argentines want to trade with China it is a private sector problem.
The Economist: And beyond trade, for example, what would you do about what is happening in Antarctica or the base that China has in Neuquén?
Javier Milei: That should be put under review.
The Economist: How?
Javier Milei: I don’t like to deal with communists because that is not a system that leads to the betterment of goods. No communist system leads to freedom, in fact it destroys it, so I can’t have dealings with communists.
The Economist: And with the president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva?
Javier Milei: Look at the aberrations he is carrying out in his government. I cannot endorse such matters.
The Economist: What do you mean?
Javier Milei: Look at how they are enroaching on freedom of the press.
The Economist: I do not understand.
Javier Milei: Obviously, those who have not behaved in line with the lies they promoted, they have taken down pages of journalists, persecuted journalists, persecuted the opposition.
It is a regime that is not in line with the ideas of freedom.
The Economist: What do you think of Jair Bolsonaro [the former president of Brazil]?
Javier Milei: Bolsonaro has fought a worthy fight against socialism. Later, the ballot box did not go with him, but he is a person who has fought a fight worthy of recognition.
The Economist: And what happened in the United States on January 6 [2021], how would you describe it?
Javier Milei: What is the reference to
The Economist: To the Capital Riot, when some people who had voted for Donald Trump attacked the Capitol. Or January 8th in Brazil [how would you describe it]...
Javier Milei: Well, what happened in Brazil was shown to have been set up by the Brazilian government itself, Lula’s own people.
The Economist: What do you mean it has been shown?
Javier Milei: Exactly as I say, hence the censorship.
The Economist: And in the United States?
Javier Milei: I don’t know how it came about in the United States, but I don’t think it was directly linked to Trump.
The Economist: Do you think Donald Trump won the 2020 election?
Javier Milei: There are some things that generate doubts for me. But well, that’s in the past.
The Economist: Did Jair Bolsonaro win the election?
Javier Milei: I also have doubts about the system used in Brazil.
The Economist: What are your doubts?
Javier Milei: Because there are some voting behaviours that are anomalous. So...but again, it has to do with the context in Brazil, it has to do with the context in the United States. But we have another way of looking at the problem.
We have studies that show that in this election [the Argentine presidential primaries on August 13th 2023] we were robbed of 5%. Well, what we have to do is to improve the auditing mechanisms. We need to have more auditors, we need to audit things better. We solve it this way. Everybody solves it in their own way.
The Economist: Who stole 5% [of votes] from you?
Javier Milei: The ruling party and Juntos por el Cambio between them.
The Economist: Did they work together to do that?
Javier Milei: No, they did it independently, but we have records, for example, of people from Juntos por el Cambio asking them to take out our ballots.
The Economist: So neither Biden nor Lula are legitimate presidents.
Javier Milei: No, I did not say that. I respect the institutions of each country, it is a matter of each country. What I am saying is, I have doubts. But from there to not respecting institutionality there is an abyss. I respect the decision of the people. And if the institutional mechanisms that each country has determine that they are the winners, they are the winners.
The Economist: What about Vladimir Putin, what do you think of him?
Javier Milei: I consider him an autocrat.
In fact I was one of the first, I would almost say I was the first to condemn the invasion of Ukraine. In fact the Ukrainian Embassy lent me the flag of the Embassy so that I could go and protest. And I did, actively.
The Economist: What leaders would you like to meet in the first months of your government?
Javier Milei: I will see at that time.
The Economist: Would you meet with Zelensky?
Javier Milei: Yes.
The Economist: What do you think about meeting Binyamin Netanyahu?
Javier Milei: [Huge smile] It would be a pleasure, an honour. In fact, I am planning my first trip as president to Israel.
The Economist: Why?
Javier Milei: Because...well, first of all because I have a very close relationship with Israel. And second, because what Israel has done has been a miracle, it’s the Startup Nation, right?
So, for me it has several values, and there is also a symbolic issue, isn’t there?
The Economist: What do you think of the judicial reform that Netanyahu promoted?
Javier Milei: I am not into those details.
The Economist: And...what about Palestine?
Javier Milei: [Pause] I am going to Israel. My partners are the United States and Israel.
The Economist: And within the United States, [you would have relations with] whoever. Biden or Trump.
Javier Milei: Again, you have to respect the presidential figure because it is a decision of the American people. And if you decide that the United States is your strategic partner, you act accordingly, regardless of whether you have more affinity with one party than with another. I have more affinity with the Republican Party than with the Democratic Party, but that does not allow me to disregard the leadership of a Democratic President. I don’t know if I am being clear.
The Economist: But for you Lula is not a democrat president, so how would you define him?
Javier Milei: In Lula’s case it is more complicated....because he has a much more marked totalitarian vocation. In other words, he is not only a socialist. He is someone who has a totalitarian vocation.
The Economist: And how would the relationship with Chile be under Gabriel Boric’s government?
Javier Milei: No, with Boric I would have nothing to talk about. He is a communist.
The Economist: Worse than Lula?
Javier Milei: Like Lula.
The Economist: So who would be your allies in the region? Who would you sit at a table with?
Javier Milei: I would sit with those who are pro-freedom.
The Economist: Who?
Javier Milei: I mean, I would have no problem sitting down with Lacalle Pou, I would have no problem sitting down with the president of Paraguay, I would have no problem sitting down with the president of Ecuador, with Lasso. I would have no problem sitting down with the president of the United States, obviously.
The Economist: Do you have a religion?
Javier Milei: Yes. Let’s say, I studied for 12 years in a Catholic school. But actually my spiritual advisor is a rabbi. And I have a lot of affinity with the study of the Torah.
The Economist: And why are you interested in Judaism?
Javier Milei: Well, the first thing to understand when these questions are asked is: Jesus was a Jew. So he received that same training. [...]
Besides, if I am a liberal-libertarian, it is clear that the book of Shemot, or if you want it in English, the book of Exodus, for me is absolutely revealing: it narrates the departure from Egypt to the promised land. So for me it is an epic. Obviously, in that context, my admiration for Moses is...let’s say .... is absolute. Why? Because he is, if you will, the first great liberator. And he and his brother Aaron confronted the Pharaoh, who was like the leader of the world’s great power at that time.
Then there is also a whole question of values. When you study, for example, Moshe’s way of being humble. That also helps you put your ego in a box. And that is not a minor issue, especially when you are so close to power.
Notice that we have a different concept of power. What does the normal politician do? He asks for your vote so that he has the power to act on your life. And what do we say to you? Vote for us so that we give you back the power so that you can be the architect of your own destiny. It is a totally different conception of power.
The Economist: Humility is something that matters a lot to you?
Javier Milei: When you look at the traps into which human beings fall into, there are three. They are always the same: ego, which in politics is closely linked to power; greed; and lust.
So when you are clear about that, you adjust your life. Because the factors with which the traps are going to torpedo you, you don’t get mixed up with them. Because you understand what it is all about.
The Economist: But there are rumours that candidacies were sold for people to be included on your party’s list....
Javier Milei: They are false. They were being promoted by the people of Juntos por el Cambio, which in fact came from people who were on the lists of Juntos por el Cambio. But then they went to the justice system, the justice system acted ex officio, and nobody could prove anything.
The Economist: Has the case been closed?
Javier Milei: I don’t know what they did, but the truth is that they couldn’t prove anything, it was all hair salon gossip.
The Economist: So the example of Moses and Aaron is something that has marked you personally. Do you see yourself and your sister Kari reflected in this example?
Javier Milei: No, because we are talking about a giant of history and I cannot aspire to such a level of leadership or spiritual purity.
But yes as a role model, a model that inspires. But to try to put it in other terms would be to violate the question of ego. It would be violating the very essence of Moses, which was his humility.
The Economist: What do Conan [his first English mastiff, who died in 2017] and your dogs mean to you?
Javier Milei: Conan, Murray, Milton, Robert and Lucas are my little four-legged children. See, when I was on the floor, I describe it like this in my book The Path to Freedom: when I was on the floor, and people were taking turns kicking my head on the floor, the only ones who were by my side were my sister and Conan.
And that is repaid with gratitude. They are the only ones who never betrayed me. And that is paid with gratitude. And now to have the joy of having Murray, Milton, Robert and Lucas, it’s like that joy multiplied by five.
The Economist: Where are they now?
Javier Milei: At the moment I have them in the kennel because of the campaign.
They are very big dogs. To give you an idea, on two legs, Milton, who is the biggest of them all, is 2 metres tall and weighs about 100 kilos.
The Economist: What is it like to have five of them in your home?
Javier Milei: Well, I have the house designed for that.
The Economist: How?
Javier Milei: I have kennels and I have a divided garden so that they can walk.
The Economist: Is that why you moved to Benavides [a gated community]?
Javier Milei: Yes. What happens is that it requires a lot of work [to take care of them] and during the campaign, I spend very little time at home. So that means that during the campaign I can’t be with them.
I’m going to visit them, the campaign is designed so that I have days allotted for me to visit my four-legged kids. It’s designed that way so it’s not so hard.
The Economist: They say that your dogs advise you on politics and that you talk to Conan [the dead dog].
Javier Milei: What is it they say, that my dogs determine my strategies, yes? That they are like a strategic committee? They are the best strategic committee in the world. Tell me: when has an outsider-outsider achieved what we achieved in two years? If so, they are the best political analysts in the world.
The Economist: So you neither deny nor confirm it
Javier Milei: Let them say what they want. Let’s look at the results. If so, they will want to hire them from all over the world! Look at what they have done in two years, they are great.
The Economist: I’ve seen how you talk about your sister, it’s very touching. What does she mean to you?
Javier Milei: She is a superlative person. I have not met any human being with such levels of generosity, kindness, spirituality, capacity for work. In other words, I have never met a human being of such moral and spiritual dimension in my life.
We are talking about a superlative human being. Difficult to fit into the normal categories, I would say it is impossible.
The Economist: Would she hold a position in your government?
Javier Milei: She has no interest in holding office. She accompanies me in this battle for freedom because...well, in fact if she were not here, none of this would exist.
The Economist: Why is she so important?
Javier Milei: Because if she were not there, I would have no spiritual fuel to face human misery in politics.
The Economist: I’m going to be honest with you. I have seen videos in which aggression, violence from you and also used in descriptions of others, has scared me. But here you are being a sensitive person and the way you talk about Kari shows a great level of empathy. Where do these sometimes quite violent outbursts come from?
Javier Milei: [Pause] Many times they are taken out of context. And also sometimes you make mistakes and you have to learn, correct, and improve.
But a lot of the videos they take...that’s sometimes stuff that’s seven, eight, even ten years old. And I understand that. Nobody looks at the context. For example, I used to go on a TV programme called Intractables. And at some point a friend of mine was in the panel and told me that the producers had asked me to be assaulted en masse. And obviously in that situation in which I was assaulted, there were several people attacking me at the same time, so I reacted. Well, they did it because I boosted their ratings and they attacked me in a coordinated way from the production.
The Economist: But you have made comments, for example about Marcos Peña [a former chief of staff], where there were not multiple panellists, where there was only you.
Javier Milei: But Marcos Peña did a lot of damage to Argentina. He did a lot of damage. And besides, Marcos Peña is extremely violent. Look how the troll-centre of Juntos por el Cambio works, the level of violence it has. Marcos Peña is extremely violent. What happens is that as he is a coward he does it by mechanisms, like sending you the troll-centre, which is also financed by the payment of taxes. Which is also tremendously aberrant because if he would at least pay for it with his own money, I understand it, but he does it with the money that is stolen from our taxes. That is to say, the methodology of Juntos por el Cambio is very violent.
The Economist: More so than the Peronists?
Javier Milei: Yes, it is worse because at least the Peronists do it head-on.
Those from Juntos por el Cambio want to show themselves as moderate, educated, republicans, but they send you the hitman.
It is the cowardly version. At least the Peronist tells you that he is going to kill you, he is going to kill you and he comes straight at it.
They [Juntos por el Cambio] appear to you as friends then stab you in the back by sending you the hitman.
The Economist: But you respect [Former President Mauricio] Macri?
Javier Milei: Yes, Macri is one of the few that I have respect for in that space. Because he is not that. Macri is not that.
The Economist: What is he?
Javier Milei: He is someone who also tried to make a change in Argentina in the right direction, but he surrounded himself with people who are part of the problem.
The Economist: How do you feel about the first round [of the presidential election] and what will you do if you lose?
Javier Milei: Look, whatever happens is going to be the will of the Creator. So wherever I happen to be is fine. We are going to do everything we can to win.
In other words, we are going to try to improve auditing, we are going to try to seduce those who didn’t vote.
We are trying to make the population realise that we are the only alternative to put an end to Kirchnerism. Basically those are our lines of action.
The Economist: Would you stay in politics if you lost?
Javier Milei: We’ll see. At the end of 2018, 2019, I saw it as an absolutely impossible thing to enter politics. I always think of a party in New York City in which José Luis Espert was running for president and Alberto Benegas Lynch Jr. came to me and said “well, are you not going to get into this?” And I told him no, professor, I said quietly, I detest politics. And then the facts brought me here, the spontaneous order, the invisible hand brought me here.
The Economist: How did politics go from being something dirty to being something you wanted to get into?
Javier Milei: At the beginning of Alberto Fernandez’s government, a witch-hunting began, so to speak. They persecuted the liberals. In fact, Leandro Santoro, who was a sort of spokesman in the media, called for me to be openly censored.
So I saw that the cultural battle was complicated and then I decided to get inside the system to end the status quo.
The Economist: Are you an Anglophile?
Javier Milei: Yes [laughs]
The Economist: In what sense?
Javier Milei: In the sense that, for example, I listen, or listened to when I was younger…I have the complete collection of the Beatles, the complete collection of the Rolling Stones, I have the complete collection of Queen, and I also have the complete collection of Led Zeppelin, Deep Heart, ACDC... in other words, I have several bands. Then I have about...between CDs and records like 200 Elvis Presley plates. But that’s American.
Economist: Did he inspire your look?
Javier Milei: No, the look is very Jagger originally. It’s in the pictures from when I had the rock band. My band was called Everest and I sang and we did Rolling Stones covers.
The Economist: And Mick Jagger was the one who inspired you, the inspiration behind the wig [Editor’s note: the Wig is Mr Milei’s nickname in Argentina].
Javier Milei: Exactly. What happened is that later it mutated and today, Lilia Lemoine, who is in charge of my image and who does my make-up and actually she is my image consultant and since she is a cosplayer, in that context she suggested that my image mutate into that of Wolverine.
The Economist: Why?
Javier Milei: Because there are a set of values and ideals that she considers as...the truth is that...I don’t know, I’m happier with the change in appearance.
The Economist: So you are somewhere between Menem, Presley and Wolverine?
Javier Milei: Yeah, or Mick Jagger, I don’t know. It’s a mixture of all that.
The Economist: How did you enter the world of cosplayers?
Javier Milei: Because I saw [Lilia] doing cosplay and I thought it was fabulous.
The Economist: Do you like the idea of that, of being a kind of superhero?
Javier Milei: In fact we created a superhero, General Ancap.
The Economist: Do you have an outfit?
Javier Milei: We had [one], now we don’t, that was it. Things come and go at the right time.
The Economist: So General Ancap has retired. And now you are in Wolverine mode.
Javier Milei: I am now in Wolverine mode, running for president.
The Economist: And when you become president, what mode will you be in?
Javier Milei: In president mode, which is what Argentines need.
The Economist: And what does it mean to be in president mode?
Javier Milei: That I will have to devote myself to solving problems so that Argentina becomes great again.
Connect With Us