Last Sunday’s presidential debate, the final one before October 22’s general elections, felt more like a gasping wheeze than the energized breath one might’ve expected to cap off a charged campaign. 

But the real show came two days later. After libertarian candidate Javier Milei described the peso as worth less than “excrement,” the currency lost nearly a fifth of its value on parallel markets, and he faced widespread condemnation and accusations of treason from across the political and economic establishment. Half a dozen people were arrested for financial crimes in the following days. But we’ll put a pin in that for now. 

The debate. It was a paragon of Tik Tok politics. No one stood out as a clear winner. 

Despite her comments about the ongoing crisis in Israel, leftist Myriam Bregman’s performance seemed the least objectionable. Of all the candidates, she settled most comfortably into the debate’s format of short speaking opportunities and quick rebuttals. Bregman was sharp, energized, and focused. But she’s also polling at around 2%, so we won’t dwell on her. The same goes for non-Kirchnerist Peronist Juan Schiaretti, who one poll placed at 11% following the debate, a 7% jump compared with the week before. 

Economy Minister and Unión por la Patria (UxP) candidate Sergio Massa was in the hot seat. From all sides, he faced criticism on current levels of poverty and inflation, pensions, debt, and GDP. 

Massa focused intently on the way forward, repeatedly emphasizing that a new government will begin on December 10 as he distanced himself from the current administration. The economy minister tried his best to project optimism and convince viewers that he isn’t entirely to blame for Argentina’s economic troubles. 

Much of his messaging focused on what’s at stake in this election. What will women, workers, and women workers lose under a Milei presidency? The libertarian’s anachronistic stance on social equality protections, he argued, will set Argentina back a century. Exploitation and exclusion are sure to follow. 

Though he was clearly uncomfortable, Massa’s messaging was relatively concise and pointed. The same cannot be said for Patricia Bullrich. She was unfocused, swinging at everything that moved. She hit out at Massa, trying to portray him as a puppet of an endemically corrupt Kirchnerism. 

Falling back on her two pronged strategy of attack against the libertarian, she tried to paint Milei as both a snake oil salesman incapable of delivering on his promises and as a hypocrite, who is in bed with the same political “caste” he vows to exorcize. 

But beyond lowering the age of prosecution for minors to 14, Bullrich presented few actionable policies. Her repeated promises of meaningful, profound change made her lack of policy specifics all the more glaring. 

And then there was Milei. As in the first debate, the libertarian was on his best behavior. Explaining nuanced economic concepts with what felt like forced pedantry, Milei tried to project calm and consideration. 

Some of his takes were nonetheless incoherent. In one dizzying sentence, he purported to not deny climate change, then immediately questioned its veracity. “Cultural Marxism” is how he described (without elaboration) the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. 

But Milei’s real bomb came on Monday. Advising radio listeners against renewing fixed-term deposits in pesos, he described Argentina’s currency as worth less than “excrement.” Over the following 24 hours, the peso lost nearly 20% of its value on parallel markets. 

Argentina knows a currency crisis. In 2001, a run on the peso contributed to widespread protests and the collapse of five presidencies in just two weeks. Justifiably, Milei’s comments drew spectrum-spanning condemnation. Massa and Bullrich denounced his statements as and irresponsible and actively seeking to cause a currency run. 

President Alberto Fernández, who has been fading into obscurity in the final months of his presidency, lodged a judicial complaint against him for public intimidation. Four banking associations criticized him for causing “unnecessary anguish.” Milei, it seems, had crossed a line. 

Was the libertarian trying to instigate a crisis? Only he really knows. But last week, he noted that a higher blue dollar (a parallel exchange rate) would make his flagship dollarization scheme easier to implement. 

Whether or not it’s what he wanted, a flight to the dollar is what he got. Ultimately, as the “outsider” who wants to “burn it all down,” Milei benefits electorally from greater economic instability. Reduced faith in the peso and the economic status quo have propelled him to the front of the electoral pack. 

The election is in nine days. It’s unclear if there will be a runoff or if Milei will win in the first round. But market actors will likely be jittery next week, and that’s something he could exploit.