Far-right populist Javier Milei fails to win first round of Argentina’s presidential election

On abortion it looks like he opposes it outside of cases where the mother's life is in danger. On crime his wiki is pretty vague just that he wants to 'crack down' on crime and prohibit migrants with a criminal history from entry.

As Vis mentioned, it is the better option if the government can't stop itself from printing money and fucks everyone over.

This is the inflation rate of Ecuador before and after they adopted the dollar in 2000.

Milei now wants to do the same. At least this way people will be able to save (and spend their savings), and the government will have to be fiscally responsible.

The world has run directly or indirectly on gold (which can't be printed) until 1973, so it's definitely possible for an economy to work with a currency you can't print.

Ecuador and Puerto Rico already did it. Panamá did something similar.

I totally understand the initiative. Corruption can be so damn high, that you trust gringo central bank more than any institution of your own country.

edit: typos

we have problems with governments over printing. this shit has happened again and again for decades and it won't stop.

Yes, but the alternative is what we have now.

Normal people have zero control over the US Dollar, but also have zero control over the Argentinian Peso... and the Argentinian Peso has 140% inflation per year.

A few nations of this: Ecuador, El Salvador, East Timor, Zimbabwe, etc

Well, I'd say it's just their straightforwardness and their "showmanlike" attitude

I disagree with your assessment that far right and populist descriptors are opposites. Admittedly, there's a degree of subjectivity in definitions here, but my understanding is that conventional scholarship has coalesced around a definition of Populism that is agnostic of the left/right spectrum.

For example, this journal article from 2012 defines it as "a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the 'pure people' versus the 'corrupt elite', and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people".

If you care to read a little more, the authors break down their definition into it's constituent pieces and provide context, but the important piece is that you can see how populism can come from both the left and the right.

As examples, we can look at, say, the Occupy Wall Street movement from a while back. Very much spawned from left leaning ideology, but it's defining feature was casting the "corrupt elite" (in this case, the fabulously wealthy) against the general people (i.e. the 99%). On the other side of the coin we can look at Donald Trump's MAGA movement. The image he wants to cultivate is that of an outsider, someone not tainted by the corruption of the Washington elite. That resonates with a sunset of the population.

Both of these movements have radically different goals and politics, but the framework of those arguments follows the same general template.

I apologize for the US-centric examples, but that's what I know. As consolation, the article I linked to is specifically a comparative study of European vs Latin American populism.