I consider myself very libertarian. I think I'm personally even more extreme than many people I have met in the libertarian space.
However it is very confusing to me why shock therapy in economics is so popular. It's like almost everybod in the libertarian space, many classical conservatives, many neoliberals and most classical liberals and even some centrists/moderates believe in shock therapy.
Again, I'm very libertarian and even more extreme than most libertarian I have met. But I strongly disagree that change has to be fast. If a libertarian is in office there are like 4 years of time to spread the changes.
Why change should be slow (e.g. spread over 4 years of a term)? I don't understand why this is even unclear and not discussed. It takes time to find a new job for individuals. It especially takes time to found new private sector companies etc etc. ALL CHANGES in the economy, even when they are unambigously good, cause disturbance in the short term.
(this list is partly from Radio Graficia, I reformulated it a little to make it shorter)
The source I partly quoted, partly rewrote here is pretty against Milei. I think all of the deregulations here are a good step in the right direction for the economy. Less government, more free markets etc is all good.
Is there any reason you can think of that fast changes and shock therapy are good? If you are in favor of shock therapy instead of staggered over the next 4 years please convice me why this is better.
I'm literally open to change my mind if someone has a good argument for it