21 sats \ 6 replies \ @didiplaywell 15h \ parent \ on: Poverty in Argentina soars to over 50% as Milei’s austerity measures hit hard econ
Let's take the exact same data the article is citing: if you click the link that says "to almost 53%" right at the beginning, it leads you to this article from Reuters. In the article, they state that they take the tendency from "The Catholic University of Argentina's (UCA) observatory":
You can start seeing the cracks there. Now it turns out that if we increase the resolution, closer to the beginning of the mandate we were up 3 points from now. Stretching the data is a classical manipulation to conceal tendency. This is coming explicitly from their own source.
So, let's take a look even closer, again, from their own source: this article is from February, also from UCA's data. See what's the estimated poverty rate right on January:
Now it turns out that if we increase the resolution even further, the poverty rate right on January was estimated on 57,4%. How convenient to average that along the entire quarter and giving you that as "data point", isn't?
Javier Milei's mandate started on December.
It won’t make a difference
Oliver hates Javier because he isn’t a socialist
reply
I trust @didiplaywell as little as I trust govts and media.
The rest from you are bullshits, which you know very well but still repeat as a broken record.
reply
Sorry, I am not able to follow your line of argumentation. What was the poverty in Dec 2023/Jan 2024? I assume your chart shows a prediction for Dec 2023 and Jan 2024, or? What is the poverty now or last month or whatever? No predictions, hard numbers.
reply
They don't provide that data for some reason, the only hard data is the one for "the first quarter". We can already see the manipulation from there: besides the fact Milei's measures on cutting spending weren't immediate nor took immediate effect, the article speaks about "soaring" poverty, while the exact same source states it has reduced from the peak reached at the beginning of the mandate.
reply
INDEC and UCA are two different sources, or? On a positive side, I could imagine even a better clickbait article just by ignoring all UCA’s statements, Reuters didn’t.
reply
INDEC and UCA are indeed two different sources, but the only part of Reuters' article that uses INDEC as source is the graph (which they did themselves, for INDEC do not publishes in english). So I concentrate on UCA because besides the graph all information cited comes from it, and it's more telling to have that contrast of the source with itself, and UCA is not a state dependency, which INDEC is and thus I assume you will trust less.
reply