Edward Lotterman

An Old Testament sage once said, “there is nothing new in the world.” Yet the Trump administration and that of Javier Milei in Argentina have really found something unique.

It is the bailout of a Latin American country in which the corruption, self-dealing and cynicism on both sides appears evenly balanced. In the 57 years since the U.S. Army sent me to Brazil, kindling my own love affair with that complex continent, I have never seen anything quite like it.

Consider the paradoxes:

• Just as U.S. farmers are piling soybeans on the ground because storage and transportation systems are jammed full by lack of exports, mainly to China, the Trump administration is organizing a $40 billion bailout of a country that just made a large sale of soybeans to China and will sell more.

• Just as U.S. cattle ranchers and feeders are in their fourth year of making good money after decades of beef prices declining in real terms and a decade-long drought, the president is calling for large increases in U.S. beef imports from Argentina.

• Just as death rates from disease and hunger are climbing in poor nations after the cutoff of USAID health and nutrition programs, the sum earmarked for this one, non-starving middle-income country equals the $40 billion for that agency worldwide in 2023.

• Ironically, despite U.S. farmer and rancher anger about siding with a competitor, Argentina will actually be stronger in global commodity markets without the bailout, either if it is not made or fails. More about that below.

Background on Argentina’s politics and its ag sector is useful.

First off, Argentina has perhaps the most bountiful endowment of natural resources relative to population of any country in the world. Its vast grasslands, the pampas, have rich soils and good rainfall.

Wheat was grown and beef raised from the colonial era on. By the late 1800s, with railroads, threshing machines, large slaughterhouses and steamships with refrigeration, Argentina exported vast quantities of wheat and beef to England. The country grew rich. By 1910, per-capita incomes in Argentina were similar to those of Australia or Canada.

Exporting to war-torn Europe during World War I made things even better. But postwar economic travails in Europe, the financial crash of 1929, trade wars ignited by the U.S., together with the eventual Great Depression, put an end to prosperity. Ninety years later, Argentina still hasn’t recovered its economic mojo.

A military coup in 1930 ended 70 years of democracy. Fourteen different generals or admirals would occupy the Pink House — the equivalent to our West Wing — between then and 1983. One, Juan Peron, came to power as part of a 1943 military coup. He stood for election in 1946 and won despite strong U.S. opposition. Not a defender of big landowners and industrialists, Peron broke the mold of the traditional strongman. A charismatic populist with a mishmash of ideas from Italy’s Benito Mussolini and Catholic social thought, Peron championed the causes of labor and the poor.

Aided by his wife of neo-Broadway fame, Evita, Peron gave the government a much greater role in the economy, establishing labor unions and extensive social benefits. He also created a political movement continuing to this day. Opposing this brought Milei to power in late 2023.

A political cycle of Peronists and anti-Peronists during this period involved an economic ping-pong of reform plans by newly elected presidents. Harsh reforms led to bursts of prosperity. Then large budget deficits, corruption and an overvalued peso would lead to shortages of needed foreign currencies and other economic crises.

Argentina defaulted on foreign debts repeatedly and pleaded for bailout packages from the International Monetary Fund even more often. These carried harsh conditions usually pushing the nation into recession even as foreign exchange accounts came into balance.

Milei won election after two decades during which three Peronists had held power for 16 years. Milei’s libertarian economic program directly countered the Peronists’ statism, but his demagogic political style mirrors that of the old strongmen.

Milei’s crash free-market program boosted the stagnant economy. But two familiar problems reared their ugly heads. Corruption arose, including deals involving Milei’s sister. And Milei’s contrary anti-free market policy of maintaining a fixed exchange rate brought problems in less than a year.

Foreign exchange crises are unknown to U.S. citizens because the dollar is the world’s “reserve currency.” All other countries need tradable currencies such as dollars, euros, pounds or yen to pay for imports of raw materials, intermediate goods for manufacturing finished products or machinery and consumer goods. They also need such currencies to pay interest and principal on business or government borrowing from lenders abroad.

As long as a country exports enough to earn such needed foreign currencies, there is no problem. But if exports run short, market forces push the exchange value of the domestic currency lower. People needing dollars, euros, yen or yuan must offer more pesos to get them. That raises the price of imports in pesos.

Governments can deter such drops in exchange value by selling off reserves of currencies they hold. When these run out however, devaluation is inevitable, usually causing a recession. The longer the inevitable was staved off, the harsher the eventual adjustment.

Despite his free-market rhetoric, Milei kept a fixed exchange rate. Argentina lacked foreign currencies so soon that last April it sought yet another $20 billion from the IMF. The absurd result was that Argentina, with 0.5% of the world’s population, has 35% of all IMF loans outstanding.

Now, six months later, that money is largely gone. Hence the need now for another $20 billion, or perhaps $40 billion, from a combination of the U.S. Treasury or Wall Street. These dollars are not going to build railroads, ports, schools or refineries or even provide school lunches. They mostly will keep prices of imported business and consumer goods low for ordinary consumers and help rich Argentines move wealth abroad before the next collapse.

A bailout will also help hedge fund operators like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant’s former colleague, occasional deal partner and long-time friend, Robert Citrone, cover large bets he made on Milei’s boom proving permanent. Moreover, hedge funds like Blackrock, Pimco and even Fidelity, that were so stupid as to buy peso-denominated Argentine bonds, also will get their irons retrieved from the fire,

Hence the deep corruption permeating the deal.

This past week Trump sneered at a reporter who asked about the Argentina bailout. “Argentina is fighting for its life,” he said. Even for Trump, this is preposterous. Argentina faces a devaluation just as it has every five years or so since the 1950s.

Compared to the just-added $1 trillion to the U.S. national debt in the past eight weeks, $20 billion or $40 billion may not seem like much. Yet it would cover a lot of Obamacare subsidies and not just for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Republican family in Georgia. The effect, if this money were instead invested in America first, would be large across rural Minnesota and other farm regions as well as to many in metro areas like ours.

Which brings us to the irony to which outraged U.S. farmers are blind: Without the bailout, the peso would fall in value relative to the dollar and other currencies. That would make Argentine beef, soybeans and corn cheaper to buyers in China and everywhere else, actually strengthening its position in global markets. In this regard, U.S. agriculture should be supporting the bailout, not opposing it, because, taken alone, raising the peso’s value would be a net positive for U.S. exports versus Argentine competition.

Yet another irony is that Trump is making the bailout conditional on Milei’s party winning upcoming congressional elections. This is a backfiring gift to Milei’s opponents. In 1946, U.S. Ambassador Spruille Braden’s denunciations helped Juan Peron win millions of votes with the slogan, “Braden or Peron?” Trump demanding votes for Milei’s party will have the same perverse effect.

Yet the deal is likely to go through. Milei caters masterfully to Trump’s ego and will be president even if his party loses seats in Argentina’s legislature. Rich donors to our president have much at stake. GOP members of Congress still cower from MAGA’s power. Democrats seem powerless in mustering opposition, let alone understanding what’s really going on here. Few beside farmers voice objections. We live in terrible times.

Related Articles

Real World Economics: ‘Creative destruction’ and Argentina’s debt crisis

Real World Economics: How farm payouts violate basic principles

Real World Economics: Ignorance of Social Security’s problems is not bliss

Real World Economics: How bad is it going to get?

Real World Economics: When Fed’s mandates are in conflict

St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at stpaul@edlotterman.com.

By ADRIANA MORGA

NEW YORK (AP) — Weddings are meant to be celebrations of love. They also may require invited guests to make a financial commitment that brings them stress.

Related Articles

Readers and writers: St. Paul author tells moving story of alcoholics’ chase for local softball glory

Literary calendar for week of Oct. 26

Minnesota Dream Hunt offers ‘heartwarming’ experiences

Skywatch: Celestial monsters and a ghost

Brandi Carlile climbed music’s peak. Then she had to start over.

Whether it’s paying for hotels and flights to attend a destination wedding or different outfits and gifts for multiple pre-wedding events, friends and extended family often feel pressure to spend a large amount of money before the couple gets married.

A sense of obligation and budget constraints can create resentment, hurt feelings and misunderstandings among friends and family. Future spouses who are trying to plan their dream wedding and are worried about their own expenses might want to factor in their guests’ potential costs.

“Money is part of how we show up for one another,” Christine Hargrove, a licensed therapist who serves as assistant director of the Love and Money Center at the University of Georgia. “But don’t let finances get in the way of lifelong friendships or family relationships that are healthy and supportive.”

Hargrove often sees budgeting issues becoming friendship issues for couples and members of their wedding party. While asking someone to be a groomsman or a bridesmaid usually is intended to show appreciation, sometimes left unacknowledged is the possible financial burden of being part of a bachelor or bachelorette party, as well as the big day itself.

“If somebody says ‘I care about you, I really want to come to your wedding but I absolutely cannot afford five days in the Caribbean on top of already going to a wedding,’ don’t take it personally,” Hargrove advises.

Conversations surrounding money can be very emotional, but everyone involved will benefit if they approach the topic with understanding, recommended Hargrove.

“Couples have to keep in mind that people do have different budgets, different backgrounds. People have different work responsibilities and capabilities of taking PTO,” said Sarah Schreiber, a former magazine weddings editor turned wedding consultant.

A groom, left, places a ring on the finger of the bride during their Valentines Day wedding ceremony Friday, Feb. 14, 2025, in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/George Walker IV, File)

Here are some recommendations for ways engaged couples can reduce costs for their wedding guests and how guests can participate without going into debt.

FOR COUPLES

Book different hotel options

It’s customary for the couple getting married to reserve a block of rooms at a discounted rate for their out-of-town guests. Schreiber recommends having at least a couple hotel options at different price ranges.

Offer to pay for some services

Covering the cost of transportation to and from the wedding venue, paying for childcare if kids are not invited to the celebration, and hosting a morning-after breakfast are other ways couples can make their wedding less expensive for guests, according to Cassie Horrell, a wedding planner based in Pittsburgh.

“There’s little things you can do here and there to be mindful of what costs you can eat for your guests,” Horrell said.

Putting a “no gifts” request on your invitations is another way to reduce costs for guests, said Rachel Lawrence, the head of advice and planning for the budgeting app Monarch Money.

Be up front with your wedding party

Informing members of the wedding party and other close friends well in advance about what they can expect to pay for a bachelor party abroad or to rent a tuxedo or have their makeup done helps them decide if they can participate, Hargrove said.

FILE – Bridesmaids use fans for shade and to keep cool during bridal pictures before a wedding Saturday, Aug. 23, 2025, in Newtown, Ohio. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel, File)

If someone agrees to be part of the wedding party and later learns a bride and groom have expensive tastes, they may feel cornered into spending on a splash they can’t afford, she said.

Don’t take it personally if a guest cannot attend

If a friend or relative says they cannot attend a pre-wedding event or the wedding itself due to cost, respond in a kind and gracious way, Hargrove advises.

“Accept it gracefully and you’re gonna have a lot fewer issues relationally. It shows a lot of respect, it shows conscientiousness. People appreciate it. And there’s a lot fewer hurt feelings,” she said.

FOR GUESTS

Share costs with friends

If the cost of attending a wedding is too high, consider dividing it with a group of friends, said Esther Lee, a deputy editor and wedding expert for The Knot. From sharing a hotel room or sleeping on someone’s couch to going in on group trips and splitting the bill for airport transportation, other guests may also be on a budget.

It’s OK to skip some events

Between the bachelorette party, the bridal shower and the weekend destination wedding, the costs can pile up. If you want to stay on budget, it’s OK to skip some events and choose to attend the ones you think will be the most meaningful for the person getting married.

“It’s hard for people to say no, and we want to show up for everyone. But if it doesn’t work with your budget, then you don’t want to be going into debt just to try and make it” Chelsea Hodl, a financial planner for the financial services app Domain Money.

FILE – Guests sit inside during cocktail hour as empty chairs sit outside during a wedding Saturday, Aug. 23, 2025, in Newtown, Ohio. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel, File)

Communicating to your friend or family member ahead of time which events you will be able to attend is recommended.

Save money on your wardrobe

If you’re working on a tight budget, wedding attire is a place to cut back. Renting a dress or a tux from online websites like Rent The Runway, Nuuly or Black Tux may be less expensive than buying clothes you’ll hardly ever wear.

Guests also can consider wearing a dress they already own or borrowing one from a friend, The Knot’s Lee said.

“Nobody is judging you for re-wearing something, so don’t be your harshest critic,” she said.

Be transparent with your friends

You don’t need to feel ashamed if you cannot afford to attend the wedding of a loved one, Hargrove said. Being honest about the reason why you won’t be there for their special day can help prevent negative feelings or misunderstandings.

FILE – A bouquet of flowers rests on a chair ahead of a Valentine’s Day group wedding ceremony at the Dade County Courthouse in Miami, Friday, Feb. 14, 2025. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell, File)

“When you are willing to be direct with someone, it just clears the air and it’s amazing how powerful, clear, honest and direct self-disclosure can be,” Hargrove said.

If you will miss a friend’s wedding, try showing your affection for them in another way, such as inviting them to dinner, or sending them flowers on the wedding day. An inexpensive gesture can demonstrate your love without sacrificing yourself and your finances.

The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.

We love St. Paul.

We worry about where the city stands and where it’s going, whether downtown, its neighborhoods, its schools, its businesses, its people.

There are public and private institutions talking about improvements, but no apparent inspiring vision or energized leadership pulling together the people and the resources needed to get the job of renewal done.

We fear that we too are trapped in the doom-loop cycle beleaguering once-great American cities, where the loss of businesses, jobs and services produces the lack of investment required for a rebirth of what we want as downtown.

This has become an intertwined economic, political and psychological problem to resolve.

Perhaps we are not asking the right questions as to what needs fixing, what needs to be done.

Perhaps with national trends of suburban movement, increased homelessness, political power shifting to suburban control, the loss of corporate managers with ties not to our cities but to their golden parachutes, the cities will never return to the reality from which we seek to benefit and enjoy once again.

Perhaps, St. Paul will require a new way of thinking about what a future city and downtown can and should become. We need inspiration knowing that from inspiration comes leadership and that from leadership comes achievement.

What can be our vision?

St. Paul is about people, not money; always has been. It is about families and communities.

But therein lies a problem: St. Paul is a collection of communities, not really a city. The assets of St. Paul are separated one from another like a pile of Lego pieces waiting to be assembled into a stunning construction.

How do we assemble the pieces? Who will come up with the vision?

We cannot separate downtown from the vitality of our neighborhoods and a metropolitan context.

We are fortunate to have a multitude of existing resources. We have five strong colleges and universities, two law schools; we are located on a beautiful major river.

We have a health industry complex. We have state government. We have a History Center and a Science Museum; parks and a zoo and a soulful Japanese garden; theaters; The Ordway and the St Paul Chamber Orchestra; artists; weekend markets.

We have a history which forms the basis for tourism.

We have an educated workforce.

We have an increasingly international demography, producing the workforce, culture, restaurants, art and ethnic mix of the present and future.

We have these existing resources, without utilizing the two-way benefits of having the educational resources, river, ethnic composition, educated workforce and strengths of people who love our city.

We have district councils which allow a higher level of participation for every citizen.

What we have not done is determine how to build the circular systems, where every citizen, resource, institution and service is defined not as a cost or problem, but as a capital asset contributing to the larger community in tandem with all the other capital assets – financial, educational, social, cultural.

We have hundreds of small businesses, seeking to grow, but more often worry about how to retain the few large corporations, some of whom can move on the decision of an absentee corporation, without any familiar or historical ties to St. Paul. We need to place more emphasis upon strengthening our small businesses,

If we wait for the city government to provide that leadership, we will fail.

The Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism will soon convene a process to build the vision and framework for a citywide circular system.

Related Articles

Collins, Kutelia: Get Russia right. End the ‘resets’ and win the peace

Skywatch: Celestial monsters and a ghost

Your Money: Financial stress can lead to avoidance, survey says

Working Strategies: Job search best practices require discipline

Joe Soucheray: Trump lacks grace — and permission — in his destruction of East Wing

It will include representatives from public, private, informational, educational and civic groups.

We have the potential to create the St. Paul for the future.

The world has changed and we cannot re-invent the past.

We are St. Paulites. We love our city and the neighborhoods.

We have problems which will not disappear, but which can be overcome with resolve, imagination and the courage of our convictions. We stand at the edge of a new frontier.

As an admired president once told us: “All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.”

Todd Lefko is a member of the board of the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism and Stephen B. Young is its global executive director.

For over three decades, U.S. “resets” with Russia have failed. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, successive American presidents have entered office and engaged with Russia under the illusion that personal relationships with Russia’s leaders, mutual economic interest and appeasement of Russian demands would transform Russia’s role in the world.

Each “reset” failed.

So too did Biden’s policy of keeping Ukraine on life support while revealing fear of provoking Putin.

President Trump has an opportunity to change this. To do so, he should look back to Reagan, the last American president who got Russia right. Only by getting Russia right can Trump end the bloodshed in Ukraine. That means recognizing who Putin is, adopting a policy of peace through strength, and consistently enforcing it.

When Putin betrayed the Alaska peace agenda, Trump began to see this. He recently condemned Putin’s attacks on civilians and even declared Ukraine to be capable of victory. This past week, he imposed new sanctions on Russian oil companies, the first on Russia since January. Trump’s turn is a welcome shift from years of flattering and incentivizing Putin. Even Trump’s proposed deal — territory for peace — fell flat. Russia’s dictator wants more.

Appeasing and negotiating with Putin has failed for decades. America’s pattern of naïveté and capitulation reached its nadir under Obama, who blamed Russian aggression on Bush and NATO expansion. Remember Hillary Clinton pressing the big red “Reset” button with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, just six months after Russia invaded Georgia? Their “Reset” ended in Putin’s 2014 seizure of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine. Without Baltic, Polish and Romanian membership in NATO, we would undoubtedly be facing a wider war today.

NATO’s strength, not appeasement, has deterred Russian imperialism from seizing more of Europe.

President Biden’s policy since mid-2022 exhibited a veneer of strength, but its incoherence failed Ukraine and damaged American credibility. Belated, incomplete sanctions, straightjacketing Ukraine’s ability to use American weapons, and trepidation at Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling encouraged Russia to seize more territory. Insufficient piecemeal sanctions, half-heartedly implemented, allowed Russia’s military to rebuild and grow. Biden kept Ukraine alive. But he refused to help Ukraine win, and he refused to let Russia lose.

Trump’s policy should be based on a realistic understanding of Russia, and the pursuit of American values and interests. Trump should revisit the Reagan Administration’s 1983 National Security Decision Directive 75, which “recognize(d) that Soviet aggressiveness has deep roots in the internal system.” Reagan saw the USSR for what it was: “an evil empire” that not only repressed the freedom of its own citizens, but also sought to overthrow democracy in the West.

Reagan believed, like Kennedy, Truman and Roosevelt, that America should promote human liberty. This clarity pushed U.S. defense investment, reinvigorated NATO, and intimidated Soviet leadership, who ultimately recognized that they could not compete. Reagan empowered Afghanistan’s resistance to the Soviet invasion – escalating Soviet losses and fueling discontent. When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, Reagan also used diplomacy to press the Soviet leader to allow religious freedom, refrain from force in Eastern Europe, withdraw from Afghanistan, and “tear down” the Berlin Wall.

American strength and resolve induced Gorbachev to respond. The leaders of two superpowers, once locked in a Cold War confrontation, became peacemakers. The groundbreaking INF agreement, the freeing of Eastern Europe from Soviet-imposed communism, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the end of the Cold War followed.

American leadership reunified Europe under democratic, capitalist systems – ushering in economic prosperity and NATO-backed security. But this freedom evaded Russia because the Soviet system was never fully dismantled. America has failed to see this, and Putin has relentlessly exploited repeated “resets”: in Chechnya, in Georgia, in Syria, in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine.

Putin is no peacemaker. Yet, when countered with decisiveness, Putin has retreated. In 2015, Turkey shot down a Russian jet violating its airspace. In February 2018, when 200 Russian Wagner fighters attacked U.S. special forces in Syria, Trump launched airstrikes that devastated Wagner. In April 2018, the U.S., U.K., and France launched 105 missiles against chemical weapons sites in Syria. In each instance, Russia threatened escalation – but backed down.

Just two weeks ago, when Trump entertained the idea of sending Ukraine Tomahawk cruise missiles, with the potential to strike deep and decisively inside Russia, Putin got on the phone to seek negotiations. Yet, after Trump stalled on the Tomahawks in his meeting with President Zelensky, Putin cagily shifted again. A stony-faced Lavrov delivered the message that Russia had not changed its position since August. In a show of strength, Trump subsequently cancelled the proposed summit in Budapest. Now he needs a comprehensive policy that demonstrates that strength and reverses the mistakes of the past.

A strong Russia policy means bolstering NATO, the organization that has kept the West strong and free for decades. Five years ago, Republicans were right to criticize NATO’s European members; they spent too little on defense. But now all NATO members are projected to meet NATO’s targeted 2% of GDP. Poland spent almost 5%, followed by the Baltics and Norway. No longer a laggard, Germany last year became the fourth-largest military spender in the world. Strengthening NATO also demands a united front. The U.S. must lead NATO in coordinating a response to Russian violations of NATO airspace, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, social media and electoral manipulation, and other forms of escalatory hybrid warfare.

Like Reagan, Trump should invest in defense production at home to rebuild America’s and allies’ weapons stockpiles. He should facilitate joint venture defense partnerships with Europe and streamline the overly bureaucratic and political process of selling arms to our allies on Russia’s front lines.

A strong Russia policy must defund Russia’s war machine through sanctions that work. Trump should pressure China and Turkey, as well as India, to stop buying Russian oil and gas. He should leverage his relationship with Viktor Orbán in Hungary to reduce Russia’s energy exports – while promoting Qatar and Azerbaijan as alternative suppliers.

Countries and companies still funneling dual-use technologies to Russia’s military must also be stopped. The Biden administration identified the routes through Central Asia and elsewhere, but neither Biden nor Trump has blocked them.

Trump’s decision to provide targeting intelligence that enhances Ukraine’s ability to strike inside Russia is a crucial step. Beyond this, Trump must facilitate Europe’s transfer of $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine to finance its victory. And he should sell Ukraine long-range weapons, such as Tomahawks, without restrictions on their use against legitimate military targets and oil refineries.

Related Articles

Skywatch: Celestial monsters and a ghost

Your Money: Financial stress can lead to avoidance, survey says

Working Strategies: Job search best practices require discipline

Joe Soucheray: Trump lacks grace — and permission — in his destruction of East Wing

Letters: A papal exhibit? What about the sisters?

For 35 years, the U.S. has cautiously avoided Russia’s defeat. Yet, a Russia routed by Ukraine, as the USSR was by Afghanistan, might be our best hope for change — for a Russia that at last abandons its imperial dreams.

President Trump has the opportunity to bring peace through strength. He can end the bloodshed in Ukraine, finally stop 18 years of Russian aggression under Putin, and solidify the liberty and security of the West. If he does so, Trump will have earned his Nobel Prize.

Kathleen Collins is Arleen C. Carlson Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota. She is the award-winning author of two books on Eurasia. As a Fulbright Global Scholar, she is writing a third book on militaries in postcommunist Eurasia. Ambassador Batu Kutelia  is a former ambassador of Georgia to the United States, and a former head of Georgia’s Foreign Intelligence Service. He is  senior fellow at Delphi Global Research, and a member of the board at the Atlantic Council of Georgia.