A System That Sacrifices the Well-Being of Its People for Economic Metrics Has Fundamentally Lost Sight of What It Means to Govern

What is the purpose of governance if not to improve the lives of its citizens? Across the globe, nations are prioritizing economic metrics like GDP, inflation rates, and fiscal deficits over the fundamental well-being of their people. Argentina under Javier Milei offers a stark example: in just 12 months, poverty surged from 35% to 50% of the population, a devastating consequence of austerity measures aimed at stabilizing the economy.

This raises a critical question: what value do economic "successes" hold when they leave people worse off? Governments obsessed with economic metrics often fail to see the real foundation of a thriving society: human lives. A system that sacrifices well-being for economic indicators has lost sight of what it means to govern.

Advocates of anarcho-libertarianism and similar ideologies often claim that a country should be run like a business. At first glance, this idea seems efficient. Businesses focus on profits, innovation, and cutting costs; qualities that many believe governments lack. But this analogy falls apart upon closer scrutiny, especially when it comes to addressing societal needs.

We know that in a business, underperforming employees are simply fired. “Great” companies often replace as much as 20% of their workforce annually to stay “fresh.” This process is celebrated as a driver of innovation and success. But in a country, where do those fired and the 20% go? Unlike a business, a government cannot discard its citizens. The unemployed, underemployed, or otherwise “unproductive” individuals remain part of society. They are not someone else’s problem; they are ours.

When a government adopts a business-first approach, it risks reducing citizens to mere economic units. Businesses prioritize shareholders, but governments must prioritize people. The two goals are fundamentally incompatible. This would be fine if we had UBI (Universal Basic Income) that ensures the dignity of a livable life for all; then the country can be run as a business.

In Argentina under Javier Milei, the consequences of radical austerity measures are becoming increasingly clear. Similar to proposals in the U.S. under Donald Trump, Milei's government has taken steps to truncate social security, healthcare, and welfare systems, leaving millions without a safety net. These cuts are justified under the guise of "efficiency" and "fiscal responsibility," but they have created a system where the homeless, under-employed, unemployed, and poor are treated as mere casualties; collateral damage in a soulless economic machine.

This is not an isolated phenomenon. And no, this is not short-term pain for long-term gain; it is short-term oligarch massive gains with long-term human suffering. Countries around the world have implemented austerity measures in the wake of financial crises, often with devastating results:

• Greece: Following the global financial crisis of 2008, Greece imposed harsh austerity measures as part of its bailout agreements with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. Public sector wages and pensions were slashed, taxes were raised, and essential services were reduced. The result? A decade of economic stagnation, skyrocketing unemployment, and widespread poverty. Families relied on food banks, youth unemployment exceeded 50%, and many Greeks fled the country in search of opportunities abroad.

• United Kingdom: After the 2008 crisis, the UK government pursued austerity under the slogan "living within our means." Public spending cuts hit welfare programs, housing benefits, and local councils, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable. Reports linked austerity to rising homelessness, food insecurity, and even increased deaths attributed to underfunded healthcare and social services. The Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, a tragedy partly blamed on cost-cutting measures, became a haunting symbol of austerity’s human cost.

• Germany: Despite being an economic powerhouse, Germany's austerity model (rooted in the Schuldenbremse (debt brake) policy) prioritized fiscal discipline over-investment in infrastructure and public services. While the policy helped keep Germany’s economy stable, it also left the country with aging infrastructure, underfunded schools, and inadequate digital infrastructure, hindering long-term growth and exacerbating inequality.

• Spain: Spain implemented austerity measures similar to Greece, including cuts to healthcare and education. These measures led to widespread unemployment and a generation of young Spaniards labelled the ni-ni ("neither studying nor working"), unable to find work or afford education. Social unrest and protests became common as citizens bore the brunt of policies designed to appease oligarchs rather than address domestic inequality.

The examples from Greece, the UK, Germany, and Spain reveal strikingly similar patterns:

1. Disproportionate Impact on the Vulnerable: Austerity measures often target welfare, healthcare, and pensions—services that are lifelines for the poor, elderly, and unemployed.

2. Short-Term Savings, Long-Term Costs: While austerity may reduce deficits in the short term, it often leaves countries with deeper structural issues, such as inequality, underinvestment in public goods, and social unrest.

3. Erosion of Trust: Citizens lose faith in governments that prioritize creditors and investors over their own people. This disillusionment can fuel populism and extremism, as seen in countries like Greece, the UK and Brexit, Germany and the rise of the hard-right parties.

In Argentina, in a short 12 months, the truncation of social programs has led to skyrocketing demand for soup kitchens and shelters. The poor, underemployed, and unemployed are no longer seen as citizens with equal rights but as expendable liabilities. The echoes of austerity’s failures in Greece, the UK, and Spain should serve as a warning: when governments prioritize economic metrics over human well-being, the consequences are catastrophic and long-lasting.

GDP is often touted as the ultimate measure of a nation’s success, but this metric is profoundly flawed. It measures economic activity but does not account for how wealth is distributed or whether it enhances people's quality of life. For example, GDP can grow while inequality widens, wages stagnate, and access to essential services declines.

Consider Argentina. Amid Milei's austerity policies, GDP may stabilize, but at what cost? Subsidy cuts, price deregulation, and the devaluation of the peso have driven up the cost of living for ordinary citizens (rather than dealing with the real source, oligarch behaviour and corruption). Economic stability for global investors and creditors has come at the expense of millions who can no longer afford basic necessities.

Economic stability, touted as a virtue, often masks the pain of those at the bottom. Inflation might decrease, but if it’s achieved by slashing social programs or removing subsidies for food and fuel, the human toll becomes unbearable. These policies may balance a government’s budget, but they destroy the social fabric that holds communities together.

The true cost of prioritizing economic metrics is borne by the people. Poverty doesn’t just mean fewer resources; it means a collapse of dignity, security, and opportunity. As poverty levels rise, so do hunger, homelessness, and preventable diseases.

The psychological impact is equally devastating. Families forced to choose between paying rent and buying food face constant stress. In Argentina, the number of people relying on soup kitchens has soared. Meanwhile, unemployment rises, children drop out of school, and social unrest brews.

Governments that ignore these consequences erode trust in institutions. Citizens begin to see their leaders as out of touch, catering to foreign creditors and global markets while neglecting their own people. This disillusionment fuels the rise of populist and authoritarian leaders, who exploit these frustrations for political gain.

Governance must focus on human well-being, not just economic numbers. This requires adopting new ways to measure progress. Metrics like the Human Development Index (HDI), the Happiness Index, or the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) provide a more comprehensive view of societal health by considering factors like education, life expectancy, and income equality.

Economic stability is important, but it should serve as a foundation for improving lives, not as an end in itself. Governments can balance fiscal responsibility with social investment by prioritizing universal basic services like healthcare, education, and housing. Policies should focus on ensuring that the benefits of economic growth are widely shared, rather than concentrated in the hands of a few.

Economic metrics are tools, not goals. A government that forgets this is failing its people. Citizens are not employees who can be discarded or replaced in the name of efficiency; they are the very reason governments exist.

True leadership lies in balancing economic stability with the well-being of all citizens. As we face a world increasingly shaped by economic crises and inequality, it’s time to redefine what success means. Governments must be held accountable, not for their GDP figures, but for the dignity, equity, and happiness of their people. Anything less is not governance; it’s negligence.