I feel like I covered that pretty well with the links I added? Argentina definitely stumbled in the early twentieth century, but were still in a decent position due to large immigration from Europe and early century gains to be a powerhouse economically. Then Peron took over, and over the next few decades he, and the puppets he put in power did many awful things, you really have to read about it if you haven't. He saw the middle class as politically dangerous and tried to surpress them; for example he fired thousands of university professors from every major university in the country. It was in the years following the Argentinian economy actually began to tank.
After Peron was finally expelled, there was an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging he caused, but sadly Peron was able to come back after a coup. Finally he died in the early the 70s and his wife took over, continue his legacy (for example she signed an order to kill leftists).
So it should be obvious at this point that Peron fucked everything up royally, and took a good economy and wrecked it. Then the US gets involved.
Operation Condor in part helped execute the overthrow of the wife, which would have been a good thing; except they replaced her with someone worse. After the coup, the courts were shut down, Congress disbanded, political parties barred. This was when the systematic state sponsored terrorism began in earnest, and the final nail in Argentina economically.
So at this point you either are convinced, or not; but I'm tired of doing your research for you. If you disagree, please include the relevant context to back it up, at least.
Argentina is an economic powerhouse of the region. A very rich country, with an enormity of poverty. Poverty in Argentina has run in cycles. Current events are really quite current and you can't pin them solely on events from the 70's. An easy place to start research would be
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_econ%C3%B3mica_y_sanita...
The current events are just the latest series of issues brought on by the Peron government of the 50s.
The crisis really started in the 50s, when Frondizi attempted "shock therapy" of the Argentinian economy. The government accepted massive loans from the IMF in a standby agreement that stipulated large changes to the country's domestic policies.
These IMF required changes were not politically popular and finally led to the resurgence in Peronism in the 70s (taken advantage of by Operation Condor). Between the 50s and 80s, Argentina would be unable to pay previous administration's debts, leading to further IMF loans with terms unacceptable to the populous, which then gave way to strikes and economic instability. The instability exacerbated the balance of payments problems of the economy, rinse, repeat.
Of course at least one administration tried to stop taking the IMF's "help," but due to the massive debt taken on by Frondizi, and the IMFs control of other international investment; trying to back away from the IMF after getting in bed with them would have destroyed the Argentinian economy just the same.
In the 80s this cycle gave way to neo-liberalism. Basically Menem (another Peronist) started allowing multinational corporations to snatch up the limited natural resources of Argentina. The deregulation of industry and international trade helped the economy in the short term; but didn't provide a long term revenue stream for the country (you can only sell natural resources once).
The 2000s were a brief respite to this economic crisis started decades before, driven by the IMF's unprecedented offer to restructure Argentina's debt and offer 70% discounts on their bonds. But sadly Argentina still has billions in foreign debt it owes, and so recovery would be slow. This led to multiple single term presidents in the 2010s. Finally leading to another Peronist being elected in 2019 (from the Justicialist Party, the largest faction within the Peronists) right before covid.
So, no the economic conditions of Argentina today aren't recent. The wiki page you linked even points out that the 2018 crisis started because of an inability to pay old debts, the problem didn't just start then.
It makes sense they'd elect a "minarchist" after having been failed repeatedly by their government (which was controlled by the IMF and US's respective foreign policies). Sadly I don't think Milei's shock therapy will work and better than Frondizi's, but time will tell.
So pray tell, how is it that Chile, which suffered the same sort of counterproductive and ultimately idiotic CIA meddling, ended up being a prosperous Latina American country after the decades passed? Argentina and a number of other states in the region suffered certain consequences of US intervention, sure, but it's idiotically simplistic to blame their complex multi-decade economic woes on this alone, while ignoring these same decades of leftist populism, corruption in general and government mismanagement and all its consequences.
If anything, the boogeyman of the CIA/military industrial complex has been a persistently convenient, singular scapegoat of ideologically charged arguments for such failures for far too long, and it's ridiculous that some people who should know better with more modern evidence continue to take it so seriously.
Chile's a very weird country, economically speaking - I don't think it's a good point of comparison.
I sort of sympathize with your thinking, but at the same time, the problem with foreign intervention, even the subtle kind, is it distorts a nation's political structure by creating client elites that have part of their power base outside of the nation. These client elites then have a power base that waxes and wanes according to the current disposition of the foreign power, so you tend to get very chaotic politics, even if the investment of the foreign power is somewhat small. You have to remember it's not just spooks - it's also an entire ecosystem of people trained in US universities, working for US companies, or even, benefiting from a US-oriented Argentina.
It's a fairly natural consequence of the US being such a big economy, and it's obviously going to create very unpredictable externalities for neighbors (drugs in Mexico, raw materials in Canada, etc).
After Peron was finally expelled, there was an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging he caused, but sadly Peron was able to come back after a coup. Finally he died in the early the 70s and his wife took over, continue his legacy (for example she signed an order to kill leftists).
So it should be obvious at this point that Peron fucked everything up royally, and took a good economy and wrecked it. Then the US gets involved.
Operation Condor in part helped execute the overthrow of the wife, which would have been a good thing; except they replaced her with someone worse. After the coup, the courts were shut down, Congress disbanded, political parties barred. This was when the systematic state sponsored terrorism began in earnest, and the final nail in Argentina economically.
So at this point you either are convinced, or not; but I'm tired of doing your research for you. If you disagree, please include the relevant context to back it up, at least.