The Double Standard of Argentine Business Leaders: The Mercado Libre Case and the Hypocrisy of Selective Deregulation

In Argentina, many business leaders present themselves as staunch defenders of competition, efficiency, and free markets. They argue that the state must withdraw, cut taxes, loosen regulations, and allow the market’s dynamism to organize the economy. However, when those same market rules start working against them, many of these actors demand protectionism, state intervention, and barriers against their competitors. This double discourse becomes particularly evident in the case of Mercado Libre, the flagship company of Argentina’s tech industry and one of the main beneficiaries of pro-market policies in recent years.

Marcos Galperin, Mercado Libre’s founder, was one of the businessmen who publicly supported Javier Milei’s presidential campaign, praising his promise to deregulate markets, open the economy, and limit state interference. That support was presented as a defense of real competition, free of obstacles or privileges. Yet, only a few months later, the company’s stance has shifted: it now demands that the government regulate and restrict the influx of products from Chinese platforms such as AliExpress, Temu, or Shein, which offer extremely low-priced items with efficient logistics.

Juan Martín de la Serna, president of Mercado Libre in Argentina, declared that the “massive inflow of low-cost products from China creates unfair competition” and that “the market has been opened indiscriminately.” He argued that this situation threatens small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which account for around 90% of Mercado Libre’s sales volume. In other words, the company defends free markets—as long as that freedom does not undermine its dominance or commercial interests.

This case exposes a recurring characteristic of the Argentine business class: the promotion of a customized form of capitalism. They demand economic openness when it comes to entering new markets, accessing international financing, or reducing labor costs. But when competition comes from abroad—especially from more efficient players with superior logistics—their rhetoric shifts. It is no longer about free markets but about “unfair competition,” “dumping,” or the “protection of national industry.”

This also reveals a deeper structural issue: the lack of a true culture of competition. Many Argentine business groups do not compete by improving, innovating, or lowering costs; instead, they compete by securing privileged positions. They do not prepare to compete globally but rather to win state favors, obtain tax advantages, and regulate competitors to their benefit. In this context, the state is not viewed as a neutral referee but as a tool to be used when convenient.

Mercado Libre, which has grown thanks to special tax conditions, technological incentives, and a friendly regulatory ecosystem, is now asking for protection against the threat of Asian platforms. This does not mean ignoring the challenges these platforms pose for local SMEs or minimizing the impact of ultra-cheap imported products. But it does expose the contradiction: those who advocated for total openness now selectively demand the market be closed.

The real debate is not whether the economy should be open or closed, but rather who decides when to open it and for whom. Whether the free market is a genuine principle or just a rhetorical resource. And above all, whether Argentine business leaders are willing to truly compete—or if they only defend freedom when it benefits them and call for protection when it puts them at risk.

This episode highlights a deep-rooted hypocrisy in much of the Argentine private sector: the goal is not a free market, but a favorable one. And as long as this logic prevails, Argentina will struggle to build an economy based on genuine competition rather than short-term convenience.