I'm not going to defend the Caputos and their "guiso" in Tierra del Fuego, but there can be reasons for the state to be present, offer subsidies or tax breaks, in areas where it doesn't make economic sense.
Quite a few countries have duty-free areas, Iquique in Chile, Manaus in Brazil (at least one of my iPhones came from there), Shannon in Ireland, to name a few, generally more remote areas where tax-free commerce and production can take place. One reason for these areas to exist is that the regions they serve would otherwise become depopulated, with younger people leaving in search of opportunity elsewhere.
A few days ago I saw an excellent article on why Aerolineas doesn't have to make a profit. As a national flag carrier, it has obligations to serve (again) remoter areas where it's not economic to fly, and where the LCCs won't go. It's part of what makes a nation, taking care of its citizens and guarding its frontiers by ensuring they're populated, even in the most far-flung areas (of which Argentina has a lot).
Just now, we're seeing how the province of Buenos Aires maintains rural schools in the Parana Delta, with all the necessary infrastructure from KG to secondary school, and even Interisleña "school buses". Otherwise, the delta would be largely depopulated.
Nothing I write should be understood as condoning excessive costs, but there is a more intelligent way to manage this than just stupidly taking a chainsaw to everything in sight.