In all seriousness, I doubt the joint bid will succeed given FIFA's recent history of allowing enticement$ to make the decision for them (hence Qatar 2022).
FIFA is, as you may know, currently entertaining bids for 2026 - the choice for which won't be announced until almost two years from now (my guess would be Canada, although the Australia/New Zealand joint bid looks good too). Accordingly, the selection process for the '30 games won't be until 2021 or so - by which time Macri will probably, and I dare say thankfully, no longer be in office.
The choice of an Argentine/Uruguayan joint bid is compelling in that, as the article mentioned, 2030 is the centennial of the very first FIFA World Cup - held (and won) by Uruguay in 1930. Of course, given the scale and costs of a modern World Cup it would be almost impossible for Uruguay - Latin America's least populous country - to host the tournament alone. Which is where Argentina comes in.
Argentina, you'll recall, already hosted a World Cup in 1978 (which, although closely associated with the dictatorship, was actually awarded to Argentina during Juan Perón's brief last presidency in 1974). The country has a lot more infrastructure today - both public and private - than it did in 1978, and would be more than ready to host the championship even if it were held there in 2018. Uruguay is likewise ready for its share of the hosting duties should the joint bid succeed.
I should note however that Athens had been thought of as the clear favorite to be chosen as host of the 1996 Olympics - and for the same reason Uruguay is for the 2030 World Cup: because '96 was the centennial of the first modern Olympics (held in Athens in 1896).
But as we all now know, Atlanta was chosen because history and symbolism were trumped by (wouldn't you know it) enticement$ - and the IOC's Samaranch was squeaky clean compared to today's FIFA. So will the World Cup centennial be handled like the Olympics centennial? Your guess is as good as mine.
= new reply since forum marked as read