Ezequiel Burgo
07/11/2021 10:08
Clarín.com
Economy
Updated 07/11/2021 10:08
Close to the toughest economic wing of
Kirchnerism they
speak that
the agreement with the IMF "has" to be closed
. Even the word "imminent" rang out, although it is known that this is impossible because the technical times do not give. They do believe (or at least that is what they say) that Argentina has no chance of reaching 2023 without a program with the IMF, discarding the hypothesis that Kirchnerism leads the country to a
model of 'arrears'
or
raids
with the body, a scheme that Argentina experienced in the eighties and even poorer countries until recently. Weeks ago Kristalina Georgieva greeted Sudan by regularizing its debt, saying that it is the first time since 1974 that no member of the body is a delinquent debtor.
Argentina could break that mark if it gets up from its chair and doesn't sign with the IMF. However close to Kicillof they believe that it would be a mistake. They also say that it would be wrong to commit to reducing the fiscal deficit at a speed like that promoted by Guzmán in the first half of the year:
in five months he almost eliminated the red from the state
. They believe that it is not only a question of macroeconomic malpractice but a look at the wrong economy for the challenges that come in Argentina. They do not agree with the thesis of economists such as Emmanuel Alvarez Agis (former member of that group), that Guzmán makes an anti-cyclical or
Keynesian policy
because it saves in this moment of exit of the pandemic.
They believe that withdrawing stimulus now is risky as confirmed by industry data that fell 5% in May compared to April.
"We seem like the irrationals of macroeconomics,"
they self-perceive.
They know Guzmán cornered them, making them fiscally expansive and politically non-progressive for supporting subsidies.
In La Cámpora they admit that the IMF aid would serve to give certainty about the payment of the debt and anchor the dollar, the gap and the reserves.
There is fear of another flash.
"The reaction of the people is understandable
.
"
As Cristina said, the dollar is neither left nor right.
But if they agree with Argentina going to the IMF, before or after the elections, with a more or less harsh program, why wasn't it done before?
Why was the organization delayed and vilified with the speeches of Fernanda Vallejos?
Many interpret that behind these attacks there are gestures and speeches typical of the negotiations.
Even
patterns
.
The last times that Guzmán met with Kristalina Georgieva, Kirchnerism attacked the IMF.
It happened on March 24 when I was in Washington and Cristina Kirchner gave a speech in Las Flores (“We can't pay the debt, we don't have money”).
And now last Thursday (Guzmán in Italy and Máximo Kirchner asking the opposition "Do you think we can pay?").
Kirchnerism claims to have a strong argument in the negotiations.
"They turned a record credit to Macri to win the elections and now we want equal treatment
.
"
The IMF would be receptive to that point.
By statute, it cannot extend the debt repayment terms (US $ 47,000 million), but it can be flexible to the calibration of the model or program, that is, accept that Argentina lower the fiscal deficit less quickly than perhaps was intended.
"The IMF will accept it," says a source familiar with the negotiations from New York.
"You can sign a more flexible agreement, as long as it is serious
.
"
The economist Miguel Angel Broda gave an outline of the fiscal path for the year.
He put numbers to what Santiago Cafiero, head of the Cabinet, announced in Congress this week: an increase in spending is coming for the elections.
Guzmán increased public spending 29.5% in the first five months.
Broda estimates that it will rise 53.7% through December.
The deficit, which narrowed 91.4% until May, will expand 58%.
We will have to see how the Government returns to the IMF and
backs down
.
Will it be like with
classes
and
vaccinations
?
It is not a minor issue, either before or after the elections.
In August 1989, the consultant Orlando Ferreres, who until recently had been head of the Center for Economic Studies at Bunge & Born, was a member of Carlos Menem's economic team.
In Congress, he argued point by point why a law should be passed to eliminate industrial promotion regimes, to approve the privatization of public services and the liquidation of provincial banks.
All in one session.
"Orlando, all I ask is that you don't end our myths in a single afternoon
," Guido Di Tella, then a deputy, told him.
Two months ago the official dollar gap and the financial one had reached 130%.
Cristina Kirchner wanted to return to the IMF in 2009 after losing the legislative elections.
After the bad electoral result, he changed the Minister of Economy.
Carlos Fernández left and Amado Boudou entered, who took a plane to the
IMF
and negotiated an agenda whose roadmap was to
settle with the holdouts, pay the Paris Club, the ICSID trials and write an article IV
.
But the play did not come out.
It is that an action is to say that a program will be made with the IMF, to meet with Georgieva or Janet Yellen.
But then the IMF request will come to
unify the dollar (devalue) and lower subsidies
.
Will Máximo do like Di Tella when the agreement reaches Congress no matter how much the economists around him tell him that the road is that way?