-Wasn't the statement from Together for Change using the word "bomb" to describe the current economic situation too harsh?
-The statement is not harsh, it is realistic.
We have the duty as opposition to alert.
Regarding the word bomb, let's say that the adjective is relative.
We are not going to discuss a semantic issue.
What the table of Together for National Change did here was alert what is an open secret: when talking to the markets, public opinion in general, everyone knows that this economic situation is unsustainable and that it is only sustained in a transition that houses a super stocks like never before in history, the management of imports and the purchase by people of foreign exchange insurance and not Treasury bonds to protect themselves from a 100% gap and a devaluation when there are less than $5 billion in net reserves.
Economic policy decisions are not a matter of law,
Like the future dollar that Cristina Kirchner was accused of, in my opinion it is not a crime, but it is an economic policy malpractice because it goes against the intention of getting out of this trap that is the Kirchnerist model.
If you want to continue in the same set of K rules, obviously you can continue then and have another ten years of stagflation.
- The Vice Minister of the Economy, Gabriel Rubinstein, mentioned you, wondering why they don't all look for a budget without a primary fiscal deficit. What do you think?
Why don't you do it now?
Right now?
Why wait for the government to change?
Why not close the gap already?
They are waiting for the bomb to explode in the hands of the next government and it is a sign of government weakness to ask the opposition to govern.
-Is it true that the opposition does not help?
- Last year Rubinstein led the budget project with a deficit and we approved it.
We warned that the program was unsustainable because it implied a level of local debt issuance disproportionate to the size of the domestic market.
Even so, we gave the credit to the Government.
- Cristina Kirchner's former Vice Minister of Economy, Emmanuel Alvarez Agis, said that you are trying to make the government have a financial crisis.
- On the contrary.
We want to minimize the financial crisis that the Government is brewing.
We voted for the agreement with the IMF when Máximo Kirchner did not vote for it and said that it must be blown up.
We voted on the Budget.
What more responsibility can you ask for?
Alvarez Agis talks about the 2019 bullfight after the PASO.
I was not in the Executive Branch at that time, but it was Kirchnerism that forced Juntos to put the stocks on and reshape the debt, thus avoiding doing the dirty work that they did not want to do.
Today we can only tell the truth because to remain silent would be to endorse what they are doing.
- And what are they doing?
- Gesture a future crisis.
To be silent is to be complicit in the crisis that Argentines are going to inherit after having given the Government a lot of credit.
- What should the government face?
- A real correction in the public accounts, reduce the exchange rate gap and generate more exports.
- Almost nothing...
- It's changing the model.
The current model is out of stock
- Your outlook does not look very auspicious.
- The way the government is going, there is no chance that it will stabilize the situation.
Today we are in June 2022, before Martín Guzmán left, and that crisis broke out in the Government.
-But Massa is not Guzmán...
- No. The bomb is now being left to the Argentine people and what you have to do is reduce it.
What we see is a government that instead of shortening the bomb, is enlarging it.
One wishes not to pay the consequences for malpractice but the consequences are inevitable.
The problem is that the model is out of stock and no one dares to say the fatal phrase "the king is naked".
- Is the debt in pesos a problem?
- It is a lie that the debt is in pesos.
They issue dual bonds, tied to the dollar or inflation.
Here it is not a question of debt in pesos or dollars, but rather they are granting exchange insurance.
Logical, companies need to cover more and more devaluation risk, with a gap of 100% and a trap that they want us to believe: that all this is maintained and in this way that the Government moves away from these problems.
- Did the government invite you to talk?
- No.
- Does the program with the IMF help?
- The IMF acts in a contemplative manner and in my opinion without too much conviction about where this government is going.
But he accompanies him because he has a duty of assistance and is focused on him.
