According to Macri’s “famous” definition, Argentines have adjusted to living according to their “possibilities”, and the adjustment still does not work. Editorial of “El Círculo Rojo”, a program from La Izquierda Diario that is broadcast on Thursdays from 10 pm to 12 midnight on Radio Con Vos, 89.9.
- Since Mauricio Macri pronounced —far away and long ago— the famous phrase that said that “Argentines are used to living beyond their means” a lot of water passed under the bridge. His premise was that you had to lower the standard of living of the majorityhad have “adapt it” at “true” possibilities through rate increasefurther labor flexibility, less unions, less wages, less public spendingetc.
- This roadmap with greater freedom for investors and businessmen would cause the takeoff of the economythe reactivationthe investor rain which would generate, at the same time, a confidence shock and a offer level y production what would they do lower inflation and cover to Argentina in Dollars.
- Let’s see what happened. HE pensions were cutthe AUH and the wages: in between 2015 y 2022 los formal workers accumulated a 23.2% loss in its purchasing power; started a long time ago big rates in public services; HE agreed with the Monetary Fund a program in the terms that the Monetary Fund wanted; HE adjusted public spending exceeding the goals of the agreement. As always, I don’t want to overwhelm you with numbers, but the equation is easy to understand. He state benefits with the raises both of the prices in general as of the tariffsin particular because collect more: it’s not just him IVA (which is the most regressive tax of taxes), also services have taxes that increase directly proportional to the increase in prices and rates. While the disbursements (what the State spends) is cut out because neither salaries nor budgets increase proportionally to inflation.
- Another way of looking at it and I think that the data is valid here: taking as a parameter the baskets made by the indecwho they can not cover their basic needs they went from being the 28,6 % of the population in 2017 al 36,5 % in 2022. Those who could not even access a minimum feed they passed in turn from 6,2 % al 8,8 %. They live in the third basement of “its possibilities”.
- Which is the result? We have it in sight: inflation annual of close to 100%; the coffers of Banco Central on the verge of a nervous breakdown every day; and one economy between stagnation and the recession.
- How do you respond to these results? “Oh no, what happens is that lack adjustment”, and so in a vicious circle to Eternity. Missing a “true” stabilization plan” that strengthens the stabilization plan that now does not give results.
- In the commentary of the last program I spoke of the “ghost of menemization”, but even the current administration of the Front of All or the one that has to take charge of the the next year (everyone remains within the “adjustment consensus”) have bigger obstacles of those who had, for example, Carlos Menem.
- He Menem adjustment is presented as a “successful stabilization plan”. Y it was within your own parameters: at the cost of, as was said at the time, to finish until “grandma’s jewels”, savagely indebting the country and advancing on the structural rights of workersMenem achieved tame inflation and certain economic expansion for a few years (which is different from, and sometimes contrary to, development). This allowed him the 1995 re-electionFor example. Labor flexibility and state reform were their workhorses.
- What “advantages” did Menem have? Well, with the grandma jewelry (los strategic resources and services later privatized) and with a framework of labor and social rights historically conquered on which it could advance (82% mobile in national retirements, education and health, etc.).
- I noticed that the duhaldist adjustment (that of the years 2002-2003) based on the long recession who lived in the country since 1998was essentially “monetary”, that is, the devaluation what depreciated the salary. I want to say more limited.
- today in a argentina departurecon pulverized wages and lots lost achievements, 40% poverty, 35% labor informalityhay much less margin (in the law of large numbers) for the adjustment that everyone proclaims and no one meets the conditions to make it effective. Obviously, there is an important trade union network, social organizations, but in a much more Latin Americanized country there is less margin.
- For what reason? You can always be worse, but the social consequences would be extremely serious and the possible consequences political, unpredictable.
- This contradiction is what transforms, in the long run or in the short run, all in “moderate”: applicators of a increasingly chronic fit what hurts too much at majorities and it is never enough to take off the economy. That is to say, It doesn’t even work on its own terms.. The question would be, what if we try adjusting the adjusters?
Politics / Adjustment / Mauricio Macri / Menemism