Massa: On the record

After

his talk at the Wilson Center, Renewal Front leader Sergio Massa gave an interview to the Times and other news organisations.

While Massa, who discussed his Peronist “alternative for Argentina” fledgling grouping, said he hadn’t decided whether he would stand as a presidential candidate for next year’s election, his mannerisms, declarations and even, what he avoided saying, seemed to indicate otherwise.

In this interview, the opposition leader gives a more in-depth view of his political project and offers his opinions on Argentina’s economy and the government’s agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Can you expand on your ideas about the importance of value-added exports, that you discussed in your speech?

This is an issue of creating jobs more than anything. I also have talked about transforming social and employment programmes and tackling informal labour.

I think Argentina’s most pressing problem now is that there isn’t a culture of work or serious programme in any political or economic project.

You were very hard on the IMF in your speech, an issue that here in Washington can cause resentment.

Clearly, between the Fund and the Argentines, I choose the Argentines. Whether I’m in Washington, in Milan or Rio de Janeiro. And you would renegotiate the terms?

First, we are going to take a look at what is the new memorandum. But basically, the general lines are known. No, because there was a change of goals. No.

It seems like you are evading answering the question because you aren’t saying what you would do, or reform, etc.

It is not [a] minor [thing], to see exactly what are the commitments the government made in the IMF agreement. Because it defines credit policy for investment, interest, etc. It represents exactly what the Central Bank can do to support this policy, and what is restricted by the agreement.

Also, the issue in itself is that Argentina shouldn’t have gone to the IMF, it should have made a massive offer to Argentines that have money abroad.

Isn’t that a bit naïve? To think that those Argentines would bring back their money, to have the confidence to do so?

If you were to issue a bond with good interest terms, without having to pay taxes, in addition to the blanqueo [whitewashing programme]. There’s not much of a mystery behind this. If you had gone to the people that whitewashed their money saying ‘I will pay this percentage;Iwon’tchargeyoutaxes but put it in your country.’ “[The IMF] is more expensive in other ways, in social terms.” But the IMF is generally cheaper. It’s more expensive in other ways, in social terms. A part of the loan is for social spending... Yes, it is tiny in terms of its budgetary impact, in a moment when Argentines are frustrated and discontented. Is the zero-fiscal-deficit policy bad?

No, it has to be an objective for all the governments. Now, it has to be accompanied by an export surplus. The balanced budget is only one view of Argentina’s economic reality. The GDP, monetary emission, plays a role in financial terms.

You know what the problem is with the Fund? We keep on looking to balance our budget and Argentina was doing well each time when it had a surplus in its trade, not the government budget. And it’s what sustains you better, and gives you more freedom with your budget.

Well, it could be going in that direction. With the depreciation, it gives you a competitive advantage that in the medium term could lead to that trade surplus.

But the problem that you have is that credit is very restricted because of our interest rate: 80 percent interest rates. When the state says it will pay you 80 percent interest rates, it’s doing that so that you won’t lose money