The three questions and the certainty that Guzmán’s departure opens

The three questions and the certainty that Guzmán’s departure opens

Replacing a Minister of Economy, in Argentina, is always traumatic. With few exceptions, exits occur in complicated contexts, with society pressing for responses to critical situations. This time the pressure was, especially, inflation. The differences in diagnosis and economic policy decisions were multiple. In recent times, the questioning of the rigidity in Guzmán’s analysis multiplied exponentially. They held him responsible for the quagmire that had been reached, even by people who supported him for much of his management.

Now the President will have to decide more than a name: he must give a signal of what direction he will have the rest of his mandate. That signal is a demand of the market, of the businessmen, of the members of the coalition and, very especially, of the people who on Saturday watched the television screens in astonishment trying to understand something of what was happening. So the first question mark is much more than a name. What will happen from now on? That is the answer that the President should seek to answer.

The second point is the economic translation of the above: the dollar. Those of us who live in Argentina know very well that, in this country, the exchange rate is like a fever, because it is a symptom that alerts that things are not right. Adding more uncertainty to the already choppy financial market can become a complicated threat. We can use a metaphor: a spark would make a disaster.and. With the current levels of poverty, with wages losing purchasing power, with inflation at record levels in 30 years, a spiraling of the bullfight of recent weeks would only further aggravate the situation. and the lack of food on the tables of a large part of the population that no longer has enough for the basics. So Guzman’s replacement name isn’t just a name. It is a signal and, for that, time (and the dollar) runs relentlessly.

And the agreement with the IMF? Martín Guzmán was the architect, the worker and the guarantor of its implementation. Will Alberto Fernández continue to support what was signed? Will someone appear willing to implement the commitment assumed with the organization by an official questioned from all sectors of the coalition due to the form and content of what was signed? For that, unfortunately, there are no immediate answers. We will have to wait, again, for the signs.

All this complicated panorama leaves one certainty: the discussion around the economy stopped being economic a long time ago. It is politics that has the task of marking a path with some degree of certainty. And that is a task that not only falls to the President.

Source: Ambito

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts