During his visit to the Ámbito Financierou, Pinedo said that "the last year" was the birth of the second round against the pants. "He is convinced that Argentina has" stagnant for seven years and trying to lay a solid foundation for sustainable growth. "
As for the next election, he believed that if Cristine's chance had been raised by Cambiemos's chance, he emphasized that if the former president "decided not to compete, the Argentine economy would be better".
Journalist: How do you see the economy now when the campaign starts?
Federico Pinedo: In 2015, the president knew he had to look for stability in Argentina in economic matters, and all numbers were facing upside down, trying to make a long way, which is smooth, but he must work well because if you go wrong, at some point along a long way you can fall on the floor. And this happened last year when the loan fell by one hundred percent when the loan to developing countries jumped from $ 100 billion to $ 7 billion, and Argentina had 25% of that, so the hit was huge. At that time, the president had to speed up the search for equilibriums with very high social and economic costs, but he decided not to do demagogy and do what he has to do to deal with the costs. Therefore, he decided to end the major sources of inflation and the recession of Argentina, which is a fiscal deficit, that we have to take a cure in one gut and make for six months what we had to do in three years, and a monetary issue that opted for a severity mechanism that would bring the fruits, though it still costs to be reflected in everyday life. We combine the exit of this Infantry with Inflammation and the Inflating Out of Government's main goal in the balance between growth and inflation that is always difficult to find, and now we are in the worst times with Argentina's Stagnira for seven years and we are trying to lay a solid foundation for starting a sustainable growth.
Q: At some point before the election, some good news should appear, where can this be?
F. P. When you do good things, do good; And when you do everything wrong, you're doing the wrong thing. We do many things that are good. The principle does not cost you more than you have is a firm management principle and the reduction of inflation with monetary seriousness makes us also relevant and from there, Argentina has the dynamics and reaction capacity much higher than in other countries. It has already made Argentina go out of a very bad time, reacting strongly. And when things are ordered, it will be repeated.
Q: What do you think about inflation, do you think undercutting has occurred?
F. P. I think there was a split between the inflation target that we had and the need to raise some prices, such as the dollar and tariffs, which were completely delayed, and if they increased, they would generate a change in the functioning of the price system. In a monopolized economy like the Argentine, there is what is called structural inflation, as old master Julio H.G. Oliver said, and this makes it more difficult to go out. There was a separation of inflation targeting goals and that Argentina did not lose the energy it had to raise the rate that had the exchange rate cut off, which was greatly increased by the devaluation of one hundred percent last year, which has obviously resulted in high inflation has reached 47%. These differences have produced a result less well than expected at the beginning, and then there is a crisis that is not within the economic program, but the external phenomenon is very dramatic and you have to face it, even if you have to face the cost.
Q: Was it a mistake for Aranguren to have autonomy to establish a tariff policy without coordination with the rest of the economic team?
F. P. I do not think it was a mistake, that was something that had to be done. It was something that two years before 2015 Kirchner wanted to do, and then they did not live according to this and said "Let's fix the next", which finally happened. It was dramatically what happened to Argentina that had charged energy prices that amounted to 10% of the cost of energy production, and eventually exploded with the whole air. What Macri did in the first two years was to try to avoid the explosion and succeeded. Regarding coordination, there was co-ordination whose president was president who did not delegate management to one person, and co-ordination was carried out on a daily basis, the Central Bank did not go because it was on its side to respect its independence, but the management of economy and energy took place in the day table. There may have been differences in speeds between the central and those who have managed energy prices or the deficit problem, but the president defends the independence of the Central Bank.
Q: Are everyone in the Change all the same about these big issues?
F. P. Independence of the Central Bank is very important, and now the government has sent a project to strengthen this independence. Until there is an institution that takes care of argentine bodies, we do not have a destination. The great challenge for Argentinians of this time is to build a coin back, to have a coin. This requires seriousness and trust, which is a multiparty task. The role of the Central in this is vital.
Q. Thinking about the greater options for changes in the election, do you prefer the opposition to be Cristina or anyone else?
F. P. I think it's possible for Cristina to respond to the change; in Argentina, no. It seems to me that there is an unusual phenomenon that generates positive outcomes from all crises and is difficult to create with uncertainty as to whether Kirhnerism returns. So, curious if Cristina decided not to compete, the Argentine economy would be better.
Q: Is there a change in self-criticism before the possibility of Cristina becoming an optional option with chances?
F. P. Argentina was a disaster if it went its way, and Macri was not in the middle, flying in the air in 2016, as was the case in 1989 with hyperinflation almost certainly, and this is a phenomenal destruction of the social base of the country. I would avoid thinking of self-criticism.
Q: The question is in the sense that Cristina appears in surveys with the intent to vote …
F. P. Yes, there can be self-criticisms, especially if you are comparing with perfection, you will always work self-criticism. If we were perfect, we would do better, but I think we did what we had to do to have a viable land, we need to stabilize. You must be able to produce in Argentina and there must be conditions for predictability and institutions, which we have to do in the Government. Can we do something that he thought about keeping the election of Argentina without a destination? Moreover, the president could now start giving money to win the elections, but Argentina would not have a destination.
Q: Radicals seek postponement of rate increase …
F. P. The rise in gas prices over time has shrunk, which means that it will be less sticking in your pocket and lowering inflation. Then you will have to keep up with the price increase, which will, to the extent that it decreases, rates also grow less.
Q: Let's suppose Macri wins in the elections, how do you see that he is starting a new presidency?
F. P. I think the next four years must be a year of growth. In addition, what will ultimately make Argentina balanced is growth. I think Argentina will have a lot more infrastructure, which will have more markets, I want it to have monetary stability, Argentina without a fiscal deficit, Argentina that exports much more. I see much more productive Argentina and see other fundamental changes with lesser mobsters, a stronger security base, less monopolistic gangsters, types that have kiosks in ports, transport, unions, building and preventing. that Argentina is growing. I see Argentina more productive and more tied to the law. With currency and without inflation, it should grow steadily.
Q: (L) In the case of elections, should we rethink politically?
F. P. There is an election campaign ahead of the election, in which is actually a moment where different candidates speak to people who are not interested in politics, and that is what we have to do besides management. Now Cambiemos has to think about the country's national project, and in that sense must seek an agreement with the democratic forces of our alternative to build the foundations for growth.
Q: (L) What is the job you did with the Senate?
F. P. When we arrived at the government, we had 15 senators from 72. We made many agreements and laws. I think the Argentine political system has shown it is in a position to do a good job together. I have a lot of respect and gratitude for our constructive opposition, then we have another opposition that is destructive. We point out that the political system can work out of place where it is good news for Argentina that I do not know whether the markets, as Liberals say, appreciated enough. For example, the agreement of the president with fiscal governors to reduce the annual tax rate for five years, or zero deficit, are very relevant agreements.
Q: What is destructive opposition?
F. P. Those who want to rule go bad. They are happy when Argentina is doing badly. We have never been like this when Cristina opened congressional sessions and when we opposed her, and when she said something that seemed good to the ground, we liked her, not like this year, some characters who insulted the president, something I was never seen. This destructive opposition is bad for the country.
Q: Are you worried about split Argentina?
F. P. When Argentina was divided, it had more energy in destruction than in construction. Besides, everyone knows it is much easier to destroy than build. And there were a few moments of arguing Argentina, intolerant against an opponent, disqualifying opponents to a point that does not deserve the rights, or who wins in the election, but does not recognize him as a democratic ruler, the disqualified and destructive Argentine when it was what it was generating. That was either destruction and misery. We moved from the country socially very integrated to the greatest horror. There is no point in insisting on that path, no matter how politely it is. There are people who have the ideology of destruction, there are some theorists who believe there is still a division, I know two, one adviser to Kirchner (Ernesta) Laclau (passed away on April 13, 2014), and the other is Steve Bannon, Trump's counselor, they say you have to divide and destroy, and I believe that democracy is a building system.
P: Senate has a project of political financing but continues with a lot of discussion …
F. P. 35 changes in the project appear to have taken place, and there have been some things that were introduced at the last minute and were very conflicting and there was no agreement. Finally there was a debate and now there is a minority opinion that has gathered all the major positions and will be discussed on April 16th. Follow the difference in relation to one point that the unions may or may not contribute, so another opinion is signed.
Q: Is there any other means of digital media?
F. P. We have talked a lot and found that funds of national origin and intended for digital advertising would be determined in the law to be distributed.