The Ministry of Economy of the Nation reported that in February of this year export duties were 56% lower than those of February of last year. As the item is linked to the payment of withholdings made by agricultural producers, sources from the Federal Administration of Public Revenues (Afip) informed the press that they interpreted this retraction as “speculative maneuvers” and “extortion” to force a new “soybean dollar”.
“We are analyzing what measures we can take, because we are convinced that they want to put pressure on us,” said the Afip sources.
Officials admit that the “dollar soybean 1 and 2” plans generated, in practice, an advance of part of the settlement that usually occurs in the first months of the year. But, at the same time, they ensure that the level of cereal retention is above what is usual for this time. They are based on satellite and drone images to conjecture that there would be a significant stock of cereals stored in silobags.
The “soybean dollar” was a bad economic policy decision: on the one hand, to increase the reserves of the Central Bank, it implied buying a scarce product (dollar) from exporters that was then sold cheaply to importers; On the other hand, the measure caused distortions in other chains of the agricultural sector, by altering the value of soybeans.
All in all, if the government did not do it once but twice, and now it has just announced the next launch of the “malbec dollar”, why wouldn’t it be expected to do it again, be it for soybeans or for other products? from exportation?
Above all because the Central continues to need dollars and the Treasury lacks pesos: in real terms –that is, adjusted for inflation–, in the first two months of the year tax collection fell by more than 6%. That feeds the deficit of an administration that is not willing to reduce its expenses.
In this context, the Afip officials who spoke to the media, reserving their identity, instead of fantasizing about alleged sectoral extortion plans should redouble their efforts to prosecute those who evade taxes.
Every producer has the full right to decide what is the most propitious moment to sell or preserve his stock. The State cannot force it; neither, feed suspicions about the political sense that this decision would have.
In addition, with the “soybean dollar” the Ministry of Economy conclusively verified that there is no lack of dollars, but rather favorable conditions for the liquidation of dollars in the official market. Is not the same. For this reason, he now promises a similar scheme for wine producers and other regional economies.
In other words, as long as the government continues to postpone the implementation of a macroeconomic stabilization program and continues to cling to its failed model of exchange rate delay, the stocks against the dollar, high inflation, exorbitant issuance, permanent deficit, and low level of trade with the world. , producers will continue to sell the minimum necessary to protect their capital.
In the private economy, political voluntarism does not rule.