The technological processes of Argentine agriculture, from the most basic to the most sophisticated, are first-rate. But state pressure takes away power and harms the development of the entire economy.
La Rural always renews our energies and this time it left our batteries charged. the emotion of the meeting again, after three long, too long years. And what’s more, it fell in such a special moment, with the political and economic crisis, the charges against soybean and silobolsa “speculators” imprisonedand the auction with the news of the appointment of Serge Massa as the new Minister of Economy, absorbing the Agriculture portfolio as well as the Production portfolio.
But here we are, with full batteries, ready for what’s to come. It is certainly no worse than what it is. But just in case, let’s review a bit and put things in their place.
Exporters, who keep track of the earnings in foreign currency, promptly reported that the transaction reached $ 3,200 million in July. And that so far this year the figure exceeds 22,000 million. They correspond to shipments of soybeans and their derivatives, mainly wheat and corn.
It should be remembered that soybeans pay 33% export duties (withholdings). Corn and wheat, 12%. A weighted average allows us to estimate it The government has captured about $ 5 billion from agriculture in these first seven months of the year. There are said to be 22 million tons of soybeans left unsold, which at today’s prices is $ 12 billion. A third is another 4,000. The total for the year would be close to $ 10,000 million.
The head of the Argentine Rural Society, opening the exhibition in Palermo, stated that in these twenty years, since the deductions were reset, the camp has contributed $ 130 billion. And that despite this, poverty has increased, practically nothing has been done in infrastructure, etc. etc. There is no point in dwelling on this.
But it is convenient to present the numbers in another way. Some of the official communicators, insisting on the attitude of the peasants to regulate their grain sales, urged him to say “Inside those silobags is people’s food”. Let’s analyze it a bit.
Grain production in Argentina reaches 140 million tons. According to the latest census, our population amounts to 47 million. That is, there is 3 tons of cereals per capita. Of that total, a third party is withheld from the Government: one thousand kilos per inhabitant.
A thousand kilos per inhabitant are 3 kilos a day. We assume that vegans are right and we can do without animal proteins, replacing them with vegetable proteins such as wheat gluten or soy flour. With 300 grams of cereals we have the ingredients to cover a person’s daily needs.
The government has ten times that amount. But he accuses the camp of skimming the food.
Gentlemen, the government catches that food, but it has neither the intention nor the ability to distribute it. It’s obscene. He prefers to make it silver.
We can say that people do not want to eat only cereal derivatives. You want animal protein. They cost more, it’s true. A chicken consumes 3 kilos of grains. Also, With those 3 kilos each we could subsidize the 47 million Argentines with a kilo of chicken a day.. But it turns out that those 3 kilos are not there, because the government sold them and used the money for something else.
The aggravation is that this mechanism of “three loaded ships, one sunk” is what hinders the growth of production. Because instead of 3 kilos per day and per inhabitant, we should be at 5 or 6 kilos.
Retentions reduce production. Retail surface sown, since the areas far from the ports have negative margins. And for technological downsizingbecause inputs (technology) are paid for with a dollar 50% more than what was received for soybeans.
These are familiar things. But we are facing an economic change of management, and it may be convenient to draw the attention of the new minister to this point. Many will say it’s not worth it. But I already warned you: I’m full of energy, after Palermo. And it is worth insisting.
There are alternative mechanisms that are much more plausible than the ease of export duties, which they charge easily but damage a lot. We are facing a new agricultural campaign. Maybe it’s time to try something else.
Hector Huergo
Source: Clarin