That had foreseen the 100-year obligation and the 13 economic realities that could be avoided?

All we have in mind was planned by the President Mauricio Macri and his firm and nothing they did to change the situation. This follows from documents published by the government and transmitted to the financial systemthat, in his mathematical greed, he did not really care what happened, since Argentina always ends up paying more than they lend.

In Schedule II of the 100-year loan issued in June 2017 Certain economic realities have been shown, which seems to surprise them today and which falsely claim that they could not have foreseen:

1. That there is uncertainty and risk for the economic future, due to inflation and the volatility of the exchange system.
2. Economic growth and reduced reserves of the central bank may be less important.
3. That there could be a reduction in foreign investment, which would deprive Argentina of the capital needed for economic growth.
4. There could be international hostilities and political uncertainty regarding the 2017 elections.
5. There could be political, social and economic instability in the future.
6. The government can not guarantee the impacts caused by the measures implemented in the country.
7. The increase in public spending can have a significant adverse effect and long-term negative consequences on Argentina's economic outlook.
8. The government is unaware of the results of the measures implemented in the energy sector and their impact.
9. The risk of not adequately addressing the actual risks of deteriorating institutions may be detrimental to Argentina's economy and financial situation.
10. Fluctuations in the peso can hurt the Argentine economy and the ability to meet the country's obligations.
11. There can be no guarantee that Argentina can obtain financing, which may determine that the public debt and the bonds can not be paid.
12. We can not guarantee that Argentina's credit rating will improve.
13. Argentina's ability to obtain financing may be affected by pending litigation.

The latter indicates that this issue has not yet been resolved despite repeated statements to the contrary, because lawsuits are still pending in the United States and there are many creditors with whom no agreement has been reached. by their shares, they can hinder the payment of bonds issued.

How can you talk about unforeseen problems or the fact that STEP triggered the debacle? Or was it deliberately hidden from the citizens what they knew about to happen and then tried to justify the help of the IMF and other multilateral organizations such as the IDB? and the World Bank, with the return of policies of adjustment and conditioning the economy to the decisions of these bodies of sad memory for all Argentines?

It is not a coincidence that in the report of Article IV of December 2017 the IMF clarified what Argentina should do and that these recommendations were a fundamental part of the agreement reached last year and that, even if the government had not duly explained it , This is very well explained in an IMF report on Argentina that has 129 pages and that the authorities have not made public.

What has the opposition, beyond the questions of the media and the dialectical literature that they cultivate?

• He authorized Macri to all the debts of the vulture payment, until the last bond issue;
• He silenced the possibility of asking the Central Bank for explanations for his senseless way of managing reserves and sending letters at huge rates;
• He never wanted to change the law on financial administration, to prevent the government from borrowing from the IMF without going through Congress;
• The debt managers of the administration and the Central Bank have never been challenged before Parliament. The bicameral Commission for Debt Monitoring chaired by the justicialist José Miguel Ángel Mayans has almost never met.

These are realities that are difficult to accept, but that are evidence of shared responsibilities and not facing an adventurous government that has brought Argentina to the situation in which we live. Although it seems bad, those who pay the consequences are always those who live in poverty. The parliamentary opposition has the resources to live without these serious problems that confront it. And pointing this out is not cultivating the two demons, but showing the realities that many refuse to see.