Argentina

Latest story

163 Shares129 Views

Under Argentina’s New President, Fuel Is Up 60%, and Diaper Prices Have Doubled

by

Javier Milei warned that things would get worse before they got better. Now Argentines are living it.Over the past two weeks, the owner of a hip wine bar in Buenos Aires saw the price of beef soar 73 percent, while the zucchini he puts in salads rose 140 percent. An Uber driver paid 60 percent more to fill her tank. And a father said he spent twice as much on diapers for his toddler than he did last month.In Argentina, a country synonymous with galloping inflation, people are used to paying more for just about everything. But under the country’s new president, life is quickly becoming even more painful.When Javier Milei was elected president on Nov. 19, the country was already suffering under the world’s third-highest rate of inflation, with prices up 160 percent from a year before.But since Mr. Milei took office on Dec. 10 and quickly devalued the Argentine currency, prices have soared at such a dizzying pace that many in this South American country of 46 million are running new calculations on how their businesses or households can survive the far deeper economic crunch the country is already enduring.“Since Milei won, we’ve been worried all the time,” said Fernando González Galli, 36, a high school philosophy teacher in Buenos Aires.Mr. Galli has been trying to cut back without making life worse for his two daughters, who are 6 years and 18 months old, including switching to a cheaper brand of diapers and racing to spend his Argentine pesos before their value disintegrates even further. “As soon as I get my paycheck, I go buy everything I can,” he said.Since Javier Milei took office on Dec. 10 and quickly devalued the Argentine currency, prices have risen at a dizzying pace.Emiliano Lasalvia/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesNahuel Carbajo, 37, an owner of Naranjo Bar, a trendy Buenos Aires wine bar, said that like most Argentines, he had become accustomed to regular price increases, but this past week went far beyond what even he was used to.Since Mr. Milei won, the price for the premium steak that Mr. Carbajo serves soared 73 percent, to 14,580 pesos, or roughly $18, per kilogram, about 2.2 pounds; a five-kilogram box of zucchinis rose to 15,600 pesos from 6,500; and avocados cost 51 percent more than the beginning of this month.“There’s no way for salaries or people’s incomes to adapt at that speed,” Mr. Carbajo said.Mr. Milei’s spokesman, Manuel Adorni, said accelerating inflation was the inevitable consequence of finally fixing Argentina’s distorted economy.“We’ve been left with a multitude of problems and unresolved issues that we have to start addressing,” he said. “Inevitably, we will go through months of high inflation.”Mr. Milei has warned Argentines that his plans to shrink the government and remake the economy would hurt at first. “I prefer to tell you the uncomfortable truth rather than a comfortable lie,” he said in his inaugural address, adding this past week that he wanted to end the country’s “model of decline.”Argentina’s economy has been mired in crisis for years, with chronic inflation, rising poverty and a currency that has plunged in value. The economic turmoil paved the way to the presidency for Mr. Milei, a political outsider who had spent years as an economist and television pundit railing against what he called corrupt politicians who had destroyed the economy, often for personal gain.During the campaign, he vowed to take a chain saw to public spending and regulations, even wielding an actual chain saw at rallies.After Mr. Milei’s victory, price increases began accelerating in expectation of his new policies.Buying fruit and vegetables in Buenos Aires. Argentines suffer under the world’s third highest rate of inflation.Tomas Cuesta/ReutersThe previous leftist government had used complicated currency controls, consumer subsidies and other measures to inflate the peso’s official value and keep several key prices artificially low, including gas, transportation and electricity.Mr. Milei vowed to undo all that, and he has wasted little time.Two days after taking office, Mr. Milei began cutting government spending, including consumer subsidies. He also devalued the peso by 54 percent, putting the government’s exchange rate much closer to the market’s valuation of the peso.Economists said such measures were necessary to fix Argentina’s long-term financial problems. But they also brought short-term pain in the form of even faster inflation. Some analysts questioned the lack of adequate safety nets for the poorest Argentines.In November, prices rose 13 percent from October, according to government data. Analysts predict prices will increase another 25 percent to 30 percent this month. And from now until February, some economists are forecasting an 80 percent jump, according to Santiago Manoukian, the chief economist at Ecolatina, an economics consulting firm.The forecasts are partly caused by soaring gas prices, which increased 60 percent from Dec. 7 to Dec. 13, and have a trickle-down effect on the economy.The currency devaluation made imported products like coffee, electronic devices and gas immediately more expensive because they are priced in U.S. dollars. A monthly Netflix subscription in Argentina jumped 60 percent to 6,676 pesos, or $8.30, the day after the devaluation, for example. It also prompted some domestic producers, including farmers and cattle ranchers, to increase prices to align them with their own rising costs.With the chronic high inflation, labor unions often negotiate large raises to try to keep up, yet those wage increases are quickly eaten up by sharp price hikes. Informal workers, a list that includes nannies and street vendors, and who make up nearly half of the economy, also do not get such raises.Outside a clothing store this month in Buenos Aires. In November, prices rose 13 percent from October, and analysts predict that prices will increase another 25 percent to 30 percent this month.Luis Robayo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOn Wednesday, Mr. Milei launched his next big steps to remake the government and economy with an emergency decree that significantly reduces the state’s role in the economy and eliminates a raft of regulations.The measure prohibits the state from regulating the rental real estate market and setting limits on fees that banks and health insurers can charge customers; changes labor laws to make it easier to fire workers while also placing limits on strikes; and turns state companies into corporations so they can be privatized.Many legal analysts immediately questioned the decree’s constitutionality, saying that Mr. Milei was trying to subvert Congress.After the speech, people across Buenos Aires, like Jesusa Orfelia Peralta, 73, a retiree, took to the streets banging on pots to show their displeasure.She worried that price increases would make proper health care too expensive for her and her husband. Despite severe spinal problems, she said she did not hesitate to head out, using a walker, and vent her anger in public. “Where else would I be?” she said.A protest on Wednesday in Buenos Aires against Mr. Milei’s austerity measures.Luis Robayo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Milei has sought to discourage protests by threatening to cancel welfare plans and fine anyone involved in demonstrations that block roads. Human rights groups have widely criticized such policies as restricting the right to peacefully protest.For now, most Argentines are trying to figure out how to make ends meet in what often feels like both a complicated course in economics and a frenzied sprint to buy before prices rise again.“I always say that we are at university, and every day we sit for a difficult exam, every five minutes,” Roberto Nicolás Ormeño, an owner of El Gauchito, a small empanada shop in downtown Buenos Aires.Mr. Ormeño said he had been scouring the market for his ingredients and changing suppliers almost every week, either because they increase prices too much or provide poorer quality products.He is trying to avoid passing along too much of his price increases to customers, though he is unsure how long he can sustain that. “I see my frequent customers buying one dozen instead of two” dozen empanadas, he said.Marisol del Valle Cardozo, who has a 3-year-old daughter, has been cutting back in a bid to make ends meet, turning to cheaper brands and going out less. “We don’t turn the air-conditioning on as much,” she said. “We decreased our plans on weekends from four times a month to just once.”Ms. Cardozo, who works for a police department outside Buenos Aires, said that she got a raise this year, but that it is already not enough. She also drives an Uber, but said that fare increases had not kept up with the soaring gas prices.Despite the challenges, Ms. Cardozo said she remained a Milei supporter and was hoping his policies work.“We were living under a fantasy,” she said, referring to gas prices before the recent hike. “If these adjustments are necessary to thrive in the end, they’re worth it.”Protesters in front of the National Congress on Thursday in Buenos Aires.Luis Robayo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJack Nicas More

More stories

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Critics Say I.M.F. Loan Fees Are Hurting Nations in Desperate Need

    by

    Democratic lawmakers say the global fund’s surcharges for emergency relief siphon away money that countries need to fight the pandemic.At a time when the coronavirus pandemic is fueling a rapid rise in inequality and debt, a growing number of policymakers and economists are pressuring the International Monetary Fund to eliminate extra fees it charges on loans to struggling nations because they siphon away scarce funds that could instead be used to battle Covid.The fund, which for decades has backstopped countries in financial distress, imposes these fees for loans that are unusually large or longstanding. They were designed to help protect against hefty losses from high-risk lending.But critics argue that the surcharges come at the worst possible moment, when countries are already in desperate need of funds to provide poverty aid and public health services. Some of the countries paying the fees, including Egypt, Ukraine and Armenia, have vaccinated only about a third of their populations. The result, the critics argue, is that the I.M.F. ends up undermining the financial welfare and stability of the very places it is trying to aid.In the latest critique, a letter this week to Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen from 18 Democrats in Congress, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Pramila Jayapal of Washington, asked the United States to support ending the surcharge policy.The surcharge “discourages public health investment by developing countries,” the letter said. “This perverse outcome will undermine global economic recovery.” The letter echoed several other appeals from more than two dozen emerging nations, including Argentina, South Africa and Brazil, as well as economists.Volunteers at a soup kitchen in Buenos Aires last spring. The coronavirus pandemic has further strained Argentina’s poor.Sarah Pabst for The New York Times“Attempts to force excessive repayments are counterproductive because they lower the economy’s productive potential,” the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Kevin Gallagher, a professor of global development at Boston University, wrote in a recent analysis. “Both creditors and the country itself are worse off.”They added: “The I.M.F. should not be in the business of making a profit off of countries in dire straits.”The fund primarily serves as a lender of last resort, although recently it has expanded its mission to include reducing extreme inequality and combating climate change.In addition to building up a reserve, the surcharges were designed to encourage borrowers to repay on time. The poorest countries are exempt.The fees have become a major source of revenue for the I.M.F., which is funded primarily by its 190 member nations, with the United States paying the largest share. The fund estimates that by the end of this year, borrowers will have shelled out $4 billion in extra fees — on top of their regular interest payments — since the pandemic began in 2020.The debate over the surcharge is emblematic of larger contradictions at the heart of the I.M.F.’s structure and mission. The fund was created to provide a lifeline to troubled economies so that they recover “without resorting to measures destructive of national or international prosperity.”But the terms and conditions that accompany its loans have at times ratcheted up the economic pain. “They penalize countries at a time when they are in an adverse situation, forcing them to make greater cuts in order to repay debts,” according to an analysis from the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.“Demanding these surcharges during an ongoing recession caused by a pandemic goes even more against” the I.M.F.’s founding principles, the center argues.Voting power in the fund’s governance is based on the size of each country’s monetary contribution, with only the United States having veto power. That means that countries most in need have the least say in how the I.M.F. carries out its role.In a statement, the Treasury Department reiterated support for the surcharges: “As the I.M.F.’s major shareholder we have an obligation to protect the financial integrity of the I.M.F.” And it pointed out that the interest rates charged by the fund were often far below market rates.A review of the surcharges last month by the fund’s executive directors ended without any agreement to halt the charges. An I.M.F. statement explained that while “some directors were open to exploring temporary surcharge relief” to free up resources to deal with the pandemic, most others preferred a comprehensive review later on in the context of the fund’s “overall financial outlook.”Strapped countries that are subject to the surcharges like Argentina balked earlier at the extra payments, but their campaign has picked up momentum with the spread of Covid-19.“I think the pandemic makes a big difference,” said Martín Guzmán, Argentina’s minister of economy.He argues that the pandemic has turned what may have once been considered unusual circumstances into the commonplace, given the enormous debt that many countries have taken on to meet its rising costs. Government debt in emerging countries has hit its highest level in a half a century.The number of nations subject to surcharges increased to 21 last year from 15 in 2020, according to the I.M.F. Pakistan, Egypt, Ukraine, Georgia, Albania, Tunisia and Ecuador are among those paying.Argentina, which has long had a contentious and bitter relationship with the fund relating to a series of bailouts and defaults that date back decades, has been a leading opponent of the surcharges.The country is trying to work out a new repayment schedule for $45 billion that the previous government borrowed as part of a 2018 loan package. By the end of 2024, the government estimates, it will have run up a tab of more than $5 billion in surcharges alone. This year, 70 percent of Argentina’s nearly $1.6 billion bill from the I.M.F. is for surcharges.A protest against a possible new deal with the I.M.F. in Buenos Aires last month.Alejandro Pagni/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“The charges will be undermining the mission of the I.M.F., which is to ensure global stability and balance of payments,” Mr. Guzmán said.According to World Bank estimates, 124 million people were pushed into poverty in 2020, with eight out of 10 of them in middle-income countries.Meanwhile, the costs of basic necessities like food, heating and electricity are surging, adding to political strains. This week, the I.M.F. warned in its blog that continuing Covid outbreaks, combined with rising inflation, debt and interest rates, mean emerging economies should “prepare for potential bouts of economic turbulence.” More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    As Western Oil Giants Cut Production, State-Owned Companies Step Up

    by

    In the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, government-owned energy companies are increasing oil and natural gas production as U.S. and European companies pare supply because of climate concerns.HOUSTON — After years of pumping more oil and gas, Western energy giants like BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil and Chevron are slowing down production as they switch to renewable energy or cut costs after being bruised by the pandemic.But that doesn’t mean the world will have less oil. That’s because state-owned oil companies in the Middle East, North Africa and Latin America are taking advantage of the cutbacks by investor-owned oil companies by cranking up their production.This massive shift could reverse a decade-long trend of rising domestic oil and gas production that turned the United States into a net exporter of oil, gasoline, natural gas and other petroleum products, and make America more dependent on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, authoritarian leaders and politically unstable countries.The push by governments to increase oil and gas production means it could take decades for global fossil fuel supplies to decline unless there is a sharp drop in demand for such fuels. President Biden has effectively accepted the idea that the United States will rely more on foreign oil, at least for the next few years. His administration has been calling on OPEC and its allies to boost production to help bring down rising oil and gasoline prices, even as it seeks to limit the growth of oil and gas production on federal lands and waters.The administration’s approach is a function of two conflicting priorities: Mr. Biden wants to get the world to move away from fossil fuels while protecting Americans from a spike in energy prices. In the short run, it is hard to achieve both goals because most people cannot easily replace internal-combustion engine cars, gas furnaces and other fossil fuel-based products with versions that run on electricity generated from wind turbines, solar panels and other renewable sources of energy.Western oil companies are also under pressure from investors and environmental activists who are demanding a rapid transition to clean energy. Some U.S. producers have said they are reluctant to invest more because they fear oil prices will fall again or because banks and investors are less willing to finance their operations. As a result, some are selling off parts of their fossil fuel empires or are simply spending less on new oil and gas fields.That has created a big opportunity for state-owned oil companies that are not under as much pressure to reduce emissions, though some are also investing in renewable energy. In fact, their political masters often want these oil companies to increase production to help pay down debt, finance government programs and create jobs.Saudi Aramco, the world’s leading oil producer, has announced that it plans to increase oil production capacity by at least a million barrels a day, to 13 million, by the 2030s. Aramco increased its exploration and production investments by $8 billion this year, to $35 billion.“We are capitalizing on the opportunity,” Aramco’s chief executive, Amin H. Nasser, recently told financial analysts. “Of course we are trying to benefit from the lack of investments by major players in the market.”Aramco not only has vast reserves but it can also produce oil much more cheaply than Western companies because its crude is relatively easy to pump out of the ground. So even if demand declines because of a rapid shift to electric cars and trucks, Aramco will most likely be able to pump oil for years or decades longer than many Western energy companies.“The state companies are going their own way,” said René Ortiz, a former OPEC secretary general and a former energy minister in Ecuador. “They don’t care about the political pressure worldwide to control emissions.”State-owned oil companies in Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Libya, Argentina, Colombia and Brazil are also planning to increase production. Should oil and natural gas prices stay high or rise further, energy experts say, more oil-producing nations will be tempted to crank up supply.The global oil market share of the 23 nations that belong to OPEC Plus, a group dominated by state oil companies in OPEC and allied countries like Russia and Mexico, will grow to 75 percent from 55 percent in 2040, according to Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research in Amherst, Mass., who is an occasional adviser to OPEC.If that forecast comes to pass, the United States and Europe could become more vulnerable to the political turmoil in those countries and to the whims of their rulers. Some European leaders and analysts have long argued that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia uses his country’s vast natural gas reserves as a cudgel — a complaint that has been voiced again recently as European gas prices have surged to record highs.A pump jack in Stanton, Texas. American companies have been cautiously holding back exploration and production.Brandon Thibodeaux for The New York TimesOther oil and gas producers like Iraq, Libya and Nigeria are unstable, and their production can rise or fall rapidly depending on who is in power and who is trying to seize power.“By adopting a strategy of producing less oil, Western oil companies will be turning control of supply over to national oil companies in countries that could be less reliable trading partners and have weaker environmental regulations,” Mr. Lynch said.An overreliance on foreign oil can be problematic because it can limit the options American policymakers have when energy prices spike, forcing presidents to effectively beg OPEC to produce more oil. And it gives oil-producing countries greater leverage over the United States.“Today when U.S. shale companies are not going to respond to higher prices with investment for financial reasons, we are depending on OPEC, whether it is willing to release spare production or not,” said David Goldwyn, a senior energy official in the State Department in the Obama administration. He compared the current moment to one in 2000 when the energy secretary, Bill Richardson, “went around the world asking OPEC countries to release spare capacity to relieve price pressure.”This time, state-owned energy companies are not merely looking to produce more oil in their home countries. Many are expanding overseas.In recent months, Qatar Energy invested in several African offshore fields while the Romanian national gas company bought an offshore production block from Exxon Mobil. As Western companies divest polluting reserves such as Canadian oil sands, energy experts say state companies can be expected to step in.“There is a lot of low-hanging fruit state companies can pick up,” said Raoul LeBlanc, an oil analyst at IHS Markit, a consulting and research firm. “It is a huge opportunity for them to become international players.”Kuwait announced last month that it planned to invest more than $6 billion in exploration over the next five years to increase production to four million barrels a day, from 2.4 million now.This month, the United Arab Emirates, a major OPEC member that produces four million barrels of oil a day, became the first Persian Gulf state to pledge to a net zero carbon emissions target by 2050. But just last year ADNOC, the U.A.E.’s national oil company, announced it was investing $122 billion in new oil and gas projects.Iraq, OPEC’s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia, has invested heavily in recent years to boost oil output, aiming to raise production to eight million barrels a day by 2027, from five million now. The country is suffering from political turmoil, power shortages and inadequate ports, but the government has made several major deals with foreign oil companies to help the state-owned energy company develop new fields and improve production from old ones.Even in Libya, where warring factions have hamstrung the oil industry for years, production is rising. In recent months, it has been churning out 1.3 million barrels a day, a nine-year high. The government aims to increase that total to 2.5 million within six years.National oil companies in Brazil, Colombia and Argentina are also working to produce more oil and gas to raise revenue for their governments before demand for oil falls as richer countries cut fossil fuel use.After years of frustrating disappointments, production in the Vaca Muerta, or Dead Cow, oil and gas field in Argentina has jumped this year. The field had never supplied more than 120,000 barrels of oil in a day but is now expected to end the year at 200,000 a day, according to Rystad Energy, a research and consulting firm. The government, which is considered a climate leader in Latin America, has proposed legislation that would encourage even more production.“Argentina is concerned about climate change, but they don’t see it primarily as their responsibility,” said Lisa Viscidi, an energy expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington research organization. Describing the Argentine view, she added, “The rest of the world globally needs to reduce oil production, but that doesn’t mean that we in particular need to change our behavior.” More