“La próxima crisis ya se está gestando y podría ser peor que la vivida en 2008”

• Los banqueros centrales son como los bomberos pirómanos y crean crisis después de la crisis, dijo a Business Insider el director de fondos de cobertura y economista Daniel Lacalle.
• La crisis financiera de 2008 tuvo lugar debido a las políticas del Banco Central, dijo Lacalle, que añadió que la próxima crisis ya se está gestando y podría ser peor.
• Las políticas del Banco Central han sido una lotería para los inversores, pero han llevado al resto de la población a endeudarse, dijo el economista. 

Los banqueros centrales son como los “bomberos pirómanos” que crean una crisis tras otra que luego tratan de resolver, según ha comentado un economista y gestor de fondos de cobertura a Business Insider.

Daniel Lacalle, economista jefe de Tressis SV y director de fondos de Adriza International Opportunities, dijo a Business Insider en una entrevista que culpa a los banqueros centrales de la crisis financiera del 2008por no entender los mercados financieros modernos mientras siguen usando herramientas de los años 60 para probar y controlaros. 

Los bancos centrales redujeron significativamente las tasas de interés antes del colapso de las hipotecas subprime de 2008, lo que alentó a las personas a invertir en activos que se consideraban seguros, como la vivienda. También permitió a los bancos ofrecer préstamos baratos y, de hecho, alentó la burbuja inmobiliaria hasta que estalló, argumentó Lacalle.

“Los banqueros centrales se presentaron a sí mismos como la solución al problema que ellos mismos crearon. Lo llamo el bombero pirómano”, dijo. “Creas un fuego masivo y luego te presentas…para detenerlo”.

Lacalle cree que parte del problema es que los banqueros centrales están utilizando herramientas creadas para economías más simples del pasado e inadecuadas para los mercados financieros complejos y modernos.

El economista español, que fue nombrado por Richtopia como uno de los veinte economistas más influyentes en 2016, ha trabajado con tres presidentes del banco central y dijo que cree que las políticas presentadas, aunque no entiende completamente cómo son los grandes mercados financieros y los efectos de sus políticas.

El experto pidió reglas de política monetaria técnica más estrictas que significaran que las decisiones sobre el suministro monetario solo puedan tomarse en base a las métricas del mercado y no a discreción de las personas que trabajan para los bancos centrales.

“Estas políticas destruyen por completo lo que es el dinero”

Lacalle cree que los bancos centrales están repitiendo el mismo error que condujo a la última crisis, creando la próxima burbuja a través de la compra continua de deuda pública (ahora en torno a los 20 millones de dólares). Esto ha elevado el precio de los bonos, inflado el valor de los activos financieros e inyectado dinero excedente en la economía.

“Hay un punto donde la percepción del valor de los inversores comienza a resquebrajarse”, dijo Lacalle. “El problema de estas políticas es que destruimos completamente lo que es el dinero…al hacer que el dinero sea completamente inútil , básicamente promueves la inversión en centros comerciales y el endeudamiento”.

El Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) advirtió en abril que la deuda global ha alcanzado un récord de 164.000 millones de dólares, o el 225% del PIB. La directora del FMI, Christine Lagarde, se refirió al creciente endeudamiento como “nubes que se acumulan en el horizonte”.

Lacalle advirtió que el enorme endeudamiento podría provocar un estancamiento económico o, en el peor de los casos, una crisis peor que la de 2008. Esto se debe a que la deuda soberana supone un porcentaje mucho mayor de la economía que la vivienda.

“Creo que los banqueros centrales realmente creen que las burbujas creadas en los mercados financieros son algún tipo de daño colateral benigno“, dijo Lacalle, quien agregó que las políticas han supuesto una lotería para los inversores pero que han llevado al resto de la población a endeudarse.

When I travel to Argentina, I often hear from politicians that the tax wedge must be increased because “revenues are insufficient”.

The first question that comes to mind is what does “insufficient” mean. Argentina’s fiscal deficit problem has not been generated by a low tax burden, but by a confiscatory and excessive one.

The Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum 2017-2018 shows that Argentina is ranked 92 among the 138 countries analyzed. The most worrisome aspect is that Argentina’s tax burden is the highest of the 138 economies.

Between 2002 and 2017 the country’s tax burden -including nation, provinces and municipalities- increased by more than 10 points of GDP, while inflation -the poorman’s tax- also soared.

These two factors, inflation and high taxation, negatively impact competitiveness and ease to attract capital, invest and create jobs, relegating a nation of enormous potential, such as Argentina, to the final positions of the World Economic Forum index, when it should be at the top.

Excessive inflation and high taxes are two almost identical factors that hide an excessive public expenditure that has acted as a brake on economic activity, since it is not considered as a service to facilitate economic activity, but as an end in itself. The consolidated public expenditure reached 47.9% of GDP in 2016, a figure that is clearly disproportionate. Even if we consider primary public expenditure, that is, excluding the cost of debt, it doubled between 2002 and 2017.

According to the Ministry of Labor, public employment accounts for more than 11% of the budget, and only two provinces have a percentage of public employment below 30% of the total. If we take all the provinces, seven have a public sector labor force that exceeds the private one – between 51% and 69% – and more than 65% of the provinces have a percentage of public employment that exceeds 40% of the total. The Ministry of Labor estimates that more than 3.5 million jobs are paid by taxes in the national, provincial and municipal administrations, a figure that has increased by 60% since 2002.

It is not exclusively a public employment problem. The three items with the largest increase in public spending between 2002 and 2017 are clearly salaries, social security and subsidies to the private sector, according to the Ministry of Finance. This third part is very relevant.

Argentina is faced with a model that has disproportionately increased the tax burden on the most productive sectors to subsidize the lowest productivity sectors and pay for the massive increase in public employment. That is, it is a fiscal model that discourages non-subsidized private investment and encourages the rent-seeking sectors. Thus, it is not surprising that the increase in productivity is very low and that tax revenues do not improve, driving deficits higher through soaring expenses and under-budget revenues.

As revenues are insufficient and capital inflows deteriorate, the gap is financed through fiscal and monetary repression -printing money to pay for public sector expenses- at the same time, which displaces highly productive sectors, discourages private activity and reduces long-term investment. And it is not solved with tax increases.

If we look at the European economies, we can also see how the tax increases not only have not solved the fiscal deficit but have generated a delay in the exit from the crisis,  also increasing indebtedness in the process. Deficits have been reduced, but not enough, and government debt exceeds 89% of GDP. A study by the Center for European Economic Research (ZEW) warns of the risk of loss of investments in the European Union by focusing on maintaining a noncompetitive and almost confiscatory taxation where companies and citizens pay up to 40% of their income in direct and indirect taxes.

The solutions that have been imposed in most developed economies have failed precisely because they implement an extractive model that penalizes investment and more productive sectors to sustain excessive public spending.

If we look at the global trend, the United States shows that attractive growth-oriented taxation generates better and more employment and greater investment. Argentina, with the highest tax burden in Latin America, suffers a negative and cumulative effect. Sectors that depend on subsidies and tax revenues become extractive for society. And productive investment and private employment suffer.

All these imbalances are being maintained by excess liquidity and low interest rates. But those external factors change, and when they do, they do so abruptly.

Taxation in Argentina should be aimed at improving tax bases and increasing productive investment and private employment, while assessing expenditures to make them sustainable. If not, the future adjustment will be much more painful than we imagine.

Daniel Lacalle is a PhD Economist, author of Escape from the Central Bank Trap and Life In The Financial Markets. He is Chief Economist at Tressis