The authorities proclaim the primary surplus, projected to be 3 points of the GDP, indicates an effort of more than 4 points when compared to the '90s. But does this statement hold up? If we only look at the final figures, yes it does. What are those who defend these figures trying to hide? That the current budget is influenced by strong fiscal regulations in foreign trade. If we "net" these amounts from the new taxes, which didn't apply in the last decade, we realize the structural effort made by the Government is next to nothing. In other words, in these terms the budget becomes traditional, and almost similar to the budgets of the '90s.

It is impossible, through a professional approach, to show the world that we're making the greatest possible effort, and therefore shouldn't be pressured any further. The International Monetary Fund, as well as some local business sectors, won't acknowledge this fact, and they will hide behind the official position when inquired by the media. "If we have to increase the surplus, we won't grow." This is not true. In order to grow, we need to be credible. And on that account, we need reasonable proposals to leave the default behind.

Consequently, what is the real effort? A country that has breached its contract should be willing to make profound structural changes to regain its place among emerging nations. If the Government had made the right economic adjustments to accomplish a surplus of 3 points of the GDP - net from the taxes that didn't apply before - we would be in a position to respect the agreements made with issued sovereign bonds with only an insignificant cut in their present value. This would be done by both slightly lowering interest rates and extending maturities. We would already be out of the default, since such proposal would've been accepted. In contrast, our authorities, unconsciously we hope, insist in alienating Argentina from the rest of the world. We won't grow without an avalanche of foreign investments in our productive infrastructure. To place our future in the hands of local investors will only limit our growth.

· A Real Necessity

It could be understood that the current Administration has resolved not to get into debt with the international markets, and is therefore not interested in establishing normal relations with the financial sectors. But a real economy relies heavily on international capital markets. As a result, investors in productive means face great difficulties gathering financing, and when they do obtain financial support, they are obligated to pay high interest rates, making it very difficult to compete. Moreover, they have to agree to additional guarantees that throw a wrench in the works. To think local entrepreneurs alone can sustain our real economy means in two years our growth rates will change tendencies. We should already be inviting productive investors to settle in Argentina. Projects applied to the real economy will allow us to maintain the decreasing curve in our unemployment rates, create the right conditions to overcome this deep social crisis and find new avenues of fiscal income. Self-serving critics who label finance and economy professionals as useless are counter-productive and only serve to satisfy personal agendas.

This behavior should be put aside and the intellect should instead be used toward inserting Argentina back in the world. When seen in average five-year periods, international interest rates today are the lowest in years, and commodity values are the highest. With an interest rate at half of what it was in the '90s, and our exports' value per ton 30 percent higher than the last decade, we stare at other countries as they secure capitals for strong productive investments. This situation is a direct result of our government's poor vision, failing to make good use of the present favorable conditions in the productive domain.

Argentine authorities are instead obsessed with cuts in the debt-restructuring plan, and they don't see the opportunities the country is missing. How do they think the world can take Argentina into account, when they're proposing an unnecessary confiscation? They should remember they're neither harming the IMF nor hurting any other international credit institutions, major banks or multinational firms. They are mainly harming savers who believed in the country.

· Harsh Sentence

Let's, for example, think of a saver who bought a Global bond-2017 in order to add an additional income to his retirement pension. Let's suppose he gave the country USD 10,000 and Argentina agreed to pay him USD 1,137 per year and redeem the capital in 2017. Today he is told to accept a return of USD 100 per year. Do our authorities honestly believe the economic situation is such they will persuade the creditor to accept a 90 percent reduction on his return (USD 100 vs. USD 1,137), and that on top of that he won't be paid the USD 2,274 from expired returns? Under these terms, we won't leave the default and will be sentencing the country to decadence. We shouldn't blind ourselves with our present growth, since it is only reasonable considering what we went through.

The level of decay we reached was overemphasized. The economy is now looking for its true space. This, added to the local entrepreneurs' real investment capacity, is what shows today in the different indexes. But once the economy finds its space and local investors run out of resources we will see an inverse tendency. For that reason, we should promote foreign productive investments right now, and avoid further holes in our growth.