There is no counter-factual need to say that there is no crime against Cristina in the future dollar or Macri for borrowing from the International Monetary Fund. Both are causes fostered with short-term political intentions knowing that they will not thrive. The latter, by an Alberto Fernandez who returns the opposition with the same coin with which he felt attacked by the Vacunagate (poor Watergate). Cristina's own plea for a future dollar has already done so; for Macri, not going to the IMF in 2018 would not have changed our debt amount: simplifiedly, with the Fund's 40 billion private debt maturities paid for 2018 and 2019. If a default had been made in early 2018 as was done in 2020, rather than owed to the IMF, private creditors should be owed and, as in Guzman's renegotiation in 2020, private creditors were not taken out of capital, but were given a lower interest rate and lengthening of deadlines , and with the IMF the interest rate is already lower and the deadlines also stretchable, nothing would have changed much.

But other situations would have changed if Scioli and not Macri had been elected president in 2015. A government of Scioli-Zannini would have been an advance of Alberto-Cristina. Zannini was Cristina and already in that election of the 2015 vice-presidential candidate Cristina anticipated the move with herself in that position she made in 2019. Had Scioli won in 2015, in place of Alberto Fernández in 2019, Cristina would have been politically less weakened by the erosion of her image that the corruption trials that with Macri advanced by adding to the visibility given to them by the media. But at the same time, it would not have been strengthened by Macri's economic failure, which allowed his return.

With an alliance of government equally contradictory to the current one, it is likely that Miguel Bein and Mario Blejer, who advised Scioli on economic matters, could have carried out an economy ideologically comparable to that of Guzman not without the same contradictions with hard Kirchnerism. And in that scenario, the dollar as of December 10, 2019 would not have been less than the $60 Macri left off, inflation would also have been similar to Macri's accumulated in its four years, but the external debt would probably have been lower, because instead of financing fiscal deficits with dollar debt, they would have financed it with higher issuance and inflationary tax.

Following the accusations of Alberto Fernández and Cristina Kirchner, those who went out to defend Macri were neither Carlos Melconian nor Federico Sturzenegger, but macri's first and last finance minister. Alfonso Prat Gay noted that the current government became indebted in 2020 at a faster (proportional) pace than between 2016 and 2019. He said: "Central Bank debt increased by $17 billion." But during 2020 by the pandemic all the countries of the world increased their indebtedness, it makes no sense to compare 2020 with normal years because even the most developed economies gradually had deficits never seen before.

HernánLacunza repeated the same thing on Twitter: "In 2020 debt increased more than in the 2016-19 average: $21 billion (6.75% year-on-year as of September, (6.72% annual average September 2019 versus September 2015)". But with the freedom not to have been the author of Macri's economic policy but, on the contrary, to have been the firefighter who came to contain the fire after the defeat in the 2019 PASO, he appealed to the most fundamental argument in his second tweet: "Logical. The fiscal deficit returned (because "daughter debt, parent deficit"): 0.4% primary deficit 2019 versus 6.5% in 2020 (2.5% without covid).
It had taken a long time to lower it in the previous quadrennial. Eye that it has inertia (future debt)".

Added to the last president of Macri's Central Bank, Guido Sandleris, who tweeted in the same way: "Debt doesn't come out of a cabbage. When a government raises its debt it is because it has fiscal deficits (its spending exceeds its income) and it needs to be provided to finance it. It's that simple, there's no mystery."

But they failed to explain why if they preferred to pay the fiscal deficit by debting more in dollars and not with higher emissions to lower inflation, inflation did not fall. The graph accompanying this column shows how since the end of the fiscal surplus in 2009 Kirchnerism has emitted in proportion to the fiscal deficit by increasing inflation. And Macri's first three years the fiscal deficit did not go down (initially to go up) and the Central Bank's issuance to cover the fiscal deficit fell (while the debt covered it).

Economic reality is more complex: Central Bank dollar reserves (which Kirchnerism consumed), interest and debt payments in dollars, and the result of imports and exports come into play, but macrism had an inconsistent macroeconomics that left inflation no lower and debt higher than would have left a mediocre economic policy like the current or an eventual Bein-Blejer/Scioli.

Among the causes, in addition to chronically borrowing in dollars to pay deficits in pesos, was the abrupt exit from the trap believing that domestic prices were already on the free dollar adding more inflation. Increase the fiscal deficit in 2016 rather than reduce it with historic reparation and eliminate withholdings. I blame and withholdings that the IMF itself then forced to reintroduce. Disparing price correction with other economy and list prices could go on but these economic mistakes are not judiciable; punishment occurs at the ballot box, losing the election, as happened.