One has to wonder...if an Argentine buys clothes in China with $100,000 pesos, did money really flow out of the country? Did the china man take a textile worker's money?
The china man sold his clothes to the Argentine but now has a $100,000 pesos to get rid of. What can he do with it? He must buy something in pesos from Argentina to get rid of it. The china man buys soymeal for his cows from an Argentine soy producer. A zero-sum transaction.
Another scenario, the Argentine buys on Shein a shirt for $10. The BCRA sells you $10 for $18,000 pesos using the dolar tarjeta. Did the pesos leave the country? No, dollars did. You sold your pesos to the BCRA for dollars. The pesos stayed within the country. Again, a zero-sum transaction. You then used your dollars and sold them to the Chinaman for clothes. The china man used his dollars to buy US Treasuries. Did the textile worker lose dollars, then? Does an American lose dollars when he buys soymeal from Argentina? Does the textile worker then gain pesos from the soy producer who had to sell the dollars he made from the American to the BCRA for pesos?
Perhaps what matters at the end of the day is trade and whether it's a trade deficit or a trade surplus to really determine who is receiving more and who is receiving less. The sectors will shift depending on the trade.
When I see an article like this:
Argentina recorded a surplus of US$11.3 billion last year, marking a second consecutive year in the black; Commercial balance made up of US$87.077 billion in exports versus US$75.791 billion in imports.
www.batimes.com.ar
I begin to wonder which Argentine sector benefited and which sector lost. In a trade surplus, for every textile worker who lost, another worker should be winning more. Who are the Argentine winners in this trade surplus? Where is their story?
Of course, class warfare would have you believe the poor textile worker lost his pesos to the evil Argentine soy magnate. Can the evil Argentine soy magnate produce more soy without hiring more workers, purchasing more seed, fallowing more land, repairing more tractors? Questions abound. How can we manipulate this playing field? Can we cap how much the soy magnate can export? That means less trade surplus. Can we cap how many clothes get imported? That means less trade deficit. A zero-sum game.
How about this, can we stop all imports and only export things? That should produce a huge surplus and nobody loses, right? Except, nobody outside of Argentina now has pesos to spend. Argentina only has dollars from exporters, which must be either spent abroad or sold to the BCRA for pesos. Argentine producers are stuck only selling things to those who have pesos... which is other Argentines. Who is winning now? The evil soy magnate has gained more international market share, but what happened to the textile factory? Has the textile factory gained international market share? Has the tire factory gained international market share? A zero-sum game.
We won't know what the international market will do with their pesos until we give some to them. They will need to spend those pesos in Argentina, and perhaps new Argentine sectors will rise up to sell something to them for those pesos.