“Millie asked us for a state that does not suspect citizens.”

– You were appointed in July 2024. What was your primary goal when assuming the position and to what extent have you achieved it?

The ministry has two souls: transforming the state and liberating it. The first responds to Javier Maile’s “saw”: the idea of ​​a smaller, cheaper and more efficient state. Every peso the state spends comes from taxes; The smaller it is, the lower the tax burden. We have made a lot of progress in this area: when we arrived, the total number of central administration, decentralized organizations and public companies amounted to about 300 thousand people. Today there are 240,000. This is a 20% reduction without affecting the quality of public services. The second part is deregulation. We believe that free people produce more and better, and that the market exists to serve, not to harm. We start from the premise that the majority of people are honorable and not criminals, and we should not regulate as if everyone is. Since we took office, we have implemented nearly 10,000 liberalizations of laws, decrees and decisions that imposed unnecessary obligations. And we keep adding.

— In Europe, we live under a regulatory tangle: national and European laws. Can you give me examples of this liberation?

– Ten days after Javier Miley took office, the rental market was completely liberalized. Previously, the law prevented free price updates, imposed minimum deadlines and ridiculous restrictions. We eliminate everything. Now the rental can be agreed upon for the time, currency and terms desired by both parties. The result was immediate: rental prices fell by 30% in real terms and eight million people benefited. Another example: the provision of satellite Internet is blocked. It wasn’t right for someone and they were able to convince the state to ban it. This rule was abolished, and today one million Argentines have satellite communication in remote areas, without the state spending a single peso. And in Buenos Aires, in fact, Starlink is saturated. We have also liberalized the aviation market: today a million Argentines travel on commercial flights less than 50 kilometers from their homeland, routes that did not exist before.

— In Spain we have 17 autonomous communities with different regulations. How do you deal with governorates that also have broad powers?

– Each province has its own public spending and regulatory framework. For example, the province of Buenos Aires is highly regulated and suffers from high tax pressures. But President Miley asked us to focus on the national level. He says: “The people elected me to run the central government, not the provincial government.” Our mission is to clean up the national level. Deregulation and the “saw” will reach the provinces through a vote. In 2027, there will be gubernatorial elections and we will field La Libertad Avanza candidates who will bring this model to their regions.

-And what happens when provinces reintroduce rules they repealed?

– It is happening. Sometimes we cancel national regulations that are then brought back by the provinces. But that’s part of the process. Our priority is to clean up the federal level. When we govern the provinces, we will continue to deregulate there.

-Are there noticeable differences between governorates?

— Yes, the organizational creativity of the provinces is extraordinary. But there is also competition between them. Federalism allows for diversity and people can “vote with their feet.” We in our party believe that spending at the provincial and municipal levels is excessive, and that the greatest regulatory violations exist. For example: In the municipality of Tres de Febrero, with the Mayor of Maili, the Business Licensing Department has been abolished. Previously, opening a gym required an endless list of permits. Now the citizen simply declares that he adheres to the rules and can work. Then there may be subsequent scrutiny, but we start with trust, not doubt.

– In which sectors has the deregulation process progressed most?

– In all. In foreign trade, dozens of quasi-tariff barriers were abolished. In the field of transport – land, air and sea – reforms have reduced costs. In the agricultural sector, where previously a license was required to harvest pears, we were able to eliminate that ridiculous bureaucracy. A healthy authority should check the health, not the size of the head of garlic. In the field of health and medicine, we have also made great progress. Deregulation is a contingent process.

– What other specific economic consequences have you observed?

-In general, when we deregulate, prices fall by about 30%.

—Your critics assert that such accelerated deregulation could jeopardize oversight or some rights.

– All regulations seek to balance risk and return. Bureaucrats are experts at envisioning hypothetical disasters, but they rarely consider the hidden costs of their rules. Later control works better than earlier control. We do not ask for permission to cross the street, but if someone runs over someone else, justice takes action. But in economics everything seems to require prior permission. This makes it more expensive, slows down and generates distortions.

— Mention a specific case: foot-and-mouth disease. They are said to have stopped vaccinating animals to save money, which has affected exports.

— We modify the system to comply with international standards. Before, he was vaccinated twice a year; Now one, as in the whole world. Vaccine sellers protested, but there were no health problems. In addition, the United States intends to quadruple its share of meat exports. We also consolidated the internal market: previously the North could not sell meat to the South, which made the cost of barbecue 40% higher. We authorized it and prices fell. We bear risks, but we correct them when necessary.

— In Europe, deregulation became a slogan for liberal governments when they could no longer cut taxes. Is something similar happening in Argentina because they have not been able to implement reforms such as labor or tax reforms?

– No, it is not a replacement strategy. This is the essence of Javier Maili’s thought: small state, fiscal balance, respect for property, and economic freedom. In the first two years, with minimal parliamentary representation – eight senators out of 72, and thirty deputies out of 256 – we succeeded in stabilizing the economy: we reduced spending, achieved surpluses, and reduced taxes. This allowed twelve million Argentines to be lifted out of poverty. With inflation under control, we can now move forward with basic reforms: labor, taxes, and the penal code.

-And pensions?

– Pensions will come later. Today half of the workforce is informal. It makes no sense to design a pension system when half of it is outside the formal market. First you have to integrate them.

— Many liberals expected these reforms from the beginning. Why only now?

– Because we did not have a parliamentary majority. But after the last election, yes. The President announced this: He will send labor and tax reforms to special sessions.

– The election result is very important because many believed that Miley could last for four years, and then everything would turn around. Were you afraid of him too?

The elections were essential for several reasons. In 2023, people voted for the biggest change possible: Javier Miley. They couldn’t afford the slack any longer. Two million Argentines have left the country in the past decade. Two years later, people saw how Miley governed: he vetoed the pension increase bill a month before the election. This showed that he prioritized financial discipline. People said: This is what I want. I don’t want to go back to high inflation. I want stability and economic freedom. The final vote was a conscious endorsement of the session. In addition, we passed a law that changed the electoral system: from multiple ballots, vulnerable to fraud, to a single paper ballot. This has reduced fraud and facilitated oversight. We discovered that the proportion of Kirchnerism, which seemed to be 30% to 35%, was actually about 20% to 25%. Both things – explicit support for the program and structural reduction of Kirchnerism – serve to enhance the project’s continuity.

-I worked with Cavallo and Macri. Why will this time be different?

– Because we now understand the problem. My involvement in those governments that did not end well made me think about why honest and capable people cannot change course. I’ve developed a theory I call Argentina’s “Bermuda Triangle”: unions, businessmen “who benefit from clientelist capitalism,” and Peronism. They are the factors that hinder change. To break them you have to take their income. Every reform has an economic class and a political class. Competition, in addition to generating efficiency, erodes the power of these groups. Labor market reform seeks the same goal: decentralizing negotiations and weakening unions that prevent formal employment.

-But it’s a risky bet.

– Crossing the street too. But if these customers were still there, everything could be reversed. The matter is different this time, because we have a strategy to confront it, and we seek support without confrontation, but without tolerance for a system that has not generated formal employment for a decade.

– In this scenario, is supporting Donald Trump the key?

– It is important support, more geopolitical than economic, but permanent. In addition, many Argentine governors are willing to go along with profound changes, such as the federalization of salary negotiations.

– How do you expect international investment to react to deregulation?

— Economist Ricardo Hausmann used to ask when he arrived in a country: “What’s new here?” Today in Argentina there are many new things. We are seeing a boom in energy and mining. If we maintain fiscal balance and respect for ownership, the country will take off. Things happen. And it’s good stuff.