This seemed to me that a post would be economically wrong. What I correcting until this excellent post Matthias gave me a boost I needed. After classification, we accept as a good game and developing country, we still have much room to grow. And to grow, the history of these taught us that countries should be encouraged to challenge part of the mainstream. seems to be a risk to be run.
few weeks ago here argued for having the idea that payment of the debt to external creditors of the Central Bank international reserves could be inflationary.
More precisely read: "Paid version Debt to Reserves (is a personal view): if we assume that the Government or the Central Bank wishes to maintain a certain level of international reserves or these will increase continuously, and changed some of the same lyrics transferable by Treasury, the Central Bank in its efforts to achieve the objective of rebuilding reserves should increase the issuance, and moreover also contribute to the maintenance of TCN at a level greater than or equal to a desired minimum (in my opinion, this minimum is the fear of floating in reverse, ie The floor is set for a hypothetical free float can not get to see too our currency). "
A few days later, a groso who really knows these issues as ELY, said that (although I recommend reading the full post because it is very educational)
(i) the use of reserves does not increase spending, and (ii) the use of reserves is not inflationary. Assuming a deficit situation, there are only three policy options to resolve it: borrow or adjust the budget (lower spending or raise non-interest income). Leaving aside the latter (for which fiscal adjustment should be proposed that no one seems ready to sign), the other two options (Treasury debt, or debt of the Central Bank) are indistinguishable from the point of view of expenditure and prices. "
In ELY post comments I conveyed my opinion to what I said something very interesting, that would sum up:
In its opinion (which does not differ from mine) the Central Bank has a target exchange rate . The difference is that Ely believes that the BCRA has not further an objective of reservations, when I think that if you have one and is made possible by the excess supply of foreign exchange. I should clarify, however, that at the time I was convinced by his explanation, but then I tried to flesh out the argument of my position.
Frenkel (2007) argues that in a scenario of this type (of excess supply of foreign exchange) can control the Central Bank while the exchange rate and domestic interest rate, making sure that the interest-bearing liabilities (LEBAC + NOBAC) do not grow too much in relation to thus increasing international reserves (especially in view of international rates significantly smaller, making it less profitable investment of the same and even more if there is no room for depreciation used as an anchor TCN).
In view of this, is that I think the Central Bank reached the target of TCN, and having achieved the expected depreciation is less the domestic deposit rate, can have a goal like that is the level of reserves. Especially since they are used to make payments to foreign creditors and thus can be seen as some "guarantee" that would alienate default fears.
may also be a target because, the larger the volume, leave fewer doubts about the strength that would have the BCRA in the foreign exchange market to potential worsening in the balance of payments to support the TCN (the higher volume, the further away the boundary of a virtual speculative attack).
Also, if you have large Reserve may, at any time discontinue support the TCN (stop buying foreign exchange) and so, within a context of excess supply of foreign currency, allowing some appreciation that help moderate inflation .
addition may be mentioned, that in a country like Argentina, an important stock of reserves can be a sign of financial stability . A Central Bank has enough reserves and is ready to use, power and its role as lender of last resort and makes the possibility of a potential financial crisis.
Moreover, the accumulation of reserves, generates a primary expansion of money (dollars to buy foreign currency issue) and, therefore, that monetary expansion would help to lower interest rates (or , no? At least the story is always taught us) and this would help increase the level of activity (the subject of taxes and investment in Argentina would be a topic for another post). The problem is that arch-monetarist (and generally adherents to the Quantity Theory of Money) consider excessive monetary expansion (to a greater proportion to the increase of production or transactions of the economy, given the speed of movement) produces a proportional increase in the price level (ie inflation!). Then it becomes necessary to sterilize part of the new issue. Sterilization pressed domestic interest rates favoring a rise from them.
Regarding the use of reserves for the payment of debt transferred ELY told me the same or not, the BCRA was to give the same weight and same LEBAC, increasing Reserves in the same way:
"So, if they had not transferred the dollars, and the Treasury had issued debt in dollars, the Central Bank would probably have bought the same and given the same LEBAC, which in the end the consolidated balance sheet give you more dollar debt (Treasury bills) and more dollar assets (reserves). "
After the tutorial you gave me, I became clearer that , which pay the Treasury or in debt or pay it or not borrow the BCRA is practically the same for the monetary issue.
However, I was in doubt whether it is possible that, by the way the government puts the debt at the BCRA (binge), and the type of asset that is ( Lyrics transferable without value in the secondary market and fully redeemable at maturity at 10 years), and since he is not explicit anywhere as will collecting the amount needed to pay for what is possible or to kick the forward debt (which would become a "Pagadian") or in that
years the government has to make an adjustment (something of a problem time inconsistency of fiscal policy).
If we assume that governments represent the tastes of voters, and these are kept in the path of "not set for ever" and we can tell which, besides being a "Pagadian" roles that have the BCRA, is this methodology will continue to incur to finance the debt that will deteriorate the balance sheet of the entity. And if we add the other heavy players in the foreign exchange market and price makers (politically influential groups but we can assume that lack of sufficient power to vote, in terms quantitative) base their expectations given that, since no adjustment is soon, will continue in the path of increasing emissions (such as monetization of the fiscal deficit).
So, would it still be true that there is inflationary pay debts with Reservations?
leave the question, what little I have of course ...
Greetings,
MI
References:
considerable time ago decided to use Telefonica Movistar 
