Buscar

Alejandro A. Tagliavini

El columnista de opinión basado en Argentina más publicado en el mundo

Categoría

Sin categoría

Is Peronism returning to Argentina?

By Alejandro A. Tagliavini *

 

Argentina was rich, its per capita income – in 1992 dollars – was US $ 3,797 in 1913, above France (3,452) and Germany (3,134). Today is poor. Although it started earlier, the fall deepened with Perón. Now, nobody is more Peronist than the “anti-Peronists” who attribute to the leader such an omnipotence that he alone caused this debacle.

Peronism, which has dominated local politics for 70 years, would return to power after winning the presidential elections Alberto Fernández supported by Cristina Kirchner. But does it really come back … or never left? “It’s not that we are so good,” Perón said, “but the rest are worse.”

Raúl Alfonsín, Fernando de la Rúa and Mauricio Macri are the only “non-Peronist” presidents since the restoration of democracy in 1983. Alfonsín, beset by hyperinflation, chaos and the state of siege, resigned in 1989. He was replaced by Carlos Menem . In 1999 Fernando de la Rúa was elected who, in 2001, also resigned in the middle of another strong crisis.

Macri would end his term on December 10. How did he lose the elections? Some Peronists voted for him – his candidate for vice president was an historical Peronist – and Fernández was voted by some non-Peronist. Macri lost because he is leaving a shattered country, with less individual freedom, boasting to increase spending on welfare and with more state employees and companies. In other words, the return of “official” Peronism is only continuity, with other nuances.

Macri, the son of an entrepreneur – rich from state “privileges” – with his misleading “pro market” speech – when he had shown himself otherwise – enchanted businessmen, presidents and state bureaucrats like those of the IMF who lent him US $ 57,000 million -48% of everything provided by the agency today – to continue to enlarge the State.

For more confusion, Macri was supported by conservatives that call themselves “liberals”, but with little real attachment to freedom, whom insist on the same “clasical idea” – just like the IMF – of an impractical “adjustment”: lowering state spending by cutting salaries, employees and retirement, which would be a bomb because, given the current situation, unemployment and marginality would grow.

Before that, a strong deregulation should be done so that the economy expands, especially the labor system so that the market can absorb the unemployed, state properties must be sold, which would allow to obtain resources, save expenses and transfer employees and thus solve the fiscal deficit. But, first the fascist union system must be deregulated otherwise these unions – strongly politicized – will impede any movement, something that Macri and these “liberals” never proposed.

Kirchner’s previous government raised spending from 25 to 48% of GDP, but was lucky and left a country growing at 2.7% per year. Macri increased that expense in relative terms, achieving a strong recession to the point that the GDP will fall this year -3.1%, increased fiscal pressure, debt taking interest to 70%, and inflation to 57.3% annually – surpassed only by Venezuela and Zimbabwe – of the 27% that he found. He leaves more than 35% of the population in poverty and 10% in unemployment – from the 9.2% he found – with 50% of workers in the informal market and of the remaining, formal, 15% are state employees and only 35% are from the private sector with whose taxes support the State that, among other things, finances assistance and salaries to 21.6 million people.

 

* Member of the Advisory Board of the Center on Global Prosperity, of Oakland, California

@alextagliavini

www.alejandrotagliavini.com

Anuncios

¿Vuelve el peronismo a la Argentina?

Por Alejandro A. Tagliavini*

Argentina era rica, su ingreso per cápita -en dólares de 1992- era de US$ 3.797 en 1913, encima de Francia (3.452) y Alemania (3.134). Hoy es pobre. Aunque empezó antes, la caída se profundizó con Perón. Ahora, nadie es más peronista que los “antiperonistas” que le atribuyen al líder el ser omnipotente, al punto que él solo causó esta debacle.

El peronismo, que ha dominado la política local durante 70 años, volvería al poder tras ganar las elecciones presidenciales Alberto Fernández apoyado por Cristina Kirchner. ¿Pero, realmente vuelve… o nunca se fue? “No es que nosotros seamos tan buenos”, decía Perón, “sino que el resto son peores”.

Raúl Alfonsín, Fernando de la Rúa y Mauricio Macri son los únicos presidentes “no peronistas” desde la reinstauración de la democracia en 1983. Alfonsín, acosado por la hiperinflación, el caos y el estado de sitio, renunció en 1989. Lo sustituyó Carlos Menem. En 1999 fue elegido Fernando de la Rúa que, en 2001, también renunció en medio de otra fuerte crisis.

Macri terminaría su mandato el 10 de diciembre. ¿Cómo perdió las elecciones? Lo votaron peronistas -su candidato a vicepresidente fue un peronista histórico- y a Fernández lo votaron no peronistas. Macri perdió por dejar un país destrozado, con menos libertad individual, jactándose de aumentar el gasto en asistencialismo y con más empleados y empresas estatales. O sea que la vuelta del peronismo “oficial” es solo la continuidad, con otros matices.

Macri, hijo de un empresario -rico a partir de “privilegios” estatales- con su engañoso discurso “promercado” -cuando había mostrado ser lo contrario- enamoró a empresarios, presidentes y burócratas estatales como los del FMI que le prestaron US$ 57.000 millones -48% de todo lo prestado hoy por el organismo- para seguir agrandando el Estado.

Para más confusión, lo apoyó la derecha conservadora auto denominada “liberal”, pero con poco apego real a la libertad, que insiste en la misma cantinela -igual que el FMI- de un “ajuste” impotable: bajar el gasto estatal recortando sueldos, empleados y jubilaciones, lo que sería una bomba porque, dada la actual situación, crecería la desocupación y la marginalidad.

Antes debe desregularse fuertemente de modo que se expanda la economía, sobre todo el sistema laboral para que el mercado pueda absorber desocupados, deben venderse propiedades estatales lo que permitiría obtener recursos, ahorrar gastos y transferir empleados y así solucionar el déficit fiscal. Pero, primero debe desregularse el sistema sindical fascista de otro modo estos sindicatos -fuertemente politizados- impedirán cualquier movimiento, cosa que Macri y estos “liberales” nunca propusieron.

El anterior gobierno, de Kirchner, subió el gasto del 25 al 48 % del PBI, pero tuvo suerte y dejó un país creciendo al 2,7% anual. Macri aumentó ese gasto en términos relativos logrando una fuerte recesión al punto que el PBI caerá este año -3,1%, subió la presión fiscal, la deuda llevando los intereses al 70%, y la inflación hasta el 57,3% anual -superada solo por Venezuela y Zimbabue- del 27% que había encontrado. Deja en la pobreza a más del 35% de la población y en desempleo al 10% -desde el 9,2% que encontró- con un 50% de trabajadores en el mercado informal y de los restantes, formales, el 15% estatales y solo el 35% son del sector privado cuyos impuestos sostienen un Estado que, entre otras cosas, financia en asistencialismo y sueldos a 21,6 millones de personas.

 

*Miembro del Consejo Asesor del Center on Global Prosperity, de Oakland, California

 

@alextagliavini

 

www.alejandrotagliavini.com

It’s your fault, Piñera

By Alejandro A. Tagliavini *

The “conservative right”, to typify it in some way, is slowing the potential growth of their countries and leading to chaos of which  take advantage of leftist groups, generally violent. The problem is that they don’t understand that social problems are solved with more freedom, never with repression and less of all incoherently arguing that repressession -of freedom- is meant to “defend freedom.”

As expected, defeated by reality, conservatives mimics those they believe are his victors, the left, taking measures contrary to individual freedom as if it was not a personal good, a human right.

In 1975, GDP per capita in Chile was lower than that of Mexico, Argentina and Peru but today exceeds them reaching US $ 15,130. In 2010, it had a GDP of US $ 218,313 million, in 2018 it was already US $ 299,887 but in 2019 the growth slowed down and would only reach US $ 305,556 million.

Poverty fell to 8.6%, and real wages increased. All thanks to the fact that the market was liberalized, that is, they were returning to the citizens their freedom to create and produce. But not enough.

Due to regulations that prevent the free and natural distribution of income, Chile has high inequality: 10% of the population earns 7.8 times more than the remaining 90%. These regulations include monopolies and oligopolies that benefit entrepreneurs by enriching them at the expense of the rest.

For instance, the private pension system has been enormously successful in the formation of productive capital, but it is mandatory. That is, entrepreneurs have an oligopoly – captive contributors – and so earn exaggerated profits, while most retire with salaries of less than US $ 400. Workers should be free not to contribute and direct their savings to more profitable investments.

And came Piñera. He had bad luck and, not understanding freedom, did not find the right way out. Among the Chilean mistakes is the failure to privatize and deregulate the company that exploits the largest resource in Chile, copper, because it is the golden hen of the military.

Thus, the government budget depends on its copper exports. But now, to the typical corruption and inefficiency of any state-owned company that does not respond to market efficiency but to political interests, there is a slow on copper prices making it difficult for the government to balance its books.

And Piñera wouldn’t know how to avoid the increase in fiscal pressure on the market, the citizens. According to “Libertad y Desarrollo”, since 2007 taxes averaged 18.31% of GDP, but in 2018 they rose to 19.6%. And Chile’s growth slowed to 2.5% or less expected in 2019 against the average 3.3% since 2010. The unemployment rate rose to 8.3% in September, above the average of the last 10 years of 7, 7%

In Chile some spend 30% of their salary to travel to work. When the previous socialist government increased the price of the metro ticket by 10%, there were no incidents, but now Piñera wanted to raise it 3.75% and some students went out to protest.

The repression was brutal and the people felt outrage including some offical voters already angry because of the economic downturn of the country. And they went out in droves, overflowing the police, leading to looting and very violent actions. In Argentina, for example, being the situation a lot worse, this violent reaction has not occurred because the repression has not been so strong.

 

* Member of the Advisory Board of the Center on Global Prosperity, of Oakland, California

@alextagliavini

www.alejandrotagliavini.com

Es tu culpa, Piñera

Por Alejandro A. Tagliavini*

La “derecha conservadora”, por tipificarla de algún modo, está ralentizando el potencial de crecimiento de sus países y dando lugar a un caos que aprovechan grupos de izquierda, en general violentos. Es que no comprende que los problemas sociales se solucionan con más libertad, nunca con represión y menos argumentando incoherentemente que se reprime para “defender la libertad”.

Y como era esperable, vencida por la realidad, se mimetiza con quienes cree son sus vencedores, la izquierda, adoptando medidas contrarias a la libertad individual como si no fuera un bien personal, un derecho humano.

En 1975, el PBI per cápita en Chile era menor al de México, Argentina y Perú pero hoy los supera llegando a US$ 15.130. En 2010, poseía un PBI de US$ 218.313 millones, en 2018 ya era de US$ 299.887 pero en 2019 el crecimiento se ralentizó y llegaría solo a los US$ 305.556 millones.

La pobreza bajó al 8,6%, y aumentaron los salarios reales. Todo gracias a que se fue liberalizando el mercado, o sea, se fueron devolviendo a los ciudadanos su libertad de crear y producir. Pero no lo suficiente.

Debido a regulaciones que impiden la libre y natural distribución de los ingresos, Chile tiene alta desigualdad: el 10% de la población gana 7,8 veces más que el 90% restante. Estas regulaciones incluyen monopolios y oligopolios que benefician a empresarios enriqueciéndolos a costa del resto.

Por caso, el sistema privado de pensiones ha sido enormemente exitoso en la formación de capital productivo, pero es obligatorio. Es decir, que los empresarios cuentan con un oligopolio -aportantes cautivos-, realizando exageradas ganancias, mientras la mayoría se jubila con haberes inferiores a US$ 400. Los trabajadores deberían tener la libertad de no aportar y dirigir sus ahorros a inversiones más rentables.

Y llegó Piñera. Tuvo mala suerte y, al no entender la libertad, no encontró la salida adecuada. Entre los errores chilenos está el no privatizar y desregular la empresa que explota el mayor recurso de Chile, el cobre, porque es la gallina de oro de los militares.

Así, el presupuesto del Gobierno depende de sus exportaciones de cobre. Pero ahora, a la típica corrupción e ineficacia de toda empresa estatal que no responde a la eficiencia del mercado sino a intereses políticos, se le suma la flojedad en los precios del cobre dificultando al gobierno equilibrar sus libros.

Y Piñera no supo evitar el aumento de la presión fiscal sobre el mercado, los ciudadanos. Según “Libertad y Desarrollo”, desde 2007 los impuestos promediaron el 18,31% del PBI, pero en 2018 subieron al 19,6%. Y el crecimiento de Chile se ralentizó al 2,5% o menos esperado en 2019 contra el 3,3% promedio desde 2010. La tasa desempleo subió al 8,3% en septiembre, encima del promedio de los últimos 10 años de 7,7%.

En Chile algunos gastan el 30% de su sueldo para viajar al trabajo. Cuando el anterior gobierno socialista aumentó el precio del pasaje de metro un 10%, no hubo incidentes, pero ahora Piñera quiso elevarlo 3,75% y unos estudiantes salieron a protestar.

La represión fue brutal indignando a los ciudadanos ya mal predispuestos por el bajón económico del país. Y salieron en masa, desbordando a la policía dando lugar a saqueos y acciones muy violentas. En Argentina, por caso, siendo la situación enormemente peor, no se ha producido esta reacción tan violenta porque la represión no ha sido tan fuerte.

 

*Miembro del Consejo Asesor del Center on Global Prosperity, de Oakland, California

 

@alextagliavini

 

www.alejandrotagliavini.com

 

The IMF should never have existed

By Alejandro A. Tagliavini *

 

Between Tuesday 15th and Saturday 19th October, the joint annual meeting of the IMF and the World Bank was deliberating. During the first day they released the report on the World Economic Outlook, adjusting for the worse the global growth rate leaving it at 3% for 2019 and 3.4% by 2020 and, by the way, they never get it right. According to Bloomberg Economics, the pace of global expansion has already slowed to 2.2% in the third quarter, from 4.7% in early 2018.

According to the IMF, 90% of countries experience economic weakness. Not surpising, given the expansive neo Keynesian policies – of exaggerated monetary issuance, cheap credits and increased public spending -, the globe goes by very anomalous lanes to the point that US$ 14 trillion in bonds have negative returns, when the Equity rises 14% this year according to the MSCI World index.

Now, global growth in business profits stagnated in the second quarter, depressing business confidence, leading to cuts in capital spending. In addition, wages increased – thanks to expansive policies – without justifying it by productivity growth and jobs could be cut.

Consistent with his ego, inversely to what is proposed in countries like Argentina where the IMF wants to secure the funds so that their loans are returned, the multi state organization calls for relaxing budgets and, of course, always raising taxes. But Morgan Stanley estimates that the primary fiscal deficit that rose to 3.5% of GDP in major economies from 2.4% in 2018, will increase “only” to 3.6% in 2020.

Meanwhile, the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Banerjee, Duflo and Kremer “for their approach to global poverty alleviation.” Basically, specific questions are asked that respond with field experiments. For example, in Kenya, Kremer found that school textbooks and free meals did not improve school results, while student support programs such as reinforcement tutorials were effective.

Among his “discoveries” is that microcredits only serve to increase investment or consumption and that foreign aid only serves for specific humanitarian crises, that is, they are patches. Interesting theories of the new nobles but that are also a patch and that starts from believing that poverty is something natural and, therefore, do not consider a radical solution. But is not. For example, hunger is not since nature – “infinitely wise” – provides enough food for everyone.

According to FAO, global cereal production alone is enough to feed almost 12,000 million people. Hunger and malnutrition are basically due to distribution problems. Now, given that violence is precisely what deviates the spontaneous course of nature, as defined by Aristotle, it is the States that prevent natural, spontaneous development, with its police power, its taxes and regulations.

By the way, believing that there are taxes better than others makes no sense. All of them impoverish because, by the law of marginality, they are derived to the poor by raising prices, lowering wages, etc. And not to understand that the IMF prolongs the life of failed governments with public funds is to escape reality. Governments must respond to market efficiency and, if they do not, they must disappear, not be financed.

 

* Member of the Advisory Board of the Center on Global Prosperity, of Oakland, California

@alextagliavini

www.alejandrotagliavini.com

El FMI nunca debió haber existido

Por Alejandro A. Tagliavini*

 

Entre el martes 15 y el sábado 19 de octubre deliberaba la asamblea anual conjunta del FMI y el BM. El primer día dieron a conocer el informe sobre las Perspectivas Económicas Mundiales, ajustando a la baja la tasa de crecimiento global dejándola en 3% para 2019 y 3,4% para 2020 y, por cierto, nunca aciertan. Según Bloomberg Economics, el ritmo de expansión global ya se desaceleró al 2,2% en el tercer trimestre, desde el 4,7% a principios de 2018.

Según el FMI, el 90% de los países experimenta debilidad económica. No es para menos, ya que dadas las políticas neo keynesianas expansivas -de exagerada emisión monetaria, créditos baratos y aumento del gasto público-, el globo va por carriles muy anómalos al punto que US$ 14 billones en bonos tienen rendimientos negativos, cuando la renta variable sube 14% este año según el índice MSCI World.

Ahora, el crecimiento global de las ganancias empresariales se estancó en el segundo trimestre deprimiendo la confianza empresarial induciendo recortes en el gasto de capital. Además, aumentaron los salarios -gracias a las políticas expansivas- sin un crecimiento de la productividad que lo justifique y podrían recortarse puestos de trabajo.

Coherente con su ego, inversamente a lo propuesto en países como Argentina en donde quiere asegurarse los fondos de modo que le devuelvan los préstamos, el FMI exhorta a relajar los presupuestos y, por supuesto, siempre subir los impuestos. Pero Morgan Stanley estima que el déficit fiscal primario que subió al 3,5% del PBI en las principales economías desde el 2,4% en 2018, aumentará “solo” al 3,6% en 2020.

Entretanto, concedieron el Nobel de Economía a Banerjee, Duflo y Kremer “por su aproximación al alivio de la pobreza global”. Básicamente, se hacen preguntas concretas que responden con experimentos de campo. Por ejemplo, en Kenia, Kremer comprobó que con libros de texto y comidas gratis no mejoraban los resultados escolares, en cambio, eran efectivos los programas de apoyo a estudiantes como las tutorías de refuerzo.

Entre sus “descubrimientos” está que los microcréditos solo sirven para aumentar la inversión o el consumo y que la ayuda foránea solo sirve para puntuales crisis humanitarias, o sea que son parches. Teorías interesantes las de los nuevos nobeles pero que también son un parche y que parten de creer que la pobreza es algo natural y, por tanto, no consideran una solución de fondo. Pero no lo es. Por caso, el hambre no lo es desde que la naturaleza – “infinitamente sabia”- provee de alimentos suficientes para todo el mundo.

Según la FAO, la producción mundial solo de cereales basta para alimentar a casi 12.000 millones de personas. El hambre y la malnutrición se deben, básicamente, a problemas de distribución. Ahora, dado que la violencia es, precisamente, aquello que desvía el curso espontáneo de la naturaleza, según la definía Aristóteles, son los Estados los que impiden el desarrollo natural, espontáneo, con su poder policial, sus impuestos y regulaciones.

Por cierto, creer que existen impuestos mejores que otros no tiene sentido. Todos empobrecen ya que, por la ley de marginalidad, son derivados hacia los pobres subiendo precios, bajando salarios, etc. Y no entender que el FMI prolonga la vida de gobiernos fracasados con fondos públicos es escapar a la realidad. Los gobiernos deben responder a la eficiencia del mercado y, si no lo hacen, deben desaparecer, no ser financiados.

 

*Miembro del Consejo Asesor del Center on Global Prosperity, de Oakland, California

 

@alextagliavini

 

www.alejandrotagliavini.com

 

True, Zuckerberg, but you are incoherent

By Alejandro A. Tagliavini *

 

During a public Facebook meeting, an employee asked Mark Zuckerberg, the fifth richest person on the globe with a fortune of $ 69.4 billion, to respond to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders who claimed that billionaires should not exist. “I think that if you do something that is good, you are rewarded, but some of the wealth that can be accumulated is not reasonable,” he replied.

And how right Zuckerberg is since although it is true that he who serves the market – the people – deserves a reward which is the incentive to serve, it does not seem rational, natural, that someone possesses so much wealth when many don’t have enough even to eat.

The Facebook co-founder explained that, with his “Chan Zuckerberg” foundation, invests in scientific research to eradicate all diseases. Well done, but that is not the solution, and Sanders makes things worse: a proposal for a higher tax on billionaires. What the politician does not understand – or does not want to understand since he lives on taxes – is that tax burdens end up being paid by the poor since the rich derive them by raising prices, lowering wages, etc.

Neither understands the basics: the problems of freedom are only solved with more freedom. It happens that, as the lack of freedom is due to the police power of the state, to violence that always destroys, more freedom means less violence and so a better social development.

The point is in the intellectual property or copyright. Being property a question of natural order, arises spontaneously from the market -from the people- and so if the State coercively imposes a supposed property avoiding its free -natural- availability for the rest, it is creating for a single beneficiary the monopoly of the usufruct of an idea.

Thanks to copyright laws, that benefit companies such as Facebook or Microsoft for instance, have grown fortunes that are not typical of a natural market but the result of impoverishing the rest that must pay for certain ideas.

As an example, let us remmember that Thomas Edison was a “serial patentee” in order to make money. He patented about a thousand inventions and it is not credible that he was such a genius. In fact, the incandescent lamp was only perfected by him and patented in 1879. Heinrich Goebel manufactured lamps three decades earlier, while the British Joseph Swan obtained the first patent in Britain, in 1878, then took his plagiarist, Edison, to the British courts and won the case.

Another example. The US Government has insisted on intellectual property rights over medicines for AIDS when in countries such as South Africa it was a critical aspect of public health since the poor could not pay given the high price requested by laboratories, some of which have created a Mafia industry that decides who and how could “cure” a disease.

Ironically these antivirals are combinations of drugs that had been previously developed, but whose combination was patented – Edison-style – by pharmacists with a great capacity for dark lobbying. The argument is that without a “patent protection” research would be discouraged when it is the opposite: if there are no monopolistic “rights” on an idea, everyone can use it, and build on it, exponentially multiplying the applied brains to it.

 

 

* Member of the Advisory Board of the Center on Global Prosperity, of Oakland, California

@alextagliavini

www.alejandrotagliavini.com

Cierto Zuckerberg, pero eres incoherente

Por Alejandro A. Tagliavini*

 

Durante una reunión pública de Facebook, un empleado le pidió a Mark Zuckerberg, la quinta persona más rica del globo con una fortuna de 69,4 mil millones de dólares, que respondiera al candidato presidencial Bernie Sanders que afirmó que los multimillonarios no deberían existir. “Creo que, si haces algo que es bueno, eres recompensado, pero parte de la riqueza que se puede acumular no es razonable”, contestó.

Y cuánta razón tiene Zuckerberg ya que, si bien es cierto que quién sirve al mercado -a las personas- merece una recompensa, y ese es el incentivo para servir, no parece racional, natural, que alguien posea tanta riqueza cuando muchos no tienen siquiera para comer.

El cofundador de Facebook explicó que, con su fundación “Chan Zuckerberg”, invierte en investigación científica para erradicar todas las enfermedades. Bien, pero esa no es solución, y la de Sanders empeora las cosas: una propuesta para un impuesto elevado a los multimillonarios. Lo que el político no entiende -o no quiere entender ya que vive de los impuestos- es que las cargas fiscales terminan siendo pagadas por los pobres ya que los ricos las derivan subiendo precios, bajando salarios, etc.

Ninguno de los dos comprende lo básico: los problemas de la libertad solo se solucionan con más libertad. Es que, como la falta de libertad se debe al poder policial del estado, a la violencia que siempre destruye, cuanta más libertad menos violencia y más se desarrolla la sociedad.

El punto está en la propiedad intelectual o copyright. Al ser la propiedad de orden natural surge espontáneamente del mercado -de las personas- de modo que si el Estado impone coactivamente una supuesta propiedad evitando su libre -natural- disponibilidad para el resto, está creando el monopolio del usufructo de una idea para un solo beneficiario.

Gracias a las leyes de copyright que benefician a empresas como Facebook o Microsoft, por caso, se formaron fortunas que no son propias de un mercado natural sino el resultado de empobrecer al resto que debe pagar por ciertas ideas.

Por caso, Thomas Edison era un “patentador serial” con el fin de hacer fortunas. Patentó unos mil inventos y no es creíble que fuera tan genial. De hecho, la lámpara incandescente sólo fue perfeccionada por él y patentada en 1879. Heinrich Goebel fabricó lámparas tres décadas antes, mientras que el británico Joseph Swan obtuvo la primera patente en Gran Bretaña, en 1878, y llevó a su plagiador, Edison, a las cortes británicas, que le dieron la razón.

Otro caso. El Gobierno de EE.UU. ha insistido en los derechos de propiedad intelectual sobre las medicinas para el sida, cuando en países como Sudáfrica constituía un aspecto crítico de salud pública ya que los pobres no podían pagar dado el elevado precio que pedían los laboratorios, algunos de los cuales han creado una mafiosa industria que decide quién y con qué se “cura” una enfermedad.

Siendo que estas antivirales son combinaciones de medicamentos que habían sido desarrollados de forma previa, pero cuya combinación fue patentada -al estilo Edison- por farmacéuticas con gran capacidad de oscuro cabildeo. El argumento esgrimido es que sin una “protección de las patentes” se desincentivaría la investigación cuando es todo lo contrario: si no existen “derechos” monopólicos sobre una idea, todos pueden usarla, y construir sobre ella, multiplicando exponencialmente los cerebros aplicados.

 

 

*Miembro del Consejo Asesor del Center on Global Prosperity, de Oakland, California

 

@alextagliavini

 

www.alejandrotagliavini.com

 

Could Trump himself be the anonymous informant?

By Alejandro A. Tagliavini *

In July 2017, I wrote a column entitled “Trump, the heir of Nixon” where I mentioned a review of the Spanish reissue of the book by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, “All the President’s Men,” about the ‘Watergate scandal’. The story goes through the same places, although Richard Nixon and Donald Trump start in different positions. Richard is the Quaker lawyer who lived politics since he was young, until he lost a presidential race against John F. Kennedy and then beat both Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. The last one after the Watergate scandal had begun.

Trump comes from another planet, to the point that some consider him lunatic. He is a worshiper of fame, money and power, who had never faced elections. With Nixon, all rot of the apparatus was exposed – that the politicians covered with the impeachment – which subsists and annoys and precisely because he represents the antisystem is that Trump wins.

But Richard and Donald, I wrote in that column, have the same halo, that smell of impeachment that over flies Washington, that could become real if the current president excessively enerves the political establishment. And it turned out that the prophecy was fulfilled because he enervated more than one.

The US Constitution guarantees that officials can be prosecuted by mandate of the House of Representatives because of serious crimes. Then, it is the Senate who is responsible for carrying out the trial. And the punishment consists in the dismissal of the accused and his disqualification from public office.

Now the House of Representatives initiated an investigation to impeachment Trump, after an anonymous informant revealed a telephone contact with the President of Ukraine to obtain insider information, for political purposes, on the business of the eventual Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The call came shortly after Trump decided to freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine.

According to his critics this was an illegitimate attempt to pressure a foreign government to obtain incriminating information about an electoral rival, while the White House considers that it was a “normal” call between two leaders.

If politics were a serious activity, Trump would not win his reelection, not only because of the impeachment but because his behavior resembles that of a millennial who escapes from school to devote himself to mischief and tell it on Twitter. But politics is not serious, to the point that candidates often echo a phrase attributed to Salvador Dalí: “The important thing is that they speak of one … even if they speak well.” That is, the important thing to win an election is to have publicity regardless of whether it is negative or positive.

So it seems that the anonymous informant could be Trump himself, because the impeachment will not only give him a lot of publicity, but will end up looking like the hero who knew how to overcome the “insults” of his bad adversaries, since its is very improbable that they condemn him. In the US, two presidents were tried by this procedure, Bill Clinton (1998-1999) and Andrew Johnson (1868), and were acquitted. Richard Nixon interrupted the process by resigning in 1974. And to condemn the accused it is necessary the vote of two thirds of the senators who today are mostly Republicans.

 
* Member of the Advisory Board of the Center on Global Prosperity, of Oakland, California

@alextagliavini

http://www.alejandrotagliavini.com

Crea un sitio web o blog en WordPress.com

Subir ↑

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: