are scared. The adventures of a commander to have Bolivarian local establishment on high alert ever written by an axiom, but that is imprinted in the minds of many: Kirchner is light version of the Bolivarian revolution, the revolutionary socialism of the XXI century. (Aside: did you see anything that says the slogan "revolutionary socialism of the century"? In one sentence a president says that is just and equitable that interest you earn all more or less the same, which means he wants fewer probres, and is even willing to expropriate companies, land and even ideas to achieve it, if necessary. And besides all that, I said that is modern as Windows 7).
Should we be afraid? Lean Lindahl, first, and Ana C. , Later. Are they afraid? If you answered "yes" I understand, be afraid, but not to state interventionism (almost everything that ends in "ism" usually get a little scared, but not because it is bad in itself, but because the "ism" da as an idea of \u200b\u200boverdose, extremely corrosive and harmful) but the babies they are carrying out. I think a manager, trained, have better incentives to drive a company than a politician. But there is ample evidence that the opposite may occur (remember the financial crisis? Were politicians who lent money to anyone? Were politicians who put nice notes to the "toxic assets"?).
But Hugo, with Nestor, with Guille, with Julito and Beloved, I have fear.
What if we change the characters? Do denostaría both state intervention? Or will you give more oxygen to the arguments that now seem unlikely, as the global crisis or "strategic markets? I venture to suggest that, at least in Argentina, the debate would be more balanced.
And if someone said "no", because he believes the regional static wave is as harmless as the sneeze of a Mexican at an airport or a small mosquito that slips through the crack in the laundry, I would say two things: either the governs the ingenuity, ideology, or know something I do not know.
0 comments:
Post a Comment