lobby

QUEREMOS UN LOBBYING PROFESIONAL PARA CHILE TU NO ESTAS SOLO O SOLA EN ESTE MUNDO SI TE GUSTO UN ARTÍCULO COMPARTELO, ENVIALO A LAS REDES SOCIALES, FACEBOOK, TWITTER

lunes, octubre 17, 2011

The Paradox of the Outraged

The Paradox of the Outraged

Mises Daily: Monday, October 17, 2011 by

A
A
Time for Outrage!

A wave of social upheaval is shaking the world. In the West, the press has called the protesters "the outraged." The name is taken from the pamphlet Time for Outrage! (Indignez-vous!) by French intellectual Stéphane Hessel. The outrage by the political and economic situation in the Western world is justified. In Europe and the United States, the gap between financial elites and the rest has widened, while politicians have become a sort of modern nobility completely detached from the realities of the ordinary man. Democracies have failed to guarantee fair play among the different social actors, thus endangering their own existence.

The perception that something is fundamentally wrong in Western societies explains why Hessel has sold millions of copies of his brief and provocative pamphlet, triggering social movements in France and Spain. It also explains the emergence of Occupy Wall Street in the United States, a movement that officially declares itself to be inspired by the Spanish acampadas ("camper-protestors"). The galvanization effect of Hessel's pamphlet has reminded us that intellectuals and opinion leaders, as Karl Popper insisted, have to be particularly careful and responsible with the ideas they proliferate. One should never forget Isaiah Berlin's warning that "when ideas are neglected by those who ought to attend to them — that is to say, those who have been trained to think critically about ideas — they sometimes acquire an unchecked momentum and an irresistible power over multitudes of men that may grow too violent to be affected by rational criticism."[1] This is a lesson of the history of Marxism and National Socialism that we cannot forget.

Dangerously, Hessel has failed to recognize that he is endorsing the same attitude that ended up in Nazism and Communism: collectivism. Indeed, both National Socialism and socialism were derived from a rejection of the individualistic philosophy that laid the foundations of Western civilization.

Individualism means, in this context, that each person is considered unique, an end in himself as Kant would say, and must therefore be free to pursue his own goals. Accordingly, he is free insofar as he is not coerced by others to pursue alien ends. Liberty is thus, as John Locke famously put it, "to be free from restraint and violence from others."[2] This idea of freedom as the absence of coercion is the cornerstone of any prosperous and open society. Only where individuals are free to pursue their own ends by making the best possible use of the knowledge they possess can a civilized order of voluntary and peaceful cooperation exist. And only where coercion has been replaced by the voluntary arrangements of individuals can progress flourish. It is not an accident that the greatest achievements in history have been the product of freedom to pursue individual ends: no opera or major technological invention has ever been created under coercion.

The idea that men have to enjoy the freedom necessary to pursue their own ends is exactly what collectivism rejects. For the collectivist mind, individual interest has to be subordinated to the abstraction of the common good. Hessel's call for "a rational economic order in which the individual interest is subordinated to the general interest" perfectly summarizes the collectivist attitude. Once this idea is accepted there is no limit to government intervention. From then on, government can force individuals to follow predetermined courses of action, which are not their own, under the pretext of serving the common good, thereby undermining freedom and progress.

The Fiction of Government

The tragedy of honest left-wing intellectuals who encourage movements such as Occupy Wall Street is that, without realizing it, they are outraged by what is to a large extent the creature of their own thinking. The best example is Hessel himself. He argues that fundamental principles of a free, humanitarian, and democratic society have been replaced by a system in which maximization and uncontrolled financial capitalism prevail. A much better world, he insists, would be one in which individual interest is subordinated to the general interest. This can be best achieved if government plays a larger role in the economy.

One should first ask if there is any reason to believe that government really cares about the common good. Are bureaucrats and politicians not people like everyone else? Was Lord Acton wrong when he said that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? And if he was right, is it reasonable to think that those who are in power — and therefore already corrupted — would put their own interest aside in order to serve an abstract ideal called the "common good"?

Even Hessel denounces that lobbyists have overtaken government in "the highest spheres." Nevertheless, he seems to believe that if government were to have more control over industries, corruption would not do its harmful work. In other words, for Hessel, if politicians and bureaucrats had more power than they currently have, the system would be less corrupt. History, however, shows that Lord Acton was right: the more power there is in the hands of the rulers the more corrupt the system becomes. The greatest failure of socialism was not that it brought about economic misery to the masses it was supposed to help but that it created a class system more violent and rigid than anything the Western world had ever seen. The central maxim of socialism — namely, equality — was betrayed as soon as the revolutionary leaders consolidated their power over the state. The new elite created a two-class system that rested on systematic coercion: on the one hand there were the party leaders and their friends who lived like kings enjoying all sort of luxuries, many of them imported from the capitalist world; and on the other hand there was everyone else, fighting for survival.

We may still ask what would happen if political leaders were not corruptible. Would Hessel's idea work then? Lets suppose for a minute that James Madison was wrong and that we were indeed governed by angels, that is to say, by incorruptible beings who would use their power only to seek the common good. Lets also suppose that these angels had all the material means necessary to achieve their noble ends. Now the question becomes, is the purity of intentions a guarantee for the quality of the results of someone's actions? Would morally superior and powerful men know better than we do what is best for us? And more importantly, would we be willing to accept honest men or even angels forcing us to do what they think is best?

Here it becomes even more evident that Hessel's argument rests on a falsehood: the idea that the common good or the general interest is something different from the sum of all individual interests, and that government is a separate entity that through coercion can elevate society to a higher degree of moral perfection and happiness. Few ideas in history have proved to be more appealing and at the same time more destructive than this one. Those who, like Hessel, endorse it, ignore the fact that the greatest evils are usually not the result of bad men trying to harm others but of good men trying to help others they do not even know. Henry David Thoreau fully grasped this when he wrote, "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life."[3] If angels were to govern humans, none of us would be spared from death for the greater good.

The fiction that government can safeguard a common good that transcends the diverse and irreducibly complex world of individual interests necessarily entails the idea that it can also provide for our necessities. This fallacy is the origin of the fatal myth of the welfare state — an idea brought about by French rationalist liberalism. This kind of liberalism, as Friedrich von Hayek noted, saw no limits in the power of human reason to plan social life and the economy, becoming thus the predecessor of collectivist movements such as socialism and fascism.

No one understood the implications of this myth better than Frédéric Bastiat, a French intellectual who is barely known in his own country. Writing shortly after the constitution of 1848 was created, Bastiat argued that unlike the Americans, who did not expect anything but from themselves, the French had transferred the province of social construction on to the abstraction of government. It was the responsibility of the state to elevate society to a higher level of morality, happiness, and material well-being. An example of this false belief, according to Bastiat, was to be found in the French constitution of 1848, which declared, "France has constituted itself a republic for the purpose of raising all the citizens to an ever-increasing degree of morality, enlightenment, and well-being." Bastiat observed that this new government was a "chimerical creation from which the citizens may demand everything." For Bastiat this could only lead to endless crisis and revolutions:

I contend that this deification of Government has been in past times, and will be hereafter, a fertile source of calamities and revolutions. There is the public on one side, Government on the other, considered as two distinct beings; the latter bound to bestow upon the former, and the former having the right to claim from the latter, all imaginable human benefits.[4]

The Causes of the Present Crisis

Bastiat' s words turned out to be prophetic. The myth of the welfare state spread from France and Germany to the rest of the Western world, leading to an explosion of welfare transfers and an equal explosion of the people's expectations with regard to their so-called social rights.

Self-reliance was progressively replaced by a mentality of rights with no duties. As a result, a gigantic disconnect arose between what people are willing to pay in taxes and what they expect in return in the form of government benefits. Because promising welfare is the easiest way to win elections, politicians kept expanding the size of government over the decades. And because the public would not have tolerated an honest increase in taxes to finance the new welfare programs, governments started borrowing the money necessary to finance them. Thus, governments became dangerously in debt. Then the financial crisis came, to a large extent caused by government actions: welfare programs to make true the progressive "homeownership-society" dream in the United States created the structural conditions. Government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought and guaranteed around 50 percent of the total US mortgage market, offered the financial vehicle to transfer the wealth; and the Federal Reserve provided the easy money necessary to finance it. In addition, the US government was borrowing and spending money at an all-time record in order to finance its warfare/welfare policies.

Stephane Hessel
"For Hessel, if politicians and bureaucrats had more power than they currently have, the system would be less corrupt."

In Europe the situation was not that different. The creation of a single currency, again a government decision that in many cases was not even submitted to popular scrutiny through a referendum, enabled countries like Greece, Portugal, and Spain to borrow money at very low interest. The market rightly assumed that if some of these countries defaulted, Germany and France would rescue them. This explains why private investors considered Greek bonds to be as good as German bonds. Using this unique opportunity, politicians in southern countries started an orgy of credit. Their purpose was to win more elections through the promise of more welfare policies. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank was keeping interest rates artificially low, inflating housing bubbles in Spain and Ireland. For a time everyone was happy: politicians were being reelected, the people were getting new government benefits every year, bankers were making tons of money, and industries were booming. It was all an illusion. When the bubble burst in the United States, it quickly became clear that Europe's economic and fiscal situation was also unsustainable.

Now it's time to pay for the party. Inevitably, this means a dramatic reduction in our standard of living. Because people do not understand that the source of the crisis was government, as Bastiat predicted, they now go on the streets demanding even more of what caused the problem in the first place: government. That is the paradox of the outraged.

Hessel and those who join him show the same ignorance as those who demonstrate against spending cuts when they ask for more welfare programs and more government involvement in the economy. To support his claim, Hessel sustains that it cannot be true that there is not enough money for more government programs because our quality of life is now better than it was fifty years ago. True, there has been much progress brought about by capitalism despite all the problems previously mentioned. But what Hessel does not seem to understand is that it does not matter how rich a country is: if it lives beyond its means it will go bankrupt. That is the exact problem in Europe and the United States. Governments have spent too much money for too long, much more than they could collect in taxes. That is why they have so much debt. There is in fact almost no country in the EU that is respecting the debt limit of the Maastricht treaty, which established a 60 percent–of-GDP limit for public debt and a 3 percent–of-GDP limit for fiscal deficit.

The problem is not that governments do not have enough welfare programs, as Hessel argues, but that they have to many — so many in fact that if they do not start drastically cutting spending even Germany and France will be bankrupted like Greece. The welfare paradigm becomes even more dramatic when the unfunded liabilities are considered, that is, the benefits politicians have promised to pay to their constituencies in order to win elections. In the United States these liabilities are equivalent to seven times GDP, while in the EU they are over four times GDP.[5] There is little doubt that the United States and all European countries will default on their social obligations at some point in the future.

Regarding the "dictatorship" of the financial elites, denounced by Hessel and movements such as Occupy Wall Street, this is again mainly the product of government. We have a banking system that can only work the way it does because it is based on fiat currency and is supported by a central bank — that is to say, a government-created agency of monetary central planning. Central banks provide private banks with liquidity, allowing them to expand the money supply in a coordinated fashion, thereby creating financial and real-estate bubbles. But more importantly, banks take the money given at artificially low interest rates by the central bank and use it to speculate. The dramatic rise in the price of raw materials and agricultural commodities since 2008 is basically the result of the inflation created by central banks. The most perverse consequence of this government-induced inflationary process is that it redistributes wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich financial elites and governments, for whom inflation works as a hidden tax. John Maynard Keynes, a champion of government intervention, understood this very well. Shortly after the First World War he wrote,

By a continuing process of inflation governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat.[6]

Those who declare themselves outraged by the unequal distribution of wealth should pay more attention to government-created inflation, for this is by far one of its central causes and the origin of the "money power" they condemn. It is in fact striking that the "outraged" have overlooked the crucial and destructive role central banks play in the world economy. For they not only create money out of thin air (with which financial elites speculate); they also perform the function of the "lender of last resort." This means that whenever a bank has been irresponsibly or poorly managed, instead of allowing its bankruptcy, like any other enterprise in the real economy, the central bank rescues the irresponsible bank with newly printed money. In addition to this perverse incentive, banks work under a fractional-reserve system, which allows them to operate with very low capital reserves, so that their owners have little to lose if the bank goes broke. As a result, bank managers have a powerful incentive to engage in highly speculative activities that are extremely profitable for themselves and stockholders but equally damaging for the ordinary people who end up paying the bill through bailouts and inflation.

None of this can be blamed on the free market. In fact, the free market stands for the complete opposite: open competition among banks; no central monetary planning agency; bankruptcy of those enterprises that have been irresponsibly and poorly managed; hard currency, which ensures the purchasing power of the people's money; and no corrupt collusion between government and economic elites.

Another source of unequal income distribution and poverty is government taxation and regulation. High taxes and excessive regulation hinder productivity and destroy incentives for job creation as well as competition. While rich people can escape the immediate effects of these taxes by taking their money and investing it abroad, the middle class and the poor have to suffer the consequences of fewer jobs, less income, and a lower quality of life. Economic liberty, which also includes the rule of law and solid property rights among others, is thus a necessary condition for improving the very quality of life of the masses that Hessel longs for. It is no coincidence that poor people in the ten countries with more economic liberty have an average income ten times higher than the income of poor people in the ten countries with the lowest degree of economic liberty.

Inequality and Outrage

It has been argued that inflation and the lack of economic liberty are central causes of poverty and inequality. Hessel does not acknowledge this fact, declaring himself outraged by inequality in general. He says it is outrageous that in poor countries people live on less than two dollars a day. Two things have to be said in response to such claims. In the first place, there is a reason to be outraged only when inequality is the result of arbitrary confiscation, fraud of any sort, or bad economic policy. But when inequality is the result of freedom, there is no reason to be outraged at all, especially when everyone has enough. Only envious people can be outraged by the wealth some have legitimately gained. What the people who claim to seek "social justice" fail to understand is that those who have become rich by honest means have served society more than any one else.

Bill Gates for instance, for a long time the richest man in the world, has improved the lives of all of us with his inventions. We have freely decided to buy Microsoft products because they are useful; thus everyone has benefited. In the same manner, when we go to the baker next door and buy some bread, both parties to the transaction are benefiting: the baker because he has money to buy other goods and services he needs for himself and his family, and we who now have delicious bread to eat. It does not make any difference if this baker becomes a millionaire by selling his bread. Actually, it would mean that he is good at his job, so he expands his business in order to satisfy the demand. Why should we be outraged if he becomes rich in the process? We should celebrate the fact that he was prosperous. His prosperity means more jobs and more bread for more people. From every point of view, the millionaire baker is performing a social function. In the same fashion, Bill Gates's inventions increased productivity, bringing millions of people over the poverty line around the world.

Here we come to the second point Hessel makes. It is true that millions of people still live in poverty. What should also be said is that there is no period in history where fewer people — as a percentage of the total population — have lived under such conditions than today. In China alone, more than 300 million people have surpassed the poverty line in the last 30 years. India, Chile, Vietnam, Brazil, Russia, Peru and many other countries have also experienced dramatic reductions of poverty in the last decades. This is due to the free-market policies these countries have implemented, the same policies that explain the economic success of Japan, Europe, and the United States. In absolute terms, people in developing countries are not worse off but better off than before.

Finally, it has to be pointed out that there is nothing wrong with inequality per se. It is much better to have an unequal society where everyone is wealthy than an equal society where everyone is poor. Equality is not and end in itself as Hessel seems to suggest; if it were, we should destroy all our wealth so we would become all equally poor. Some poor African countries have a more equal income distribution than European countries. Does that mean their situation is preferable? The question is thus not how to prevent some people from having much more than others, but how to create the conditions to make everyone wealthier. This is the difference between a society based on true solidarity and freedom and one based on coercion and envy.

Informed Outrage

Hessel is right when he says that outrage is necessary for action and resistance. More important however is to understand the real reasons on which the outrage should be grounded. If people get outraged for the wrong reasons, they will inevitably demand the wrong solutions, making the problem worse. It is especially irresponsible, in these times of social upheaval, to call for outrage and resistance without first a clear examination of what is wrong and how the problem should be approached. This is the role of intellectuals and opinion leaders. If a false message sets in and people believe it, only ruin will come out of outrage. Hessel has done his best, yet the ideology he is promoting, rooted in old collectivist attitudes, can only lead to more serious trouble. He is right to denounce a situation that is indeed outrageous and unsustainable, but he is wrong about everything else.

What we need then is informed outrage. In order to demand the right solutions, people first have to understand how it is we have come so far. They have to be aware that giving more power to governments will only make things worse. The possibility of a better future lies not in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians but on self-reliance, creativity, and individual freedom. It requires courage to be responsible for oneself without expecting endless benefits from government. This is a much more dignified and fruitful path than the current one, and it is also the viable alternative to the present outrageous situation.

Notes

[1] Isaiah Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty," in Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 1.Download PDF

[2] John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980), p. m46.

[3] Henry David Thoreau, Walden and Civil Disobidience (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003), p. 61.

[4] Frédéric Bastiat, "Government," in The Bastiat Collection, Vol. II (Auburne, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007), pp. 101–102.

[5] See Jagadeesh Gokhale, Measuring the Unfunded Obligations of European Countries, National Center for Policy Analisis, Policiy Report No. 319, January 2009.

[6] John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Howe: 1920), p. 92.


 

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

El Comité Ejecutivo de la Asociación de Instituciones Españolas en Chile (AIECH) recibió, en los salones del Círculo Español de Santiago, al embajador de Chile en España, Sergio Romero Pizarro.

Reconocimiento de AIECH a Sergio Romero, embajador de Chile en España

Andrés Suárez, Santiago de Chile
 El embajador Sergio Romero, con representantes del Círculo Español y de la AIECH.

El embajador Sergio Romero, con representantes del Círculo Español y de la AIECH.




El Comité Ejecutivo de la Asociación de Instituciones Españolas en Chile (AIECH) recibió, en los salones del Círculo Español de Santiago, al embajador de Chile en España, Sergio Romero Pizarro. En la oportunidad se le entregó al representante diplomático chileno un galvano en reconocimiento de permanente apoyo a AIECH, a la colonia española residente en Chile y también por su importante labor diplomática en pos de la amistad y colaboración entre este país sudamericano y España.
Luego de unas palabras de recepción del vicepresidente de AIECH y presidente del Círculo Español de Santiago, Antonio Fanjul Peña, la secretaria general de la entidad, Maite Basauri, hizo una breve exposición de la historia de AIECH y de sus proyectos futuros, entre los que destaca el próximo congreso de la entidad, los juegos deportivos hispánicos y la muestra cultural. Estas actividades se llevarán a cabo los días 28, 29 y 30 de octubre próximos en Valparaíso.
En la parte final de la cita, Sergio Romero agradeció la distinción llevada a cabo y reiteró, con expresiones de afecto y agradecimiento, su compromiso por seguir estrechando los lazos fraternales entre ambos pueblos.
En la oportunidad estuvieron presentes, además, Eustaquio Martínez, vicepresidente del Círculo Español y expresidente de AIECH; Meritxell Ubach, Julián Seco, Eulogio Suárez, Diego Suárez y José María Revilla.

Fuente:

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

aprendamos con enrique dans: Llega Alice.es

Llega Alice.es

Escrito a las 2:25 am
15

Esta tarde inicia sus operaciones en abierto Alice.es, un proyecto que he seguido de cerca: no podía ser de otra manera cuando uno de los emprendedores que convenció a Alice para convertir España en el primer país de su hasta entonces inexistente estrategia de internacionalización y en la cabeza de puente de su desembarco en Europa, además de ser buen amigo, conoció originalmente la iniciativa al leer esta entrada sobre la compañía que publiqué hace ya cierto tiempo.

Alice.com es un indudable éxito en los Estados Unidos. Fundada por Brian Wiegand y Mark McGuire, su planteamiento es el de la innovación en la cadena de valor: en un entorno en el que las marcas se ven obligadas a lidiar con una distribución con un poder de negociación fortísimo y que se interpone entre ellas y el cliente final a la hora de acceder a su información, Alice plantea una plataforma para que sean las propias marcas las que manejen directamente el proceso de venta y accedan ellas mismas a esa valiosísima información. En un entorno como el español, con una enorme y creciente importancia de las marcas blancas o de distribución, la propuesta de Alice puede sin duda resultar muy interesante para las marcas de productos de consumo.

Probando la versión beta, la experiencia de compra es muy similar a la que ya conocía de Alice.com: ausencia de productos frescos para centralizar la compra en los llamados home supplies, todas esas cosas que se adquieren casi siempre de manera recurrente, que no tiene la menor "emoción" salir a comprar, y que pueden beneficiarse de un proceso enfocado a la repetición: secciones intuitivas como despensa, nevera, desayuno, cuarto de baño, etc., e información que queda almacenada para compras posteriores, con posibilidad de planificar en función del consumo previsto para que sea la propia plataforma la que te lo recuerde.

Información muy completa de los productos, e idea de trasladar un hábito muy arraigado en mercados anglosajones, el de los cupones, a una experiencia de compra electrónica en la que pasan a ser mucho más cómodos y a tener mucho más sentido. El proceso se asemeja bastante al llevado a cabo por Tesco, en cuyo caso tuve la ocasión de trabajar hace años: aplicando inteligencia de negocio al reparto de cupones, las marcas pueden desarrollar estrategias de una manera mucho más fina, obtener un valor mayor del conocimiento del cliente final, y este puede obtener un precio final más atractivo vía desintermediación. Alice facilita a sus clientes – en este caso la palabra clientes se referiría a las marcas, que pagan un fee por utilizar la plataforma – información agregada de los usuarios, lo que les permite trabajar directamente en un entorno mucho más preciso y de mayor visibilidad. Además, al no cargar margen de intermediación alguno sobre el precio de los productos, se permite garantizar precio mínimo, un precio sobre el que además las marcas tienen mucho más nivel de control que el que tradicionalmente les ha dado la distribución clásica.

El cliente de Alice son las marcas: es una plataforma que ofrece canal de comercialización y capacidad logística a todo aquel que la quiera utilizar para sus productos de consumo. Está por ver la reacción de las grandes cadenas de distribución, poseedoras de un poder casi omnímodo hasta el momento, hasta el punto de que la gran mayoría de ellas habían tratado el canal online como algo que "había que tener" pero cuyo planteamiento no les resultaba especialmente atractivo: la llegada de un pure player con un enfoque diferente como Alice va, sin duda, a generar una situación de mayor competitividad y atractivo para el usuario. Y que España haya sido el lugar escogido para iniciar la expansión internacional de una iniciativa exitosa, no deja de ser todo un punto de cara al desarrollo del comercio electrónico en nuestro país.


Fuente:

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

Hermann González Afirma que reservas permiten estar mejor preparados que en 2008

 

Afirma que reservas permiten estar mejor preparados que en 2008

González: "Disminución de la tasa de interés debiera ser rápida y en magnitudes importantes"

Según el economista de Zahler & Co., lo que debería hacer el Banco Central, frente a un escenario de crisis, es "bajar la tasa de interés en la medida que se concrete el escenario de riesgo".

  

Por Cristián Torres Erpel 



Al término de la semana pasada, el Banco Central remeció al mercado al anunciar un cambio del escenario base presentado en su último Informe de Política Monetaria (IPoM).

Primero, en su comunicado de la reunión de Política Monetaria efectuada el jueves indicó que la agudización de la crisis externa traería como consecuencia una moderación en el crecimiento económico previsto para 2012. Y, segundo, el viernes el presidente del instituto emisor, José de Gregorio, afirmó que "la TPM está en rangos normales, la inflación está en torno a la meta y eso da espacio para mover nuestra tasa y tener una política flexible para tomar decisiones". Así es, agregó, "como estamos conduciendo la política monetaria en un mundo tan incierto, pero no tan grave como el de 2008 ó 2009".

Con estos antecedentes recién expuestos, el analista de Zahler & Co., Hermann González, aseguró que lo que hizo el Banco Central "fue reconocer los riesgos externos y la posibilidad de una baja en la tasa, pero con prudencia".



- ¿Cuáles son los puntos claves que hay que seguir en la economía local?


- Particularmente dos. Uno, el dinamismo que sigue mostrando la demanda interna, el consumo privado y la inversión en maquinaria y equipo. Y dos, la situación del mercado laboral, que el Central confirma que sigue estrecha, en el sentido que la tasa de desempleo está baja y los salarios siguen aumentando fuertemente.

Por tanto, sumando y restando, las cosas negativas están pesando un poco más y eso podría llevar a bajar las tasas.



- El último comunicado del Banco Central muestra un deterioro progresivo del escenario externo...


- En septiembre, el IPoM le da un sesgo neutral a los próximos pasos de política monetaria, sin embargo, lo que vimos del jueves fue un deterioro significativo del escenario internacional, donde básicamente los principales cambios que menciona el Banco Central son que las perspectivas de crecimiento de las economías emergentes se han ajustado a la baja, lo cual es un cambio importante.



-¿Las perspectivas son más complicadas?


- La evaluación que hace el instituto emisor del escenario internacional más adverso requiere condiciones monetarias más laxas, es decir, tasas de interés más bajas de lo que se preveía hace un mes.



-¿Cómo se ve el mercado interno?


-Internamente también da un mensaje súper fuerte en el sentido de que el Producto está evolucionando por debajo de lo anticipado en el IPoM, no así la demanda interna, que sigue con bastante dinamismo. Una evaluación que nosotros también compartimos.



-¿Está preparando el mercado para un retroceso?


-Lo que hace el Banco Central es advertir sobre posibles bajas de la TPM hacia adelante. Hay un sesgo a la baja, pero con bastante prudencia, que es como habitual en el Banco Central.





¿Blindaje?


- El ministro de Hacienda ha dicho que no estamos blindados, ¿comparte esa percepción?


- La economía chilena está bien preparada y tanto el Banco Central como el gobierno tienen herramientas para actuar en caso que se deteriore el mercado internacional.

-

Algunos expertos dicen que en 2008 estábamos mejor preparados...


- Hacienda tenía en 2008 a través del Fondo de Estabilización Económico y Social (FEES) y el Fondo de Reserva de Pensiones US$ 21.000 millones, más los US$24.000 millones que tenía aproximadamente el Central en reservas internacionales, se lograban US$45.000 millones. Y ahora tenemos US$ 18.000 millones aproximados en los Fondos más cerca de US$ 36.000 millones en las reservas internacionales, lo que da unos US$ 54.000 millones, o sea, hoy tiene mucho más. En ese sentido estamos mejor. Es más, hoy el Banco Central tiene 50% más de reservas internacionales de las que tenía en septiembre del año pasado.



- ¿Y la tasa de interés?


- Hay un gran espacio para bajar las tasas de interés, la posición del instituto emisor es bastante robusta. Con una buena posición de reservas internacionales, tenemos más de US$ 36.000 millones, entonces hay una posición de reservas internacionales que va a permitir al Banco Central, si es necesario, ofrecer liquidez en dólares al mercado.



Medidas contra la crisis 


- En un escenario más complicado, ¿qué medidas deben tomarse?


-El Banco Central, en un escenario de crisis, debiera bajar la tasa de interés en la medida que se concrete el escenario de riesgo. La disminución debiera ser rápida y en magnitudes importantes, no de 25 ó 50 puntos bases, sino que en forma significativa. Además, debe poner a disposición del mercado financiero una liquidez en dólares.



-¿Y Hacienda?


- Lo que el Ministerio de Hacienda debiera hacer es apoyar los sectores que se ven más afectados, como el exportador, también puede ser por la vía de BancoEstado colocando créditos en condiciones más ventajosas que las que ofrece el mercado.


Fuente:

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile