Toma nota.../Take note...

Budget discussions in the United States and many other countries are publicly aired masking them with many different promises to attract voters, calculated to promote social causes that would benefit large sectors of the voting population. Voters are prompted to vote for those candidates offering more "free" government services and welfare.

The problem is that voters are seldom informed about the cost those promises would impose to the whole of society; government expenditures are not "free" and must be paid sooner or later. Ambitious and irresponsible candidates rely on credit schemes and loans that will eventually be payable long after their terms in office have expired or they have been able to escalate to higher political positions, leaving behind their mistakes. They also rely in hidden taxation, such as the effect that inflation and monetary devaluation has in the purchasing power of every citizen and resident.

When this kind of policies are applied at the national level the end result is always a national disaster. Such is the case now facing Greece, preceded by several other European countries in recent years. And it is an endemic ailment of Latin American economies.

However, when a country such as the United States follows the same path, the national disaster becomes a world-wide crisis. United States and its citizens and residents have enjoyed the good life on credit for too many years. And they are at the brink of a financial abyss. Public debt has doubled from more than 9 trillion in 2008 to more than 18 trillion now. That represents an unprecedented increase in the public debt per taxpayer from $92,159 in 2008 to $154,109 now!!! And that means the Federal government must pay about $8,000 annually per citizen solely in interests. Although the debt is still sustainable in the US huge economy, the rate of increase of the public debt is not. The US is at the brink of economic meltdown.

Se ha criticado que en estas páginas haya una sección completa dedicada a la Doctrina Social Cristiana, con  argumentos de que se está mezclando la religión con la política, encubriendo un propósito de proselitismo religioso o sectario. Esas percepciones son falsas o, por lo menos, producto de la ignorancia de quienes escuchan campanas y las califican de religiosas sin saber de dónde proviene el sonido ni cuál es su significado.

Lo cierto es que el modelo sociopolítico, económico y cultural que se deriva de la notable obra publicada en marzo de 2009 y titulada "Compendio de la Doctrina Social de la Iglesia" no tiene un carácter confesional porque sus planteamientos y soluciones pueden adoptarse sin obligaciones religiosas para incorporarlos en cualquier programa como un medio progresista y armónico de relaciones humanas.

En realidad, hay profundos elementos de democracia participativa en sus planteamientos, como resalta en el énfasis que hace en algunos principios (verlos AQUÍ) que son fundamentales en esta Doctrina, tales como son el Principio de Subsidiariedad, el Principio del Bien Común, el Principio de Participación y el Principio de Solidaridad, entre otros. Todos ellos orientados a dar forma a un análisis flexible de justicia social, la cual sólo es posible y legítima cuando deriva de la responsabilidad ciudadana.

Entre ellos destaca el Principio de Subsidiariedad, que es uno de los fundamentos del concepto "participativo" de la auténtica democracia, sobre el cual se abunda en un breve aporte aclaratorio en ESTE ENLACE.

Además, esta Doctrina Social contiene un énfasis muy definido sobre el respeto y la aplicación de los derechos humanos internacionalmente reconocidos, sobre la defensa del trabajador y la "dignidad" del trabajo, y toda una serie de normas y preceptos que convierte al Compendio en un tratado de ética democrática desde la perspectiva de la compasión, la solidaridad y la dignidad plena del hombre, y con un concepto de estricta separación entre la Iglesia y el Estado.

A fines del siglo pasado compré bonos de la República Argentina a un precio de descuento (por debajo de su valor nominal), de modo que me reportaban un ingreso anual de aproximadamente el 12% por el pago de sus intereses. Sabía que era una inversión de alto riesgo; por eso decidí comprarlos a bajo precio y obtener una tasa de interés más alta que la nominal. En otras palabras, pese al alto interés prometido podía acabar perdiendo toda la inversión o, al menos, arriesgaba perder una cantidad mayor que las ganancias que me reportaban esos intereses.

Por lo tanto, al cabo de un año, tomé la prudente decisión de vender esos bonos a un descuento mayor del que había pagado. Perdí cerca del 8% de lo que había pagado, pero había recibido durante el año alrededor del 12% por los intereses. Ese pago de intereses de los bonos del Estado es lo que se reconoce como el "servicio de la deuda", es decir, el compromiso de compensación que asume el Estado con sus acreedores. Personalmente, hice un buen negocio, con una ganancia de alrededor del 4%. Pero los que compraban esos bonos cuando yo vendí, estaban poniendo en mayor riesgo su capital a cambio de recibir por su inversión un interés de alrededor del 15% anual, aumentado gracias al precio de mayor descuento que estaban pagando por el riesgo.

Tanto quienes compraron los bonos de la República Argentina originalmente por su valor nominal, como los que fuimos comprándolos en los años subsiguientes a precios cada vez más bajos de descuento éramos, por lo tanto, acreedores del Estado argentino. 

Minimum wages distort the normal supply and demand curve of labor statistics. They are a measure of control with two edges. Economic theories clearly show that free markets will eventually achieve a healthy equilibrium beneficial to both sides of the equation. However, that model is only true in a perfect world ─ a world where everyone is perfectly honest and there is no tendency to abuse the weaker sectors of society.

Among Catholics and many other Christians, minimum wages are a mater of compassion and social justice. The Catholic Social Doctrine has been codified to express that the government must "defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies" (1910), because "the state has a responsibility for its citizens' well being" (2371). It is self evident that the main reason for any government to exist is to abide by their obligation to make sure that citizens live in secured and stable social groups abiding by the rule of law. That is what social justice is all about - according to the American Declaration of Independence, the role of government being the preservation of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".

On the other hand, critics of minimum wage laws often presuppose that the greater the government intrusion into all facets of human life, economic activity included, worse is the condition of citizens losing their freedom and independence, as well as their chances in the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, Libertarians hold the idea that almost any kind of contract entered freely between responsible adults is legitimate, legally binding, and should not be subject to government regulation.

However, this debate is not resolved as a black or white alternative because of its many shades and colors. It is thus a matter of common sense. First and foremost, we should be clear about the fact that minimum wages have a function to limit abuse and to guarantee a minimum subsistence level.

Why should it be set at a minimum subsistence level? Because increasing the minimum wage beyond the basic needs of citizens would have two principal effects on low-wage workers. It is true that most of them would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. But it is also true that a considerable number of jobs for low-wage workers would certainly be eliminated, the income of most workers who became jobless will fall substantially -up to the point to be forced to ask for wellfare subsidies-, and the share of low-wage workers who are employed will also fall. In the United States, more than half a million jobs will be lost because President Obama is trying to pass a law to increase the federal minimum wage from its current rate of $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour. In other words, the real effects of such a large minimum-wage increase are negative: they'll hurt businesses and reduce their chances against foreign competitors, they'll raise prices and they ultimately are counterproductive for the working poor, as they can lead to high unemployment. Look at this chart on minimum wages and unemployment in the United States.