Columnistas invitados/Guest columnists

La historia económica está llena de leyendas de hombres inexplicablemente ignorados, que han hecho grandes aportaciones a esta ciencia y, aun así, han permanecido olvidados hasta que sus ideas fueran redescubiertas por otros que les precedieron. Este es el caso de uno de los más grandes; Carl Menger, fundador de la escuela austriaca de economía.  

Si pudiéramos rescatar una afirmación con algo de lógica y sentido común, de uno de los hombres que más sufrimiento ha infringido a la humanidad, Karl Marx, yo escogería la siguiente: “Las fuerzas de la Revolución Industrial catapultaron el mundo occidental hacia una nueva era de prosperidad, nunca experimentada en la historia de la humanidad”. Viviendo en Londres, el centro de la primera nación industrializada del mundo, no pudo ignorar el poder del capitalismo a medida que se expandía desde Inglaterra hacia Alemania, y a los EU. Sin embargo, Marx no se pudo dar cuenta de algo importante: todas las clases económicas experimentaron un sustancial mejoramiento en sus condiciones de vida. El ingreso per cápita de los ingleses se incrementó 300% durante 1850 y 1914, la pobreza disminuyó, y los británicos experimentaron el más alto nivel de vida del mundo.

Los EU durante el siglo 19, mostraban al mundo un crecimiento económico aún más rápido. Su ingreso per cápita se duplicó entre 1776 y la guerra civil, a pesar de que la población se había incrementado 1,000%; Y al arribar la década de los 1870, los EU eran ya la nación más rica del mundo. A pesar de que la nueva economía creaba progreso, la teoría económica se encontraba en un callejón sin salida. 

La política de la anti-política, esa parece ser la noción que algunos candidatos han levantado como bandera de lucha en esta elección presidencial. ¿Resistirá Chile el embate populista?, ¿Serán las instituciones lo suficientemente sólidas para soportar una ofensiva en esta línea?, ¿Podrán los electores discriminar entre propuestas claramente irrealizables y demagógicas? Estas son dudas que no pocos en este último tiempo se han formulado sobre el futuro de nuestro país.

Esta idea de estar por sobre los partidos, permite el surgimiento de personas que se sitúan al margen de la política. Serían actores que no provienen del campo político, pero entran a su arena para competir un espacio, mediante un discurso que precisamente va en contra del mismo sistema en el cual desean participar y eventualmente dirigir.

Esta es una versión más sofisticada del viejo caudillo populista, ya que se nutre precisamente de la modernización lograda por los países en los cuales surge, tiene su apoyo electoral en los sectores pobres, pero se suman a ellos la denominada élite emergente, aquellos grupos que han logrado movilidad social ascendente, los que precisamente se han beneficiado del desarrollo alcanzado sintiéndose aún excluidos de la mayor parte del producto precisamente de esta expansión económica.

In 1975, Fidel Castro launched “Operation Carlota” –according to official figures from Havana it would take 377,033 military personnel and over 50,000 civilian aid workers from Cuba during the 16 years it lasted (1975-1991).[1] The official explanation for the Cuban intervention was that self-proclaimed Angolan president Agosthino Neto, a historical communist and ally of the USSR, had requested military aid from Cuba. The truth was otherwise. A former senior intelligence official of Cuba confirms that the Soviet Union (USSR) - which supported Cuba with billions of dollars a year- asked Fidel Castro to send the Cuban military force, promising to pay for all the war material. Portugal has initiated a process for the independence of its colonies in Africa and, the USSR was seeking to bring Angola into the Soviet orbit by consolidating Neto in power, but it was not convenient for the USSR to appear as the invading force supportive of Neto.[2] In the cold war scenario, the USSR supported Neto’s MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola) and the SWAPO (South African People's Organization), that was fighting for Namibia's independence, while the United States, together with

South Africa, supported UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) and the FNLA (National Liberation Front of Angola).

Cuba did not act out in sheer revolutionary solidarity, it actually received payment for its services that are estimated between US $300 and US$ 600 million annually[3] (if so, this would represent between US $4.8 and US $9.6 billion in 16 years of struggle). The author of a recent book on the Angolan war, engineer Carlos Pedre –a former Cuban soldier in Angola– obtained a confidential testimony from a former FAR (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Cuba) officer that Angola was paying Cuba $2,000 per soldier per month.[4] Cuba also developed millionaire businesses, managed by senior FAR officials, through the systematic plunder of ivory, diamonds, and timber from Angola, as well as equipment newly arrived for various factories in Angola that was diverted to Havana.[5] It is an open secret that the Cuban military also "stole as much as they could," including vehicles, and home furnishings, and it is alleged that they were even trafficking drugs.[6]

Another important development has taken place in the anti-corruption wave in Latin America.

This incident involved the vice president of Uruguay who resigned after months of accusations that he made personal use of the Uruguayan national oil company’s credit cards. The Vice President, Raul Sendic, was the president of the oil company called ANCAP from 2009 to 2013. It was proven that he used the company’s credit card for personal shopping to purchase jewelry, sports clothing and electronics. Likewise, he was ethically questioned by a forum of his own political coalition as he lied about his academic credentials. Sendic claimed he held a degree in genetics from a Cuban university, an argument he strongly defended but later admitted he never received.

This may sound like a joke to the average Latin American especially after the scandals involving the giant Brazilian company, Odebrecht. That scandal involved several Latin American governments, high level leaders and political parties which were implicated in a bribery scheme making the Uruguayan situation sound meaningless. Indeed, the impeachment of Brazilian former president, Dilma Rousseff, and the incarceration of the former speaker of the Brazilian House of Representatives are major acts of corruption where millions of dollars in bribes involved the highest levels of government in various countries.

Yet,the Sendic case is not a meaningless case. In fact, it is a symptom of something more important. It is not a matter of how little or big the scandal was or how much money it involved. Sendic was investigated by his own ruling coalition, the Broad Front, which found Sendic’s behavior ethically and politically unacceptable. The ethics committee of the Broad Front reprimanded him for denying wrong doing and found his behavior unbecoming as he was the one who set up the rules and regulations regarding the use of credit cards in the company he then presided over.