Elizabeth Warren knows exactly what she wants to do to undertake this re-foundation, and Everything must be said, quite a lot of her ideas make perfect sense, especially those aimed at tackling system corruption, returning Capitalism to its most popular concept, and those of limiting the power of large multinationals to “influence” politicians, who use to eliminate all traces of competition that might threaten their “corralito”. As far as a server is concerned, and without going into greater detail (although Warren addresses them decidedly), these general lines drawn by the Democrat deserve a hopeful applause for visionaries (there is no other way out), self-criticism (she is part of the system) and brave (who dares to face openly today the overwhelming power of the almighty multinationals? The woman Margrethe Vestager and little else ).
But, contrary to what his detractors accuse him, in view of Warren’s calculation as a whole, and as The Economist also concluded, Warren is not clearly a socialist to use; At least not in the most fundamentalist sense. Thus, for example, it does not advocate the public ownership of multiple companies and economic sectors, nor does it advocate hyper-directive control of capital and credit flows. It simply limits itself to offering regulations as a way to get the private sector “through the hoop” to opt for what is fair to the system (it will be necessary to see who and how such a complex rating is defined).
As negative points to highlight in the plans of the Democrat, as The Economist also pointed out, it is necessary to highlight the dangers of embracing the protectionism in the rough, as well as of massively opting for a regulation that would have enough signs of degenerating into A harmful overregulation. Warren also tries to demonstrate unjustified confidence in the intrinsic goodness of the executive branch, something that actually goes into existence some objectionable human natures, and that can make an appearance both in the private and public sectors. In addition, Warren presents a certain touch of salinization of the business world and markets that, when well-orchestrated, are perfectly capable of providing as much or more social welfare than the public authorities; Moreover, it is only of the correct balance and the essential interrelation between the two of which the best socioeconomic harvest is achieved. Not everything was going to be pink, do not believe that here the only perfect politician that exists is the one who wins the elections promising a thousand wonders and lasts exactly until he makes the first decisions. Warren also had to have his objectionable policies.
Actually, the illusion in the house of the democratic voter is short-lived, but what it is really about when voting is to choose a politician who maximizes the successes and minimizes the mistakes, because I already tell you that to believe that you are going to agree on everything they do is rather typical of some more elusive young people by their very nature, and effectively ending up agreeing on Everything in the long term is something only the most sectarian sectors do. But in particular, it is also about conserving the power to replace the politician who disappoints too much: it may seem like an indispensable voter power, but it is something that today is even in question for not a few citizens.
The task is colossal, and not only because of the need for a polychrome agreement, but also because of the nature of the commission
And do not believe that the agreement between reds and blues will be easy, the viscerality of the current policy only presage more irreconcilable disagreements than compromise agreements , and that the citizens end up attending stunned successive baths of paint of a single and dogmatic ideal color, whose idealism turns out to be as outdated as the little flexibility and degree of mental openness of the monochromatic mantras that feed them. And it is that some are of the confrontation and the aggressiveness of what they live (or rather survive) politically. Things of the real drought of ideas that should be truly valuable; We don’t even talk about ethical and democratic values anymore, because unfortunately, some of them don’t even know them.
Designing and implementing a socioeconomic system as complex as the current ones is not an easy task; in fact, it is really unassuming and impracticable in all its last consequences, and even more so if we add certain extractive human natures that simply want to exploit the system for their own personal benefit. But, being positive, Everything is learned and we have an obligation to learn everything, so the approximation of “successive iterations” is a model of socioeconomic design with a good foundation, as well as a greater probability of success, by which Capitalism it must be renewed (and refounded) when the previous approach is running out .
We are currently at one of those moments of crossroads, and as always in these situations, we face a scenario in which those who want to continue maintaining the “stall” converge despite being exhausted, those who intend to make a reform of the building to fix the fissures that the passing of the years has been opening, and the natural destroyers who aspire to total demolition, ignoring their unassuming risks, often with the sole intention of erecting a new system according to their own personal privileges, and of which Do not hesitate to make an apostolate that would not be necessary if it was a system as perfect and ideal as they try to sell us.
Here any system on paper may seem perfect in the eyes of the most unsuspecting if it is sold with an (apparently) “good-looking” and idealistic intention. But another thing is what reality holds when happy ideas of powerpoint pass to the harsh reality of national macroeconomics, business balances, and family economies. That’s where most socioeconomic occurrences would fall with the whole team, but of course, by the time that happens, it would surely be too late to avoid some evils that in these cases are always very (but that very) greater, and that cause authentic ravages and socioeconomic hardships, especially the most vulnerable.
Remember that the economy is always loaded by the devil, and the main purpose of economists is to direct the shot to the center of the target, sometimes with not too much success, it must be recognized, but always with a greater probability of survival than by pointing directly at the temple. And again we speak of human natures, and to some extent the system must be designed in the purest American “impeachment” style, and that is prepared to deactivate the factual powers that can take power to the assault, and degenerate the essential political search of the most idealistic common good towards the institutionalized search for private interest. That search for the common good is at the end of what the political game should really be if only for the stability and sustainability it brings to the system in the longer terms. So put on your protective helmet, and let’s get to work (never better) before the building comes over us.
In the cinema, they say that never second parts were good, but let me tell you that, in real life (and in socioeconomics), it is precisely the second part that has real options to be more evolved and bring real progress, effectively improving from this present way. So let’s head for that second part, which is so expected not only because they have left us in suspense with the first, but rather because, in the projection of the first part, they burned the film, and left us to the spectators with an irritating socarrado color on the screen, which prevents continuing to look to the future with sustainable socioeconomic hope . Now we have time to change the tape and re-delight the audience.