Our Presidential Debate and Personal Finance

Our Presidential Debate and Personal Finance

Although this post will discuss the presidential debate, clarified that this blog is not about politics, and was never intended to be.

It was not my objective here to compare proposals, offers and reviews of the various candidates and others involved in public life. That is the responsibility of specialized analysts, going to have a difficult task.

On the contrary, my main objective was to spread financial culture, so important that everyone can achieve our goals and life goals.

Sometimes I have written articles about life, because I believe that the Personal Finance is a fundamental part of our life plan.

So sometimes I talk about different aspects: the balance that we seek, the knowledge of ourselves and the world around us, and so, so many others at this time would be impossible to list.

The policy is also part of life, because the decisions that are taken affect, in one way or another, in the direction of the country, its economy and its future prospects.

How a country is run, the style of government, the statements made by politicians and the reactions they have to various problems facing a country, changing expectations for the future. They make us be optimistic or pessimistic. They cause us illusion or hopelessness.

So we see that financial markets sometimes react to decisions or political statements. Because they are signs that may change the expectations that have on the economy of a country or region.

When interpreted positively, they build trust, which is one of the fundamental elements of decision. Conversely, when the market takes them negatively, they create uncertainty and therefore enormous volatility.

The Presidential Debate

The presidential debate that we saw yesterday, without doubt, a sense of hopelessness. Because it was a concert of hollow ideas and empty words that make me wonder seriously about the future viability of my beloved country.

Actually there were no proposals, and the few initiatives that were raised are, in my view, unworkable.

Some of my comments on the presidential debate:

Pena spoke to expand the popular insurance to also cover occupational hazards and that everyone has a pension. Clear: a lot of people will sound attractive, but remember that Social Security is virtually bankrupt. How are you going to solve the underlying problem? This proposal certainly seemed totally populist. It showed that all he has is his image, and nothing so much background.

Vazquez Mota insists position itself as a different candidate when speaking of the energy issue practically repeated the initiative of President Calderon in this area. But most unfortunate that aims to create new bodies to all, some who supervise others, more bureaucracy, more spending power that thickens the public sector payroll.

Lopez Obrador did not make a single proposal during the presidential debate: he used all his time trying to position itself as the only alternative for real change to be noted that both PRI and PAN to represent the group that has increased social injustice in this country. I was disappointed because I think we missed a great opportunity to show and point out how things would be different for people.

Quadri tried to position itself as the only candidate “citizen” and was the smartest of the four. The only one who tried to proposals and clearly state its position on some important issues, such as privatization of Pemex.

I think that more water was pulled to his mill, as the saying goes, the best met the objective set for this debate. However, we must not forget that represent a political party, and above all, Elba Esther Gordillo who in my view is one of the people who have done more damage to the country (which has been enriched at the expense of Mexicans).

These are the cards we have and so I am very optimistic. But this does not mean we have to separate us from the electoral process. We have to participate and as citizens we must demand, because in a democracy, though not enough, we who have the power to change things.

Voting is an individual and social responsibility. One has no moral authority to criticize or to demand action to a government if it did not participate in the process to select it. Although you have earned it has not exactly been the candidate for whom they voted.

This responsibility requires an analysis of individual conscience, to issue a reasoned vote, a fair vote. That is, one can not simply vote for sympathy or by decision of others. One must vote for conviction, principles, the alternative that, for us, is the most attached to the country that we someday see.

If you did not see, you can here you have the video of the presidential debate. It is important for you to formes your own opinion.

(Visited 8 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *