No matter how many laps we give, it is clear that inflation will not gain or lose an election. For starters, the issue is among the concerns of people but is far from being exclusive (and loses to security, both physically and, I suspect, labor). On the other hand, as punctuated here, candidates are not willing to go to the heart of the matter. In his speeches argue that inflation is high (actually, technically, is moderate), is on the rise (in fact, if not repeat the shock meat and if the government continues to contain expenditure growth below 30%, is comparable if not lower than 2010), hurts the poor people (actually, yes, but the government holds the power to emparda the loss of purchasing power increases and retirement AUH minimum and are being delayed, and informal employment remains, severely underrepresented in the current political map), and other harmless niceties.
But the purpose of determining what they will do, no one will put the bell the cat: the closest thing to a proposal is to increase investment, which is not really a proposal as it would not grow more or be happier but also involving Daode increase aggregate demand, inflation is indeed in the short term. (Nothing against the investment, we must increase the quantity and quality, but because its effect on supply is felt only in the medium term, would not qualify as an "anti-inflationary policy.") In any case, no adjustment, cooling, slowdown or other references to mechanical physics.
is true that nobody likes the word fit, but why inflation is here a political lightweight when neighbors such as Brazil, Peru and Uruguay can easily decide an election, thus justifying the Lula government has spender preserved real double-digit rates, or the former hyperinflationary Alan Garcia has thrown a rconomía minister for not being able to explain the impact of commodity shocks on inflation Peruvian?
I submit for consideration by the readers a hypothesis is simple: demand inflation. The history of inflation and regional hyperinflation was always associated with crisis: inflation rising, and the output and employment fell. And there is nothing more important to the average voter than employment. The Argentina crisis of 1999-2002 was unusual in this respect: thanks to the success "excessive" one to one, we had a recession without inflation (in fact, deflation was part of the problem), then a recovery that quickly turned inflationary (inflation was beginning to show his head back in 2004). And the average voter is likely to correlate contemporary experience: the debt crisis of 1989 was not bad habit of over-indebtedness of the dictatorship, but because of Alfonsin and Surrouille, and the blame for the crisis was not Menem but De la Rua and Cavallo. Similarly, inflation of the 2000s is perceived (not without reason) as a direct consequence of growth for the detail-without the negative aspects that have on future growth, which the man in the street wisely left to the government, something that pays the salary.
So the question on inflation becomes a dilemma: I would prefer lower inflation, but not at the expense of lower growth. In other words, if for each 10% inflation must sacrifice 1% of growth (more than generous approach), with the risk work, he prefers to do nothing. A this also helps that the private labor market has lost the dynamism of the 2000s, in part by the effects of inflation on industrial competitiveness and the creation of skilled jobs.
Therefore, it is understood that the candidate offers lower inflation over growth (investment)-electoral economy oxymoron if any. So, too, the fact that inflation will not define this election, though it could define the next.
0 comments:
Post a Comment