Why?

A couple of weeks in the US  were, besides a very fun vacation time with family and dear friends, a great opportunity to notice the big differences between that country and mine, Argentina.

While there, a phony primary election took place in Argentina. Good thing I wasn't here, but really bad to have my vacations disturbed by two sad circumstances: 1) the passing of a very closed and dear uncle of mine, and  2) the passing of all the hope I could have had of seeing Cristina Kirchner defeated in the national elections coming October.

By an overwhelming 50% she was the winner of the "primary", and -according to La Nacion newspaper- her acollytes are already plotting a Constitutional reform, hosted by Supreme Court (and "friend") Raul Zaffaroni,  which would have no other goal than to shape all necessary legalities to allow her to remain in power for good, or at least untill the income from the high price of our exported soya beans commodities keep pouring in.

 Long ago an American client said to me  "Miami is the closest to the US you could get". It was an obvious joke, but not that far from the truth. Having spent a week in Orlando before going to Miami makes me agree 100% with my client. Things are different there, from how they're in Latin America, in Argentina.

So the question is unavoidable... why? Why are we so negatively different? Why can't we behave in a more civilized, proper manner? Why  is it so difficult for us -"Argies"- to behave in a decent, considerate manner? I'd go with this guess: INCENTIVES.

In Argentina, if you go to a Burger King or a McDonald's, be prepared to clean up the mess left behind in the table you'd want to use. In the US, everybody cleans up their mess when they're done.

In the photo, August 24th, 2011 - Miami International Airport, Gate J18, right after the last call to board Aerolineas Argentinas, Flight 1303 to Buenos Aires. Guess where the majority of the crowd sitted in the area came from...



In the US, the "refill" of sodas is a normal, regular commercial custom. Were such a system exist in Argentina, it may well happen that someone would go to one of the restaurants stocked with a bunch of empty bottles, buy one soda just to have the right to refill the glass, and would load the bottles abusing of the "refill right".

In Argentina, major traffic jam could take place at any given intersection, since the one-first-then-the other habit doesn't exist. Instead of  having one car from the left side come, and then another one from the right side do it, in Argentina everybody would have the cars stucked to the one before, so the others would never be able to pass. Hope you've got what I mean...

In Argentina, "getting on line" is a gladiator's task. People stands so close to each other that they eventually touch the person before or behind, since there's virtually no room between them. This -of course- has a reason. Weren't they doing this, and were the people on line leaving some room between them... a wise-guy slippery may find his or her place on line... way beyond what it would have been his or her place on line.

So... why? Why all these happens? Why things in the US works, and in Argentina everything is so chaotic and complicated to deal with? I would say "It's the incentives, stupid!". But this statement leads me to wonder what kind of incentives am I thinking of?

Is it the criminal law system? Maybe. The threat of going to jail or pay a fine could well be understood as a powerful persuasive tool not to break the rules.Would such threat (kept in time) become an incentive, would originate a regular, common social behavior? Probably. In any event, what such threat would eventually cause is the belief in the rules. But for this to happen, two things would have to occur: first,  consequences of chosen behavior must be effective and sustained in time. For instance, many traffic signals in the US includes not only the order, but also the information of applied fines in case of disobedience. I've found this really interesting for two reasons: 1) rules are clear and apply to every one who meets the requirement: disobedience has consequences, and 2) it acknowledges the fact that the individual is free to choose between being a law binding citizen or a lawbreaker. 

Second, the rules must be logical, rational and benefitial for the whole. Rules must become a reflection of "institutions", in the understanding of the noun as applied by Douglas North. Institutions, for this author, are the behaviors conducted by individuals above and beyond any coercion, for the mere reason that such conducts were proved more efficient over others.

Or, in a nutshell, in the US one can witness the every day practice of the "Rule of Law".

In Argentina, there's no such thing as the "Rule of Law". Laws and rules are deemed -in generally accepted terms- to be broken. A no parking sign is just a suggestion. It's outrageous to see the several many cars parked just next to the sign. The consequences? None.Unless it's parked in a highly controlled area, such as downtown, where the towing system is runned by a private company, which collects a percentage of all towed cars, payed by the local government. A private company whit plenty of incentives to tow away cars.

It's highly unlikely that a car would stop in a corner to let the pedestrians cross. Streets are filled with dog's poo, since there are no consequences for the owner of the dog who leaves the poo there (although I must say that this has been seriously improved since my younger years, and most of dog owners clean up after the doggie went). In the subway (or other public transportation) is amazing to see the epidemy of narcolepsy affecting men sitting when a pregnant woman, an elder or a handicap person gets in...

Even further, politicians with enough power and money (which is the same) may well ammend (or at least try very hard to do so) the Constitution, so they adapt it at their best interest. Constitution, as well as most of the rules in Argentina, is also another "suggestion". 


So, is it just the criminal law system? I would say that it has a great deal of impact (although criminal lawyers whom are known here as garantistas -such as Justice Zaffaroni- for their understanding of criminals as victims of society rather than victimazers, would certainly and emphatically disagree), but even more than the criminal law system itself, it's its the ENFORCEMENT of the rules what makes a huge difference between one country and the other.

In Argentina, incentives to break the law are most of the times larger than those of binding it, since it's highly unlikely that such conducts were punished. Hence, do the maths... crime -in Argentina- pays.

In my opinion, corruption is so widely accepted because it´s just another step -at a higher level- of the misconducts daily performed by regular, common citizens, whom -had the chance- would do exactly as the corrupts does.

In a wider social scope, consequences for this complete lack of respect of the rules it's what keeps us so far away from the civilized USA. The Rule of Law is, in my opinion, the definition in two words of what David Hume so brightly putted almost 200 years ago: "There are three fundamental laws of justice: 1. stability of possession 2. transference by consent 3. performance of promises"

If breaking these three laws had no consequences at all, then there would be no incentives whatsoever not to break any other law. Rules, hence, would be mere representations of whatever could be understood as "good" intentions at any given historical time. But they wouldn't be -at all- useful tools to channel conducts and behaviors within the moral frame of freedom and liberty.  And that's exactly what's happening in Argentina, currently in jeopardy to suffer a regulatory OD (overdose).

For the US, in my opinion, the major challenge is not to let the government keep growing, and to continue the tradition of freedom and liberty which made them grand.

For Argentina, the major challenge is to understand the benefits of going along with the Rule of Law. In the short run, perhaps is more inconvenient to go on rounds looking for a parking space, instead of just leaving the car in a no parking area. But in the long run, it'll for certainly mean a huge advancement in political, economical and social improvements, for a much larger portion of the population that now.

So, in my opinion, the answer to why? is no other answer but because of the Rule of Law.

The Judge, the whores and the Swiss...

A quite old joke in Spanish language goes: "What does lawyers and whores has in common? They both charge their fees in advance, and after you've paid, you must beg them "please! Move!".

The "please, move" part may well be a consequence of the written system of justice that applies in Argentina, where except a handful of criminal cases (not even all of them) EVERY LEGAL PROCESS IS IN WRITTING. Hence, the lousy lawyers has large incentives to collect their fees up front, but not to follow through the whole process in a reasonable period of time, since the client barely has the will and the time to control the annoying judicial process.

A few days ago, a leftist oriented NGO - Fundación La Alameda- filed a case against a major celebrity of the judicial branch, Supreme Court Justice Raul Eugenio Zaffaroni, a leftist oriented judge, whom prior to being appointed SC Justice acted as a criminal judge, ruling outrageous judgments in favour always of criminals. For instance, in a shocking case, Judge Zaffaroni released the rapist of a young girl claiming that forcing her to perform oral sex to him could not be understood as rape, given that the girl did not suffer any penetration from the perpetrator.

The NGO filed a report against Zaffaroni, accusing him of being the owner of 16 apartments, 6 of them leased to high class prostitutes whom used them for their professional practice. Of course, the news broke a major fuzz, proper of this hypocrate society.

The funny part is that not long ago the queen - sorry, the president- Cristina Kirchner issued a presidential decree banning all sex advertisement published in the newspapers (usually known as to Class 59 ads), offering sexual services. Ha! Last week, Zaffaroni, one of her most distinguished acolytes was reported to be linked to a prostitution net, and suspected of being a pimp... aside from a Supreme Court Justice.

No one with a minimum common sense would believe that the judge was involved in the prostitution business, neither he collected any money from the prostitutes. In fact, Zaffaroni said that he appointed some administrators to manage his properties, and so he was negligent in controlling his representatives. But not even that should be reprehensible, since it's his problem with his properties and with his appointed managers.

What most certainly caught my attention, and not that of many more, from the published news in the media, is how come a public servant, a judge, whom spent most of his working life acting as a member of the judicial branch came to own 16 apartments, in one of the nicest neighborhoods of Buenos Aires??? 
Alledgely, the judge collects a pretty decent salary, but a regular salary at last.

Doing the maths, and being really conservative with the prices and figures, each of those apartments are worth value of not less than U$S 100,000 each. That makes a net wealth of U$S 1.6 Million (that's AR$ 6,4 Million). Let's make a rough estimate of the Judge's income for the last, say, 20 years, and fixed a constant value of U$S 7,5000 salary per month. That makes U$S 90,000 per year. In the last 20 years, the judge could have well made U$S 1,8 Million. Gross. Hence, out of his total income he saved 88% of his salaries, and lived with the remaining 12%. That's $216,000.

But let's be fair and expect some more extra income from conferences and book selling. Still, he managed to make so much money out of that, that he even managed to buy apartments in Rio de Janeiro and in Spain, and left some "small amount" in a swiss bank... 20 years ago. Wow! that's a financial wizard! I've attended the very same law school he did... and so far I managed to have a very small (also) savings acount in a US bank.... just in case, you know.

Zaffaroni is a well respected criminal law professor and publisher. Even people who are totally against his philosophical positions (for instance, his ideas of supporting criminals instead of victims, and blaming on "society" for their abandonment to poverty and social exclusion, later the cause of their criminal actions) admire his smartness and brightness. Not me. Of all the text books I had to read in law school, none of them made any sense to me, since at all times his positions forgets to consider THE most important element of all, when it comes to judge the criminal actions of a person: the free will of his acting.

Zaffaroni was appointed by late Nestor Kirchner in 2003, expecting him to become an ally at the time to hear and rule "Human Rights" cases that the former president planned to foster and encourage against the military whom were part of the last -and tragic- military regime started in 1976, which caused the dissapear of several many individuals. His leftist tendencies were well known and his simpathy for the leftist guerrillas also. Hence, he was the perfect "friend" to appoint at the major and most important institution of the Republic, the Supreme Court.

Nowadays, Zaffaroni cries out that he's being the target of a political harrasement due to his simpathy to the Kirchnerism regime. But what's really remarkable is that the reports against him were filed by an also leftist NGO. So, why would a leftist organization would go against him, also a leftist?

In a nutshell, Argentina is becoming closer and closer to any given fictional Banana Republic, far and away from all institutional and republican way of life.

Ok, go ahead, and please... Cry for me, Argentina. I'll do my best to wipe your tears..

Human rights for all

Populisms are prone to use and abuse egalitarian terms such as "all of us", "popular", "socially inclusion" and so on and so forth.

Cristina Fernandez, as a proper populist, is well prone to follow the path, and so she provided us with "Meat for all", "Pork for all", "Milk for all", "Milanesas for all" (1), and last -but not least- "LCD TVs for all" governement's fixed price policies. The tricky idea is that we are all the same, and we are all entitled (thanks to Her grace) to have meat, pork, milk, milanesas and TVs. And what about all the other countless goods and services necessary and market provided? Well... we are not. Some may have gas, fruits and coats, for instance, and some will not. Taugh luck. I wonder what's taking her so long to launch similar populist programs covering any and all goods and services. Maybe because she is not as strong as the market at the time to create the incentives to produce, offer and provide all those countless goods and services?

Anyway, the thing is that together with those uncovered goods and services, principles and values are also not "included" in the "for all" scheme, and so it was soundly proved this week with the results of the DNA tests forcedly conducted on Marcela and Felipe Noble Herrera, which produced negative when compared  to those of people dissapeared  during the last military coup in the 70's.

But, a bit history first. Upon taking power in 2003, and for the next five years, late Nestor Kirchner and Clarin (the largest newspaper of Argentina) got along well, and their relationship developed in quite good terms, given that Clarin's editorials were not opponent at all, but quite favorable to Kirchner's governement.

But such a good relationship came to an end by 2008 (for several reasons -some known and other presumed-), giving birth to one of the most outrageously unconstitutional, non-republican and even ilegal attacks to the media in democratic times. Never before, as of restoration of democracy in 1983, the governement went so viciously after a particular news group as Nestor first and Cristina later, did against Clarin.

A few examples of such abusive exercise of the political power conducted by this administration are:

• In 2009, without any reasonable cause, judge order or previous notice, the AFIP (similar to the IRS in the US) appeared at the door of the offices of the newspaper, alledgely to conduct an inspection due to a probable taxes fraud. Given the size (Clarin is one of the largest companies in Argentina) and the scope of the "war" against them, it is materially impossible for that company to conduct any taxes fraud and get away with it. Hence, such a Bruce Willis motion picture procedure against the paper had no other intention but to create fuss and fear in its executives. As soon as Clarin's TV newtwork's cameras and journalists showed up, the AFIP inspectors flew.

• In February 2010, Clarin published that in October of 2008, late Nestor Kirchner buyed U$S 2 Million for the purchase of a luxurious hotel in Calafate (a beautiful location in Kirchner's home province of Santa Cruz). The currency purchase AND the hotel purchase called the media attention, given the sound suspicions of Kirchner's corruption and ilegitimate wealth. Cristina reacted feriously claiming that Clarin's publishing was du to another "operation against them by the media monopoly"
• In August 2010, Cristina Fernandez accused Clarin and La Nación (the second largest Argentine newspaper) to conspire, in 1976, with the military governement against the then owners of the major paper producer (Papel Prensa S.A.) to ilegaly acquire the majority of the shares of the company.  The state holds 28% of the shares. The actual purpose of Cristina Fernandez was to challenge the purchase of the shares 30 something years ago, in order to expropiate Clarin and La Nacion the ownership of their majority shares, and appoint government acquaintances as new shareholders. Were the procedure successful for her ilegitimate purposes, Clarin and La Nacion would have went off, since not in a million years Cristina Fernandez would have allowed them to continue buying the paper for their publishings. Fortunately, the last hope of our fading republican system (the Judicial Power) putted an end to her crazy, totalitarian ambitions, and Papel Prensa remains in power of Clarin and La Nacion which proved their legitimate acquisition of the shares. 

• August 2010. The government issued an inconstitutional presidential decree  ruling the closing of Fibertel, the internet service provider owned by the Clarin group. The foundation? Fibertel it's a monopoly and therefore, its closing is in favor of "all" internet users. Fibertel compites with Speedy, Arnet, Sion, Movistar, Claro and several many other smaller companies which provides with internet access all over the country. Fortunately, the company followed all available processes before Courts and never interrupted the provision of the service. Many individuals -clients of Fibertel-, me among them, also filed remedies before Courts and against this outrageous and abusive rule.
• October 2010. By the time, they realized that their "cruzade" had little chances to succeed, so they went straight forward and sent a law to the congress, promoting that paper provission was a state matter of public interest, and hence, subject to further (and more discretionary) regulation. Again, fortunately,  it didn't work either. 
• March 2011. From November 2009, through March 2011, 5 times both papers, Clarin and La Nacion, were prevented from distributing their sunday issues, do to illegitimate blocking of their trucks. The last of them took place on January 2011, and was conducted by a group of 60 people whom claimed being former employees of Clarin fired without reason. The case was that neither of them was fired without reason but for disobeying previous court orders issued against them in labor law cases. One of them was secretely taped by Clarin during his meeting with the newspaper's executives and lawyers, asking for $ 9 million as alledgely deserved compensation... in payment for not blocking the paper's building.

 Aside from the direct attacks to Clarin and La Nacion newspapers, the Kirchner's government sistematically attacked the press in general terms, accusing them to promote her overthrown from power by misterious "powerful forces" against the "national and popular" government which provides for the poor and needy, and goes against the rich and powerful... (ironically speaking, of course).

Pursuing such a magnanimous crusade (and proper to all populism and colectivism systems) may well justify attacking the constitutional freedoms of speech, of press and of work, being this attack a minor cost to pay,in view of a larger end: the "national and popular" demands.

But there is nothing like it, and quite the opposite Kirchner's government's only intention is to eliminate the republic and remain in power for good. Within a democratic scheme such purpose can only be achieve by eliminating the press, strong and resourceful enough to point out major corruption cases affecting the Kirchner's administrations. 

In the midst of the "war against the powerful" (leaving them - the Kirchner's- aside, of course), Cristina Fernandez suffered a major defeat last friday, when Court ruled that the DNA tests of Marcela and Felipe Herrera Noble turned out negative against the DNA of dissapeared people during the military government back in the 70's.

Why? Because Marcela and Felipe are the adoptive children of Ernestina Herrera de Noble, owner of... Clarin Media Group.

The Kirchners had no problem whatsoever with sweeping along its fight against the newspaper these two human beings, stepping on their human rights of being forced to defend themselves in a terribly long and painful case, in which even the kirchnerist judge Sandra Arroyo Salgado issued a court order allowing the police to seize Marcela's and Felipe's underware...in public. Later Marcela told the press that the police made them undress before 7 people, and they kept her panties ("for the prosecution").


As noticed, we may have "milanesas para todos", but human rights are available only for those in favor of the Kirchner's regime.

(1) Milanesas are a typical argentine dish, made of fried thin slices of breaded meat.

In spite of all, happy Independence Day Argentina...

Today is Argentina's Independence Day.

195 years ago, 33 decisived men, involved in the politics of the time gathered at the Province of Tucuman to formally proclaim independence from the Spanish crown, which had been recovered by previously overthrown by Napoleon Bonaparte King of Spain, Fernando VII.

In 1816, the deputies attended the Congress formed at the Tucuman province, and declared the independence of the United Provinces of the River Plate, giving birth to what is Argentina nowadays.

195 years later, unfortunatelly there is little to celebrate. Although we are indeed free from Spain, we've became subdits of a new sort of "queen". The president in power -Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner- is neatly following his late husband's methods and procedures, which are obsessive concentration of power, contempt for the republican system of government and the rule of law, and an abusive use of the taxes collected due to an also outrageous tax burden on the tax-payers.

This year, the national holliday is the day before polling day for mayor of the city of Buenos Aires. Given the unitarian scheme of this country, Buenos Aires is the most important jurisdiction among all.

In order  to leave the voters in peace to consider and medidate their voting decisions, the elections law forbidds any and all political propaganda 48 hours previous to polling day.

The queen, I mean the president, hastily decided that such rule does not apply to her, and instead she went on with the campaing in favor of her candidate, Daniel Filmus. How she did it? She went on national brodacasting system, forcing us to see her on TV and listening on the radio, and decided to take part of the opening of a new building at the Ezeiza international airport. As La Nacion newspaper reports, the presidents hardly participates in openings of public and/or private works on saturdays, and even less in the main national holliday as the Independence Day..

The opening and the celebrations are great opportunities to address the nation, which shall either see her on TV or listening on the radio. One can argue that it's always possible to turn off the TV and the radio. And -fortunatelly- there'll be many peoply doing so, me among them. But there are two bigger problems: i) the message that goes out when a president acts as if she were beyond the law (the elections law, in this case), and ii) the message shall reach those not upset enough to turn off the radio and the TV.

And that's what turns this issue so sensitive when it comes to consider the institutional seriousness of this matter: if she, the main officer in charge, can break the law... why wouldn't we?

In spite of the lousy government we have today, and of the jeopardy of becoming Cuba... Happy birthday dear Argentina!

Argentine citizens for Freedom

Liberties and constitutional rights are under dangerous attack, in view of the current governement's rules and measures, such as those conducted by mobster officer Guillermo Moreno.

Many people share these concerns, and feels the same frustration for the weakness of the individual alone, standing before a gigantic, over-ruling, almighty state. Many others are not, and fuel the beliefs of the government, applauding the demagogic and populist policies. And so they are happy and content with the current situation, unaware of the terrible consequenses in the mid term.

Presumably, terrible circumstances in the world's history could have either been prevented or at least softned were they knew by the international community. And by the international community I mean the individuals of good will, with interest and concern about the world's circumstances, and not the gigantic multinational governemental body of luxurious public officers appointed at the United Nations... supported by the tax-payers of their home countries. Sad example of this are the most modern killings at the Balcan countries and the genocide of Ruanda's tutsies, by Ruanda's hutu governement in the '90s. The UN did nothing...

I believe that the state-of-the-art of technology provides us with an outstanding opportunity to let the world know about the decline of this country, which was the most obvious proof that the classical Liberal principles by which the US Founding Fathers putted in motion the greatest successful social experiment, were indeed rightgeous.

Argentina, by mid 1800, was a desert, a land of poverty, underdevelopment and ignorance among the recently formed countries, free from the Spanish crown. Juan Bautista Alberdi, the lawyer and political philosopher whom foresaw the social results of the republican system, based upon division of power and unlimited respect of civil liberties, left us the most wonderful piece: our Constitucion Nacional de 1853.

The experiment proved successful, and the desert, Argentina, became, in a very short (in historical terms) period of time,  the 8th economy of the world, until mid '40s, when populism and fascism were first known in this country, due to Juan Domingo Peron's authoritarian government.

This is an open invitation to all argentine citizens, with a good command of english language, to use this blog for disclosing of the current political and economical situation, addressed to the international community unaware of the permanent attack to our liberties and freedoms by this -or any other future- government which dares to continue stepping on our rights.

Maybe if we cry for help, we could end up saying "Don't cry for me Argentina. I'm free".