 Bueno, vamos a comenzar. Muchas gracias. Conmigo con nosotros. Ella es la secretaria de Eclac, la Comisión Económica de Latinoamérica y el Caribe. Ella fue la vicepresidenta de Cofea, y ella ha tenido una gran experiencia en desarrollo sustentable. Tenemos el señor Larrain Lascurain. Él ha tenido una experiencia como ministra de la economía de Chile con Sebastián Piñera. Él trabaja en la Universidad Católica de Chile. Él es el director de la idea, experto en partes, elecciones, democracia y gobernación en la región. Tenemos Mauricio Lasala, director de el Centro de Recursos Humanitarios de la Unidad. Él trabajó en el Corte Internacional. Él es experto en el impacto de las empresas en los derechos humanos. Lionel Dominguez es el presidente de la Fundación Global de Democracia y tiene una gran experiencia en la República Dominicana. Él ha trabajado por 12 años. Todo el mundo tiene claro en sus mente. Latinoamérica ha estannado el mundo por varios años porque los ratios de crecimiento y la presidencia eran reducciones de la pobreza. Hace un gran optimismo, porque la igualdad fue reducida año tras año. Hace un gran impacto en la educación y la sanidad. La región más aniquil en el mundo puede cambiar y cambiar la historia de siempre y recuperar las décadas. Pero lo que ha sucedido ahora, y lo hemos visto en los últimos paneles y debates, no tenía el momento necesario. Tiene una reducción de la inequalities y un cambio de extremidad de la inequalities que existen en Latinoamérica. Se ha parado antes de su tiempo. Los materiales y los precios fueron afectados y no llegamos tan lejos como queríamos por reducir la igualdad en el mundo. Lo que quería preguntar fue comenzar con nuestra conversación. Hemos visto que el apoyo a la democracia es un cambio en Latinoamérica. Muchos consideran que esto es debido a la crisis. Este modelo económico no puede ser sustentado con esta igualdad. Así que vamos a comenzar con ustedes. Creo que la igualdad es una de las grandes cordias de Latinoamérica y el caribe, porque la igualdad va contra el desarrollo, el crecimiento, la seguridad y todo. Pero es una igualdad que no es una igualdad, que es la que nos mesuramos a la clara. Las raíces son más de 0,5%. Pero también referimos a la igualdad funcional, la distribución entre capital y el mes de salario. Es decir, los precios o los precios van a capital, sino a la gente. Y la tercera concentración de la vida. En México, 80% de los ácidos financieros y los ácidos financieros son con 10% de la población. La generación de la concentración de la vida es 0,7%. Y la igualdad global ha creado un sentimiento de los perderos. Un grupo de la clara, que es disapointe, disapointe con la globalización y con este modelo económico, porque es una igualdad. No es cierto que tengamos más desarrollo o más trade. Y además, tenemos una crisis, que es el más severo falso de todo, que es el cambio climático. Y es una emergencia que está ahí. La degradación ambiental existe. Entonces, hay un estilo de desarrollo, que no es sustentable. No sé si va a ser el futuro de capitalismo o qué, pero si queremos un futuro existir, el estilo de desarrollo debe ser cambiado. ¿Por qué no te acuerdas que esto no es sustentable? Partidamente. Uno debe tener una cierta perspectiva a un largo tiempo y la perspectiva en el tiempo es la siguiente. Cuando damos este modelo, ¿qué realmente significa? Por favor, perdóname, porque ahora voy a poner mis ácidos académicos. Vamos a reflejar. El mundo ha conocido el desarrollo económico para los últimos 200 años, de los 2000 años de existencia. Esto coincide con la revolución industrial y la emergencia de capitalismo. Antes de esto sucedió, el mundo no se ha crecido. Desde los tiempos de Cristo, año 0 y 1500, el desarrollo es 0, 0 por capital incumbre y la población no se crea. Seguramente, sé que tenemos un problema con la distribución. Más de 25 años atrás, he publicado un documento sobre la igualdad. Se ha mostrado cómo países que no son iguales tienen una tendencia a crecer más. Pero, dentro, porque deberíamos ver el lado complexo de la materia, y también la mitad que es completa en el glas o el botón, hemos tenido una reducción de la igualdad que no ha sido reducida desde el último año. Las figuras que estoy hablando globalmente, no hay regresión. Estamos en el mundo más igual en el mundo, es cierto, pero en el último año y medio, porque esto empezó en los 2000 años, en mi país y en otros países, la igualdad ha reducido. Y hay un periodo en el que esto no sucedió, en 2008 o 2009. Y entonces el proceso continuó. Ahora estamos en una situación en la que estamos enfrentando el fin de la superciedad de la comodidad en la región, y esto nos hace reinventarnos. Para analizar las cosas, tenemos que hacer una diferencia. La América Latina es muy diversa. Tenemos países que han tomado parte de la superciedad para mejorar las instituciones económicas, las centrales autónomas y también las agencias físicas. Estos recursos acumulados en buenos tiempos, y otros países, lo han escondido, como Venezuela, o Ecuador. He estado visitando Ecuador últimamente y he sabido cómo, desde los buenos tiempos de oliva, nada ha sido salvado, otros países lo han hecho. Así que tenemos diferentes realidades. Estos días, los países que están mejor posicionados en la región son los que belongan a la Alianza Pacífica y me gustaría hacer un caveat con Argentina. Las cosas han mejorado sobre la calidad de las políticas públicas. Así que creo que la idea, que el modelo no es suficiente, déjame ser específico, ¿cuál parte del modelo referimos? Y también, debemos considerar que, aunque la distribución es extremadamente importante, no es el mismo como por la causa de la reducción de la igualdad en la distribución, las políticas negativas han sido implementadas en Latinoamérica. Estas son frutas, no hay futuro en estas políticas, porque, si se despliega el desarrollo económico en un país por la falta de reforma taxa, por supuesto que se va contra ti. Tenía que implementar dos reformas taxas. No tengo problema contra las taxas aumentadas. Son reformas que están bien implementadas y otras que no. Si quieres mejorar la igualdad, debemos actuar en la educación y en la calidad de la educación. Y me gustaría concluir con una figura importante. En Chile estamos en el medio de una igual, digamos, región. Pero cuando la población se despliega en cojones que tienen que hacer con la edad, el joven tiene una igual distribución que es similar a la de la OECD. Y los adultos también tienen una igualdad en la educación. Entonces tal vez el aspecto optimista de todo esto es eso. Como hemos mejorado la educación, hemos mejorado más personas a la edad de la educación. Digamos que la Universidad Tertiary está alrededor de 35% de ese grupo de edad. Se ha duplicado en los últimos 20 años. Así como mucho hemos logrado eso, hemos mejorado la igualdad. Y esto no es un cambio overnight. No deberías pensar que algo se hará y el día es un cambio. No deberías pensar que es un cambio overnight. Pero ¿Dónde vamos? ¿Es el modelo más complicado y la sociedad puede finalmente demandar un modelo alternativo? Primero tenemos que distinguir si es una situación específica o un modelo como es si es un modelo que no deberíamos restricar a Latinoamérica a nivel global. En el caso específico de nuestra región deberíamos ver que hay algunos aspectos positivos o elementos que están relacionados con el hecho que por la crisis que hemos experimentado en los años 80 y 90 hay algunas cosas que hemos hecho bien. La estabilidad macroeconómica ha sido recuperada. La prevención de la capitalización de las bancas ha sido recuperada. La supervisión de las bancas también. Y también la prevención de la política. Hay algunos aspectos internos que fueron favoritos porque cuando las prevenciones aumentaron Latinoamérica estaba already working stable desde el punto de vista macroeconómico. Cuando el 2008 la crisis empezó first of all it was not originated in Latin America but at the core of world capitalism the US it then spread on to Europe through the toxic assets via the subprimes so no bank went broke in Latin America because of this crisis but Latin America was affected by the drop in the world trade. So does the increase in the prices of commodities which grew for a decade 5.4% of an average annual growth that's spectacular the golden era is that sustainable no it is not because it did not depend on endogenous players but rather exogenous extraordinary player China was growing at 12.5% annual annually it de accelerated and it started growing by half so therefore the Latin American commodities demand was reduced prices dropped as Felipe said if a country in good times was not able to invest in other productive areas diversify the economy of course then the virtual collapse situation ensues so the economic situation as is is not sustainable the model aspect must be debated from a different point of view Mauricio as a representative of civil society how is this seen by companies up to what extent is it sustainable seen from the civil society point of view I believe it is not sustainable the barometer of trust the Edelman barometer of trust says that the levels of trust in the private sector are at a critical level which is very low and they've been going down for five years so as not to repeat myself especially about the negative effects of inequality inequality is undoubtedly one big factor regarding the lack of trust of the people as a whole regarding institutions and private companies but there are other factors for instance the factor that has been mentioned widely which is the revolving door from the point of view of the public there are balances and regulations or checks and regulations that could regulate that phenomenon in which big businessmen go to politics and politicians go to companies and they use confidential or insider information to make their own interests advance or progress and the people feel at a disadvantage another factor is the lack of social dialogue we've seen that in many of the biggest infrastructure projects in Latin America no attention is paid to the opinion of the communities that will be affected by these projects and this undoubtedly contributes to the lack of trust and lack of transparency is an important factor too there are countries in which regulations, decisions are more transparent and are accessible to all there is a higher level of trust and equality because people have access to the information and that information can be used to improve public and private policies so this lack of trust leads to the emergence of populist movements there in its heyday especially not only in Latin America but also in the north populist and nationalist movements take advantage of these feelings to exploit marginality and people feel that globalization has left them aside or behind so if we want to stop the growth of nationalist and populist movements so that they don't bring backwardness to globalization that should be based on globalization with clear rules of the game we should take a look at the root of the heyday of these movements but what can be the consequences of such an idea taking root a los I'm not going to summarize the last 2,000 years but I am going to summarize the last 40 why do I believe that this is important we have to look at this not as a snapshot but rather as a video where do we come from and where do we stand we don't have much time in the region so we started transition to democracy in the 70s early 80s and next year we're going to have 40 years but we can't tackle it let's take the region as a block we have the first cycle the first economic cycle that is related to the political cycle the lost decade in the 80s in economic times that is the debt problem but that's when the region begins to experience in the 12 years from 78 to 8990 with the last entries Nicaragua, Paraguay led to democracy 90s the first 7 years were years of neoliberalism the Washington consensus that was ok 3 point odd and then we had the Asian crisis they have lost decade 98 to 02 that lost decade is when all the neoliberal governments were deflated they were the ones that had led the privatization process in Mexico Cardoso in Brazil and Menem in Argentina those last 3 presidents are the ones that introduced re-election in Argentina everybody believes that it was Chávez Fernando Enrique Fujimori and Menem introduced it because they said we're doing so well we can't leave they reformed the constitution and they introduced the possibility of running for office again when we discovered that we were in a crisis China comes in and then we have the boom of raw materials we go from 2002 2008 we see a growth in the region and that's when we have the Lulas, the Kirchner the Koreas in Latin America we already had Chávez and that's when we paint South America pink and with a new left when we are again celebrating 2008, 2009 we were scared nothing happened 2010 we have a leap upwards we grow to 6% in 2010 and when we are uncorking the bottle champagne and we say ok we got Scott free well then we have 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and with the last two years with a recession and today we are feeling the patient for any pulse and maybe we will grow 1.3% if we grow at 3% or 5% it will take us 15 years if we grow at 3 24 years 1 or 2 points it won't be sustainable we have to add to this that we have we're having 18 presidential next year between 17 and 18 we'll see what where the region is headed there's correlation between the economic and political cycles and the external sphere we started talking in 2015 that there was going to be a new political science and a an economic cycle of deceleration and rest but as all the elections were lost by officialism Kiertener here the officials in Peru, Chavez and parliamentary elections etc it was believed that the Latin American region was headed in the right direction but then Ecuador comes in we're going to have Chile we're going to have Honduras they don't play a very leading role but we have to pay attention to 2018 there's Mexico, there's Venezuela if there are elections Colombia comes in and Brazil in addition to Paraguay and Costa Rica but those four mega elections plus the Chilean one are going to decide que la América Latina va a ser la cuarta cuestión es que tenemos que continuar a apoyar la democracia es todavía 53, 54, 55% lo que ha caído es la satisfacción con la democracia no estamos hablando de una crisis de la democracia pero una crisis en la democracia con la política de Honduras porque es una corrupción así que ¿cómo podemos ayudar a la región no a caer en populismo? porque si no pagamos atención a los demandas de la nueva agenda que es la agenda de la clase media vamos a caer en víctimas para un gran suceso Chile ha caído en víctimas para su propio suceso se crea poverty y hay una nueva sociedad con nuevas demandas más y mejor public services, más transparencia más contabilidad, no quieren todo ahora y si es posible, para libre y eso, por supuesto, es muy difícil voy a decir que como un factor creo que hemos hecho un gran progreso en las instituciones en la economía, etcétera pero ¿dónde veo el problema? es en la generación de los precios públicos creo que la sociedad ha sido tan individualística yo vivo en Chile en Chile, las personas han resolvido los problemas detrás de las puertas van a caer hay una clase media que se llama la mayoría satisfecha ellos dicen ok, no hagan caminos no hagan nada porque mi hija es en la escuela mi casa, mi TV set mi table, todo pero cuando van al lado de la puerta no hay nada, no hay los precios públicos esos precios colectivos que una sociedad que es más inhabitable debería tener ellos lo missen lo que está pasando el estado político los derechos políticos de personas para votar, etcétera no se traducen en un estado social o estatus puedes ver que Chile ha hecho un gran esfuerzo para llevar a las personas de la pobreza pero estos programas son apagados a la pobreza pero lo que no vemos es el pacto social que es necesario una nueva coalición social que podría hacer la vida mucho más fácil yo hablo con los jóvenes no creo que los jóvenes estén viviendo es un idioma muy complexo con problemas, con la igualdad con sexual con género igualdad entonces, ¿cómo podemos instalar ciertas políticas de estado que nos lead realmente para crear un más entendimiento una más colectiva sociedad eso es lo que está pasando a la vez de nuestro individualismo porque nos afecta tenemos un impacto así que la política pública debería votar a intentar revertir a una sociedad más inclusiva así que la género y estamos capaces de generar género ok, la humanidad puede generar género pero no al precio de el ambiente o destruir los océanos o la biodiversidad así que ¿cómo distribuir la género en la sociedad? creo que eso es lo que tenemos que cuidar distribución de género oportunidades sensibilidades tiene muchas fases es lo que tenemos que ver a las mujeres africas indígenas esto es lo que el continente tiene que pensar ok, así que todo el mundo está hablando de Chile vamos a ver, estamos hablando de un nuevo contrato social voy a darles un piso de efecto el barómetro latino dice que entre el 24 al 2011 la percepción que los gobiernos están trabajando por todo el país pero esta indicación es lo más bajo en los últimos años así que muchas personas están pensando que no estamos trabajando para las personas el nuevo contrato social creo que es posible en la situación actual con la situación complexa podemos inventar un nuevo contrato social en Latinoamérica creo que podemos hacer lo que podemos lograr incluso en este periodo en estos tiempos cuando tienes circunstancias extraordinarias la decisión más importante es cómo beneficio de esto cómo puedo usar la base en el tiempo para utilizarlo y no en las generaciones futuras cada país es diferente de este sentido me acuerdo con Alicia en una de las cosas que ella mencionó que es el desafío ambiente creo que eso es un issue muy importante y muchas personas quieren negar estoy en un Council UN que se trata de este tema y es algo que es de gran preocupación que la nación superior para negar el issue del ambiente es terrible cuando perdiste el poder pero cuando dices que Ecuador en una manera es proveer que el tren no continuará y si la elección es 49 21% y es en el colegio electoral y se dice que fue fraudado en las elecciones creo que esta prognosis reservada de lo que sucedió en Ecuador me hace tener dudas creo que populismo es algo que no podemos decir o hacer una definición específica te empieces pero luego crees que es perdido pero luego crees de nuevo lo que estamos haciendo somos los que inventaron populismo eso es lo que hicimos en Latinoamérica populismo como sabemos ha aparecido hace muchos años antes entonces en Argentina fue una cosa y fue un campeón de populismo Argentina fue pero creo que es el mejor way de ver el problema hay que mostrar resultados de la gente si te decías y te pregunto y no hay resultados bueno, tienes un problema pero creo que esos países especialmente en nuestro caso en Latinoamérica tenemos tantos recursos naturales tenemos que tener buenas instituciones porque no podremos poder combatir el populismo es más difícil resistir el populismo eso es uno aspecto también desde el punto de vista de nuestras sociedades tenemos que ser más solidarios y la solidaridad tiene que ser estimulada cuando nos preguntan por qué no están desafiando este modelo en los Estados Unidos bueno, hay otros casos de Bill Gates por ejemplo que donan muchas de las fortunas a charities que ayudan al mundo y no tenemos una tradición en Latinoamérica eso es una cosa que deberíamos tener, deberíamos ser más solidarios más de un philanthropista para que esto pueda suceder y estas discusiones van a generar discusiones y debate pero quiero tomar un punto como mencionado y refiere que uno de los problemas que tenemos es que los entreprenuos se han convertido en políticos porque en este país tenemos un negocio que ha ido a las políticas y ahora es el presidente de Argentina yo tenía un gobierno que era un gran negocio y él está rechazando la elección y no soy un analista y no estoy apoyando a esta persona me refiero a formar el presidente Sebastián Piñera lo que tenemos que hacer es con los conflictos de interés no es el problema si la persona era un negocio pero cómo manejas los conflictos de interés y este es el caso, no sólo con los grandes negocios que hay personas que no tienen mucho riesgo y todavía tienen un conflicto de interés y el negocio es ir a las políticas de nuevo así que el punto es que debemos tener una idea sobre los conflictos de interés y el uso de información priviléutica entonces cuando podemos instalar la confianza y hacer mucho mejor el problema no es que los políticos busquen el negocio pero la falta de balancias y regulaciones sobre cómo la información es usada cuando vienen a sus posiciones los conflictos de interés pero la percepción de las personas en la sociedad hay un conflicto implícito porque no hay un período de descuidamiento dejando la posición en la compañía y becoming a politicians y vice versa así que es más de cómo la puerta revolvente es regulada que la puerta revolvente por decirlo es claramente en los Estados Unidos no es un problema de Latinoamérica solo, ha existido por mucho tiempo y ha contribuido a la falta de confianza en instituciones y en empresas eso es lo que hace sobre Trump y los efectos esto puede tener en esta continente y la reformulación que existe en los Estados Unidos así que esta continente también puede ver un estado o un tiempo de reformulación que las personas prefieren ir por un nuevo proteccionismo hay muchas cosas para clarificar lo más importante el fenomeno económico de los últimos años ha sido la crisis global del año 2008 que se ha convertido en una resesión global en 2009 en Latinoamérica hemos experienciado un general de downturn en la creación pero había una reactivación en 2010 se volvió de nuevo en 2011 y hasta ahora no ha sido la recuperación de la creación en Latinoamérica eso es el efecto que el trade internacional se ha convertido en un cambio en el trade internacional que se ha convertido en un índice para los estados latinoamericanos y por lo tanto una reducción en la inversión en el otro lado en esa situación específica en la que la economía no ha rebondido desde 2011 eso va a tener un efecto aneléctrico el incumbramiento que tenía que enfrentarse a una situación que simplemente lose su poder cualquier parte, cualquier ideología que debes si la partida de la derecha gobernó la elección se ha perdido pero en algunos casos han sido ciertas recuperaciones como el caso de España cuando Rajoy llegó a poder hay las demonstraciones de la calle y eso es donde Podemos y Ciudadanos van de Rajoy, Spain no podía resolver la situación completamente pero se ha mejorado Rajoy es un trabajo que trae una mejora en la situación económica él no era un ganador completo en el primer ron pero fue sobre los otros candidatos el balotage no hizo él un ganador pero tenía que estar fuera no hay nuevas partidas no hay Rajoy así que hay un tercer ron y vamos a tomar Evo Morales en el referéndum tenía que ser el líder de la misión por Unasur probablemente la situación económica en Bolivia hoy no es similar a la que existía tres o cuatro años atrás Evo lo lose el referéndum por qué porque no era lo que antes era tan malo, no estamos en el brinco de colapso y Venezuela, elecciones legislativas de diciembre de 2015 la oposición indica que el gobierno tiene todo controla la media los miembros de la Electoral Nacional son los Chavistas la armada también es el Chavista no había un eléctrico adecuado para participación democrática pero ¿qué sucedió? controló todo controló la mayoría de la Asamblea Nacional ¿por qué? en spite de la poder política que Chavistas había por qué lo lose porque Venezuela era en el brinco de la economía colapso social descontento no el gobierno puede contener eso no importa la represiva una situación económica social descontento y resulta en las elecciones de Ecuador Felipe, presided over the OAS mission they seem to be quite even the first round they lost they did not get to 40% by 0.06% and they could have made it the person visiting Ecuador realizes that there is a transformation roads highways, airports there is a remarkable infrastructure work it can be perceived clearly but in the last two years from 2014 onward these are the critical years in Latin America social protest in Brazil started in 2014 the same thing happened in Venezuela political turmoil in Latin America go back to 2014 and if there are elections the incumbent will lose that happens in Latin America and in Europe, France does not dare to run for election there was no reelection at the time in which a French president decides not to run for a second round of office why? because he knows he is going to lose probably Le Pran will win, nobody expected him because the two others Fillon and L'Archupé have been sort of burnt and there is a reaction against having Marine Le Pen win, so the phenomenon we witness is un heard of we are not talking about economic determinism that economy automatically imposes itself but these are crucial factors the economic situation is a result of a severe crisis because G20 never coordinated an adequate policy in Europe there is austerity austericide as they call it in the United States there is an increase of public spending to stimulate growth and reduce employment have not come to an agreement the crisis has not been overcome but if you allow me I would like to talk about the viability, sustainability of the model I was making a reference to the last 12 years the model which is a global model market global capitalism is not sustainable and I will explain you why in a second intervention at some other moment to ask Mauricio could you please explain the consequences that the Latino barometer has published because there are people in Latin America who increasingly think that there is no government focused on them on the people apparently something is going on according to what has been explained about the change of cycle which are the consequences that exist where can we go because of this the problem is not only inequality but social and economic uncertainty this has also been mentioned in another panel we are at a historic moment the best to be the consumer but the worst to be a laborer and undoubtedly with your phone you can consume what you want you can have something delivered to your door or have a car being sent to your door in five minutes but the driver of that car won't have a job in five years time because that job is going to be done by an autonomous car so globalization and markets should improve the majority as is the case now so if you allow me maybe we could talk about the solutions this panel refers to rethinking capitalism I had thought about a few items some points that deal with future solutions so we'll leave that for the end Daniel consequences political consequences of this feeling that's becoming more ingrained I'd like to make myself clear we had three cycles three economic cycles with three political cycles the region clearly cannot go back to the 19th neoliberal cycle and it cannot either keep this level of spending because the economy cannot weather it but it is not clear for us the future direction the region in Ecuador what I said was that it is a first election in which this chain of defeats of the running party stopped it stopped by a minimum difference it's been challenged but it stopped and we must wait for the four big elections of 2019 and the midterm elections with Macri in Argentina to see the direction that the region will take I do not see going back to neoliberalism just like in the 90s there are no political conditions for that but I do not see the possibility of the financial sustainability of continuing spending at such a level because bonanza is no longer existent where are we going to we don't know but there is a fundamental clash between expectations and realities that's the insatisfaction of progress the most important thing governments should do is have the capacity to manage to run the revolution of expectations we've taken 70 million out of poverty they are in the middle class the vulnerable sector and it's been empowered we've said you are citizens just like everybody else you have the same rights we've made them become useful to consume with high indebtedness but with high degree of consumption and from the political side we have to say sorry 7 million are now back into poverty and UNDP says that there would be a risk if things are not done correctly that between 25 and 30 million people will go back to poverty politically speaking this cannot be accepted in many countries and it is not so because in many cases there is no leadership and there is no quality in institutions we have a crisis of representation weak political parties this rule of law is also weak we cannot face this issue institutions have been designed in the 19th centuries to run extremely complex 21st century societies and I agree with La Rain we have an issue that is pending come out of this situation with an economic reform it is necessary but it is not enough we must accompany it with state reform so that there is good public policy a tax reform a deep tax reform to have a good fiscal situation and also a very deep political reform without the political, economic and state reform and tax reform the region will suffer social conflicts and problems that have to do with governance and I'd like to conclude by saying that that's the core issue we must recover a story because governing is not only administering sometimes economists are autistic and they always speak about economic indicators and that's why we have Trump, Le Pen and many others we must convince people that there is a sense of belonging people must be convinced that they are part of something that they share a destiny, a future that's why we must think in a disruptive manner we cannot have disruption in the economy and in technology and be gradual in political institutions and this is a mismatch we must be disruptive politically speaking too so I believe that the change is so deep not only in the region but also in the world similar to the renaissance not only those of us who are here but in the next 15, 20 years very deep changes are coming along and we don't know how to deal with them I believe we have some minutes left if we could have we could entertain questions otherwise we will continue debating I'm a member of the capital markets in Argentina and I want to make a comment in our region we've always been characterized by the capital flight and then at times of bonanza so it's very difficult to build a region in a country where there's no investment so what is distributed is only fiscal deficit never wealth so people believe that truly there's no response in democracy to this problem the problem is iterated over and over again you don't have to go back 2000 years but 150 will suffice this is a region as old immigrants used to say this is a wealthy region with lots of natural resources but sometimes they come here to steal things and then go away of course politicians adapt to the circumstances of the time right now in Argentina we've undertaken a deep change there's a law in capital markets that is trying to change that course I would only like to hear your response from the panel why hasn't capital flight always be ever being considered with the fact that big companies that should be reinvesting in the country instead of exporting their assets their benefits and the only thing that is left in the region is misery and poverty as former minister of economy and you've already I'm sure you've suffered the capital capital flight this is a major problem in Latin America it's something that can be perceived here in Argentina there's a huge operation with respect to that I would like to mention that we have the reverse phenomenon we got a lot of capitals flowing in at the time that I was in government and then we had a problem with the appreciation of our money we had problems with agriculture, with industries and they were threatening us to do things against us because the rate of exchange continued to fall but I want to say something you have to be realistic when it comes to capitals we cannot be naive let's say some countries do that let's increase the corporate tax rates do that and capitals won't fly away this has been documented in economy this is the case in Europe if you change that tax the country next door will do the same that's why I'm sure there's some admirers of Piketty and that's the problem that he has he wants to increase taxes but he's intelligent so even though I don't agree with him he's very capable he says ok all the countries in the world should come to the same conclusion and agree to change that tax in Chile we call that like a day that will never come but to conclude I believe that we have to have that dose of realism one final thing that you were mentioning the truth is that this is one of the most complex issues that we are facing and that is the middle class the new social reality that emerges out of the success of having taken like 70 million people out of poverty they are empowered, they have strong demands and the problem is that if you give them everything they're asking for that's where we'll have economic explosion I believe that the role of leadership and responsibility is very important you don't only have to preach it if you say you're asking me for gratuity and I will give you gratuity in my country there's 4.5 billion dollars and we have a problem because if we were in Norway then they would tell us ok there's that in Norway but there's a lot, there's like more than a hundred thousand dollars per capita we do not have to exacerbate rights of our duties everybody now wants to know where are my rights with the most elementary problem you have to tell people what they can get but what they have to give back that's where leadership and responsibility comes we cannot promise what we'll not be able to deliver I don't know Valicia if you agree with the idea that those who ask too much well they're part of the middle class ok, is this middle class destabilizing the system because of what was mentioned before because they're asking for more than there actually is, do you agree definitely I believe that to ask for more rights well that's the way ahead I believe that the 2030 agenda that was recently passed by the UN is indivisible universalist and that should be our horizon I believe that we have to get there gradually but I do not want to leave aside the agenda of rights entitlement is about the thing that we have to think about when we are rethinking capitalism and we have to reconsider it in several ways the distribution of work and capital we haven't mentioned one thing that is the future of work the fourth industrial revolution was the topic of an analysis and it said that if people continue to look for work we will need in 2030 70,000 million billion jobs there's going to be robotization automation so there's a change in the paradigm I don't believe that the paradigm as was described by our friend La Reina is the one that I would like to find the paradigm that I want to look for is to get a more equitable distribution of technology education work and we have to fight for an industrialization for a horizon of productivity that is not extractivism I understand Chile because obviously depends on copper but what we have to look for is greater production expansion we have to incorporate 143 million young people that we have in Latin America and the Caribbean the 30 million 20 of the 30 million migrants that were in the United States for instance went to the United States because they were expelled from our countries so this agenda 2030 is proposing horizon of progress getting 75 million people from extreme poverty by the year 2030 can we do it of course we can but because if we say oh no we can't there's no money what do you mean there's no money secondly we have to give electricity to 23 million people who in Latin America still don't have electricity we have to create new coalitions that are political and economic to gain this so what is the gist of the whole thing we have to change the conversation between the social with the private the public companies and society in order to get to a better country yes I understand but I just want to tell Alicia that of course we have a discrepancy it's not that I am against the 2030 agenda or people living better or diversifying or giving them electricity the differences in the mechanisms that we are using ok you talk about diversification ok but how do we do it and secondly I do not agree with promising people what we cannot deliver because that's the magazine and that tends to populism or paternalism too it's not what you are offering them when you tell people ok you're going to have this these things and it's going to be for free and that's not the thing you have to be responsible you have to decide what you're going to do that you're going to do this with the available resources but of course the ministers of the economy their role in general is saying no because if they say yes to everything they are not good ministers there was a minister in Spain that said that it's the only thing that you cannot negotiate President Fernández to conclude your final conclusion and any proposals for the future will conclude by saying that this is the worst time in history to be a politician because politicians would face two tragedies the first tragedy is that they are going to lose the election and the second one would be to win the election because after you win it what are you going to do there's a series of ideas that were mentioned here Alicia has said so very eloquently things that we can do to overcome the extractivist model how to improve productivity competitiveness the quality of education how to give better public services that are of quality all of that is fine my concern is that if Alicia we advance towards such an horizon it means that we started from the basis that we are facing a crisis and that's what we are facing indeed and that is the problem it's not just that the economic situation that we have experienced but the thing is that the model of market capitals cannot be sustained since the 80's as a result of the deregulación of financial system what has been prevalent has been the financing the financial system is no longer an intermediary in between investment and savings so the global financial capitalism is like a casino and the result of that is that the assets of the global 700 trillion dollars is three times the global output of the world so when you accumulate such level of wealth and that is not invested in the productive in the production sectors but rather is full spray to I believe that my main concern is that Donald Trump is doing that Donald Trump is reverting the Dodd Frank law of the of finance he opposes to to the economic wow that was quite a comment so in order to conclude the idea it's not sustainable how can we turn it into a sustainable model there are some young people in the back who want to ask a question ok so he can conclude and then there will be questions we have to be innovative we must be creative disruptive it is true that one has to be realistic but we also have to be innovative and we should not be naive of course there is a debate going on in the world a universal basic salary that was quite naive and idealistic 10 or 15 years ago but now Finland is implementing it and it is testing and we are personalizing it for Latin America and Latin America should try this should debate these ideas new ideas with all the disruption that's coming along with the crisis that all panelists have mentioned must be more public and vocal about social issues and environmental issues and not only economic aspects some people will say but that is not the role of companies companies don't have experience or knowledge about giving opinion on environmental social aspects of course they do if they want to they have the resources to develop that experience and many of them are doing it already and there are some studies by Harvard recently showed that there are CEOs that take this position are then benefitted due to the consumers and clients that goes against what many many businesses believe when Tim Cook Apple CEO took his public position or took a public stance defending the gay and lesbian community regarding a bill that was being passed in Indiana many people said don't talk about this because people will stop buying iPhones it was completely opposite and there are different surveys that show how CEOs who took public positions about climate change and favoring more progressive policies regarding climate change and environmental protection have been benefitted economically speaking so it isn't only ethical or moral but it's also business these things get together and have a positive result so let's think about activities, positions new ideas where we can bring public and private spaces together with a social dialogue in which the interests of the private company are on an equal footing than society interests so let's have a question I'm Gabriele Enriquez I'm part of the young global leaders and my question is related to the solutions that you know that are working working well it's a convention there is a convention about the importance of rethinking work rethinking the future of those who are self-employed of having incidents on the capacity of generating income out of our own work and there is also a need for the creation of massive and disruptive models and gradualism or a gradual approach as an institutional approach has not been so positive as it was thought sometimes have been challenged what the initiatives that you know of that bring together wealth creation in the region and reconsider how wealth is distributed so that the models that have to do with the extraction of wealth creation are restructured globally there is not such a commitment but regionally speaking we have to do all this in a democracy and that is no minor fact implementing these changes in a democracy implies that every 4 years or 5 years we will have to subject ourselves or in Argentina every 2 years subject to asking the electorate whether they agree or not that electoral cycle has to have the correct dimension we do not have the possibility of implementing big changes without living in a democracy democracy implies commitment that has to do with restriction and the electoral also restriction too but if you take a look at this in a perspective this sometimes cannot be extended a long time and millennials also consider the same thing we do not have disruptive leaps on the one side and politics inching along there is a big trust crisis and there is a lack of correlation between what is political and changes basic income which was incorporated in the new constitution in the city of Mexico that is a debate that is taking place in Brazil in Finland and other Nordic countries that is something that should be considered seriously why because we will have to see that up to now the solution was employment but in the future apparently not everybody will have an employment or employment won't be enough to finance a certain standard of living and you cannot have citizens belonging to class 1, 2 or 3 you must find a better level of inclusion or social cohesion I was surprised when I was watching the Davos video we had Ms. Lagarde from the international monetary fund and she had two messages what does Madame Lagarde say she says if politicians do not hear now they do it pay attention to what's happening y what's serious secondly growth is not enough paying more taxes is not enough creative solutions must be found there is an awareness that we must find not in any responsible or naive way but we must not be gradual in our approach we must find creative solutions society is clearly demanding more urgent decisions and more daring or challenging solutions thank you very clear is that we have lots of challenges the situation is very complicated we all agree that this won't last much longer so we must work in order to develop these ideas thank you