A talk with Enrique (February 2010)

Detalles

Creado en Martes, 16 Febrero 2010 14:52

Última actualización en Miércoles, 29 Noviembre 2017 21:01

Escrito por Aliama Narval

Visitas: 2190

 Enrique is an advanced English student of mine who feels a special love for  words, so it is easy to guess that he is an enthusiast reader of the news, history and science as well as technology; and  as if he were a highly educated English man, he is a teacher of irony, placing his sharp remarks here and there in the conversation.

 Today we commented, in English, the position of our country in the world order. We spoke about the participation and role of Spain in the European Economic Community and  how the economy of certain countries was affected by the natural disasters, which in some cases seem to retard their development, and in others, this destructive forces seem to oblige those that  suffer from them to reconsider the whole economic system, without finding anything better the less provident ones, therefore less developed, and reinventing forms and discovering new solutions the most provident ones and therefore more developed countries.

Making a great comparative display we analysed the elements which could force, in a recurrent way, the countries to reconsider their organization and to develop new economic concepts.

Amid the conversation and after having surrounded the five continents Enrique said": there are countries like Chile, Japan, Haiti and many others that have earthquakes, some of them also have hurricanes, typhoons, active Volcanos, horrible floods and even Sunamis and he added: as in passing... "others as Argentina have the Peronismo and Spain for example, the Socialism and the unions, as if it were always necessary the disaster and the chaos for the creation of new stages!

When seeing that  I burst into laughter  over his witty  comparison of the political groups with the natural disasters he explained to me, “ these countries spend a short period of creation of wealth, balancing and progress, to one of long despoil and destruction of jobs and therefore impoverishment of  The Treasure tax collection”.

He added, “As a consequence of all these, there is a change in the amount of money received as  income taxes from jobs, which  are reduced by the unemployment,  on the other hand the raise of the taxes, directly from the salaries and indirectly from other taxes like, for example VAT provoke  the creation of the submerged economy. In addition, this systematic raise of  fiscal pressure in which the socialism always tries to compensate the lack of revenues for the loss of employment, contributes to ruin the small and medium companies besides inviting the big capitals flights. This total threat of bankruptcy seems insistently to coincide, along the history of our country, with a socialist government.”

As I have already informed you in other occasions, my family was always in the “red side”,  socialist side, before, during and after  the Spanish war for what they suffered jail and persecution.

However, nobody of my family taught me to hate anybody and what it is more, they made a fresh start for the sake of the progress and the reconstruction, always looking for formulae of employment creation; some of them from Spain and others from the exile, were this exile volunteer or forced.

That is why, in the face of  so sharp  analysis of Enrique,  I cannot but think about what is evident: the socialist formula does not seem to be giving good results, neither here nor anywhere else in the world. The multiple examples appear to push countries to a general citizen poverty with a group of wealthy heads of state that in certain cases end up imposing a dictatorship.

Won't we in a future time wonder which our failure is without shifting the blame on the others or seeing conspiracies everywhere?

It is evident: we need people with ideas, good agents, good managers, honest politicians who love their country what does not change the fact that they can also love having a solid economic position, provided that it does not go in detriment of the quality of their administration. We need people to organize our country life and to make the domestic success of the citizens they represent, their most precious aim. But it is true that to have this kind of politicians, first, we have to show honesty and compromise with our country.

What does it happen so that politicians in general, union leaders and the administrators of the treasure, as well as, other organizers of the public life, can forget so often the ones who they serve and whose money  they manage?

Why does the arrogance substitute to the reasoning? Is it possible to serve two masters? Where are the wise men?

Enrique would probably say that they are waiting for the cycle in which is indispensable their  performance, on the verge of the absolute disaster and whenever the voters decide  it.

I wonder if at some time we will be able to change the sectarianism, so outdated and old fashioned and that so many problems and wars have brought us, for the development of the intelligence that offers us a better life, not with more things, but  with better  for all, but, of course, putting the limits where they should be settled down.

Will we know, at some time, how to educate our people without bitterness?

Will we be at some time able to live our differences and however to work for a very common wealth without fearing that those that lead us do not know how to deal with the economy and do want to stay, even though they are not able to raise to their positions of service to the community?

In short, the laughter that Enrique aroused with his sharp comment made me think that nothing compares with the knowledge of the words and the facts to be prepared for the new demands of the stage of changes which seems, cyclically, plays us to enter.

Looking backwards with love to those that preceded us we should reject the hate and the partisanship categorically and  should work all together to progress, each one in the measure an effort that each individual can make and in the way everyone  wants, though accepting the result according to individual  effort, as long as nobody takes advantage of one´s achievements, being able to live the 50%-50%  in every deal, which is an insistent  idea of  modern enterprising writers like Covey.

I  think that, this far on repeating the same we played in the past it is ridiculous and sterile. This world has already had more than enough  amount of “clever ones” and those who take abusive advantage of the others.

At the same time, the fact that the ones who prevent me from having headaches, and who make the place where I live beautiful and kind, earn more money than me, makes me feel glad as I consider they are putting the effort of their years of studies, the development of their intelligence and ability that I lack,  to my service so that I can live better. How could I deny them that increasing income difference?

I learnt that being entitled the same is not still same, not even in equality of circumstances we arrive to the same results, perhaps that is, in fact, our greatness.

I also learnt that if we repeat the same negative behaviour, the result will never be  positive...