Twist de Economía Global

Hace un par de días tuve la oportunidad de hacer un análisis para un curso de comunicación política y retóricas del discurso de Barack Obama (Senador por el estado Illinois y actual candidato del partido Demócrata para la presidencia de los Estados Unidos de América) luego de su aceptación de la candidatura demócrata.

Aunque intentemos mantenernos alejados de la política en este blog, esta vez aquella vieja doctrina del ser humano salpicó los ideales del mercadeo actual: "La economía global". Les coloco parte de aquel análisis pidiendo disculpa de antemano por estar en idioma diferente al que nos acostumbramos a escribir (Aunque es herramienta indispensable el ser bilingüe, hoy en día siendo el Ingles predominante -otro tema-). Además, dejo claro que el razonamiento intenta ser un ejercicio objetivo de comunicación y crítica (en el sentido estricto de la palabra), además de reflejar a la perfección las opiniones de los creadores de este blog: no te vamos a comentar de política, vamos a discutir –y defender- el mercado global y sus consecuencias.

En resumen, el análisis nos muestra como las intenciones y promesas políticas del candidato demócrata se contradicen con respecto a lo que consideramos claros indicios de una economía sana, de tratados internacionales inteligentes y sobre todo, un manejo prominente del marketing (y las compañías que lo representan –vamos, Todas!) en conjunción con el momento en el que vivimos:

With profound gratitude and great humility I restore the importance of “Global Economy”.

Closing the last Democratic National Convention in Invesco Field –a NFL stadium— at Denver (CO), the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party Barack Obama accepts the candidature with a multi-thematic speech. While the candidate speaks to the people of America –spending his first minutes of the speech appealing to all the people no matter their race and ethnic group with several examples— as his principal audience (more than 38 million people watch him on TV)[1] several and relevant themes where mention: he briefly brings up his plans for the nation associated with taxes, public health, education and energy, among others. However, the candidate and senator for the state of Illinois “devoted 16 minutes of his 44-minute speech to the economy (…) and more than 10 talking about differences between him and the republican candidate John McCain”[2]; according to this last fact and the content of Obama´s speech we can argue that he successfully addresses the differences between him and John McCain, however, fails to provide a consistent position related to the global economy and foreign affairs.

“We will restore the foreign policy of America” and “We will prevent that people lose their jobs because of the company is closing in America to open in some other place of the World” [3] are phrases mentioned by senator Obama at his speech. At a glance, these two statements appear to be unrelated concepts from two different themes; however, these phrases are to faces of the same coin: America (and all its companies) and it´s relation with the World. The senator for Illinois claim that he is capable to stop companies to search (and leave America) for better and cheaper workers and, at the same time, maintain a good and strong relation with key nation around the world: two things that represent an antagonism.

Any government can stop companies to go away in search of cheaper workers by doing many things: lowering the minimum wage (improbable), prohibit foreign products to be sell inside the country (unlikely) or third, increased the taxes of these companies (and its products) when import the products manufactured overseas –specially those who used to be or are manufactured also here. The third policy of choice (that goes more with Obama´s message) would force these companies to stay manufacturing their products in America, however, will harm other countries’ economies (China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Ireland, Check republic, Russia) that are sustained by manufacturing these products and then send them to the United States. Also, will represent that many major companies moved their bases to other Capitals of the world “London, Beijing, Hong Kong and New Delhi” rather to stay in New York, Boston, Chicago or Los Angeles. Furthermore, the country previously mentioned (China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Ireland, Check republic, Russia) represents important allies in today’s global and communal world that can signify the difference between having committed allies against terrorism, poverty and illness, and pseudo-allies that will not always support the United States on these manners. In Obama´s words, America has to be “the last resource and best call to defend democracy and liberty”. Well, to fulfill Obama´s statement it is not a good idea not to be in good terms with countries that according to the World Bank[4] are part of the security council in the UN and 4th biggest economy in the world with the bigger growing rate (China), the 10th biggest economy (Brazil), the 11th (Russia), the 12th (India) and (Mexico) the 14th.

Going deeper in the analysis we can conclude that Obama should (and is the right thing to do) stand for providing better opportunities to the people who lose their jobs because of their company migrate to other country to manufactured there, however, he should realize –example- that in a population of 300 million people, 20 will lose their jobs for this reason, however they (and we) live in a global economy where there is more than 2,500 million potentially new costumers (roughly representing the population of China, India and Brazil): the logical answer is to provide the 20 million that lose their jobs with the tools to become the sellers (and retailers) of the new 2,500 million costumers of the world; avoiding not to put the biggest economy in the world[5] (USA) in a position where it companies would not be able to be competitive in a 2,500 million people new market.

Finally, and according to Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, “the centerpiece of his acceptance speech was a sharp-edged, almost populist, economic message, aimed directly at the middle-income voters who have been reluctant to sign up for his crusade.”[6] This would lead us to understand Obama´s lack of coherence related with foreign affairs and economy; he just want to reach more votes by appealing emotionally to the mid-lower classes. However, it is rhetorical incorrect to stand for antagonistic ideas or plans, no matter if does not seem to be related, in order to gain points or votes: be coherent with emotions, the logic and to build credibility[7] are the best rhetorical weapon.

Ahora, toma un respiro. Deshaste de la política exterior de Estados Unidos y comienza a pensar en como tú y tu compañía se están adaptando a la venerada "Economía Global"...

[1] (Bauder, Oakland press, 2008) [2](McManus, Los Angeles Times, 2008) [3] (The New York Times, 2008) [4] (World Bank, 2008) [5] (World Bank, 2008) 5 (McManus, Los Angeles Times, 2008) [7] Aristotle´s Ethos, Pathos and Logos