For what one can deduce from the media, it seems there is an agreement among the groups of power pointing out that our economic problems and their severe social consequences (as the enormous poverty striking millions of Mexicans), only admit one possible solution: the replacement of the current economic model. And it is quite relevant that, with this conclusion, those who have been victims from this “exhausted” model agree, since this proves that, in its most general formulation, the diagnosis is essentially correct. However, the key question is: do we all also agree in the model that should replace the current one? Whoever digs in a little bit will find out that it is not such; that, unlike what happens with the general answer, each one here has a different model in mind, according to his/her personal or group interests, whether political or economic.

Indeed, the superior strata in the social pyramid want a scheme that, on its main guidelines and purposes, differ a little from the current one; they support the same neoliberal model but completely free of the scarce leftovers still remaining of state “interventionism”, in both the field of investments and the issues concerning social justice. They demand that the government should leave things that today are not merchandise yet (not totally) to the free market, for example, the medicine, the education, the housing, the water, the trash, the communications by land, air and electronic ones, the oil, the gas, etc., etc. They are also asking for a legislation which gives “better conditions” to the private companies, plus, special prices in the factors of production that the government still offers (water, electricity, gas, oil); to keep on building “industrial parks” for free; to “make the soft fiscal policies more attractive” in order to “not drive the investors away”, especially foreigners, etc., etc.

All of this and more, which would be longer if listed, is justified taking for granted that the new model must pursue, as the current one, the growth in the investment without taking into account its origin, and the “substantial” elevation of the productivity, that is to say, of the capacity from the companies to produce more and better satisfiers in the same unit of time, without raising the production costs, that is to say, without elevating the prices of their goods, but, quite the contrary, lowering them as much as possible in order to become “competitive” in the world market. The same exporting model is considered, in order to benefit the big investors, and that is why they are key elements of the same “a real fiscal reform” and a “real labor reform”, that is to say, less tax charges for the companies and elimination of any labor right in favor of the wage earners. According to this standpoint of the problem, the only way to raise the productivity and competitiveness, just like the exporting policy demands it, is at the expenses of the government´s incomes and at the expenses of the life levels of the working families. 

Obviously, the sacrificial victims do not think the same way. For them, before thinking of exporting, we should satisfy, first, the needs of the national majorities who are, also, the direct producers of the wealth. Against this, I have heard and read that it is an aberrant anachronism, since there is no more room for “outdated nationalisms” or for the discredited “economic protectionism” in the world nowadays. The “big benefit” of the free market, it is believed, what it makes it indispensable for the countries like ours, is its capacity to force the inefficient national companies to position themselves at the standards upon the best in the world. Effective competition is the mother of competitiveness. That is why the closed economies, they say, when the competition has been eliminated, turn businessmen incapable and parasite and generate, therefore, backwardness, underdevelopment and poverty. But if this were true, one would have to accept that the countries, the current developed ones, decided to conquer the world market by the desire of “learning”, of becoming competitive under their competitors´ fire. This contradicts in a blatant manner the economic history, since it demonstrates that, when the current world superpowers emerged, they were already the most competitive ones; and it was this competitiveness, actually, which made them saturate the domestic market and pushed them, with an irresistible strength, to leap beyond their national borders. This demonstrates, undeniably, that productivity is the mother and not daughter of the world market; that it is possible to be productive in an economy inclined, due to historical reasons, to its own domestic market, as long as the interest and purpose to do it exist.

At México, what has impeded this from taking place has been the political conspiracy between the government and companies, which is not the same as for the economic protectionism with a patriotic and popular accent. The Mexican political protectionism was manifested through the tolerance of monopolist practices which place the companies under the protection from the competition of their national peers; through the transfusion, currently existing, from huge public resources to the private sector, disguised in a thousand ways possible; through the enormous fiscal privileges which do not belong to the past either and, in a preponderant way, through the wage control and constant deterioration upon the levels belonging to the working class´s life. That is why, and not due to the nationalist nature from the model, a poorly-enterprising business sector was formed, not willing to improve its technology and more inclined to wasting than to do productive investments. If all of this were eliminated, regulated or rationalized, a healthy economic nationalism can be the country´s salvation. As for everything else, no one with sane judgment postulates a total isolation for our economy; we should export because we need to buy from the world, but we must do it taking into account the interests from everybody and not only from the big exporting companies established at our country.