The ongoing debate between the presidential candidates was a sample of bewilderment economic, a scenario dominated by a trio of candidates who seem to have forgotten (or never have understood how it really works an economy. As the elections are approaching, the prospect of having a leader who understands the realities of capitalism is away more and more.
Neoliberalism, the imaginary enemy of the president, in turn, should be defended, if not by our politicians, at least for us, the citizens. Not because it is perfect, but because it is the only system that has been shown to be capable of generating real growth in the world. Despite the criticism, the free market is the champion not recognized in the history of economic success of many countries, including Mexico. However, during the campaigns, there is not a single candidate who defends capitalism, much less talk about the importance of the private company, though some hold when it suits them, as entrepreneurs.
All candidates are apologists of a left that only knows how to redistribute the wealth that others create, without having the slightest idea of how it is generated in the first place. The lack of any pro-capitalist is not only disappointing, it is alarming.
Assistance programs funded by the government that they both like promise are supported by decades of savings and gains of trusts fattened by our tax dollars. Now, in this last six years I got the hand up to acabárselos, find the solution to continue to spend what is not of them, ransacking the Afores of the citizens. It is a plan as unsustainable as irresponsible.
The attitude of Claudia Sheinbaum in these campaigns is particularly revealing. You choose, with the coldness that the characterized by a strategy of outright lies, betting that the mexican people are ignorant and that you're not going to question it. Xóchitl Gálvez, on the other hand, fails to make the connection with the mexican people, trying to do it with a story based on the re-emergence of poverty. Not enough to be on the stage; there are that speak directly to the hearts and minds of the citizens.
This debate showed a troubling consensus among the candidates: all seem to believe that the equality is achieved by removing some to give to others, instead of creating opportunities for all to advance. They fight each other for the prize of who was responsible for raising the minimum wage in Mexico. They argue, with impudence, that the increase in the minimum wage is to the credit of the government, ignoring the reality that the wage is generated only by the workers and it is only possible to increase thanks to the companies. These are the true heroes of the economic indicators that politicians both like to show off.
In summary, when we hear the candidates debate, remind us that the competition for the presidency has become a competition on who can give away more of the money that does not belong to them. And while they continue to fight by promising more and more, it seems that none really understand where that money is coming from.
The reality is relentless and you can't cover up with empty promises, nor with populist rhetoric. If the candidates do not understand something as basic as supply and demand, we are on a dangerous path.
English 
Spanish