On American universities

American higher education is expensive. Very expensive (total expenses in an Top Ivy League school are around US$ 50,000 per year). This is an exorbitant amount in the eyes of most Europeans (and many Americans, as well, of course), for whom universities are either free or heavily subsidized by the State.

Nevertheless, America's great universities may as well be worth paying for. According to a ranking of the top 100 world universities created by Quacquarelli Symonds, a self-styled “global carreer and education network”, the United States counts with thirty-seven higher education institutions on that list. That amounts to the same number of top-100 universities as the next five countries in the list added together. No doubt, the Americans have an incredible advantage over the rest of the world in terms of higher education.

However, what top 100 university rankings prove above all else, is the unparalleled standing and importance of the English language. More than 60% of the best universities in the planet are somewhere in the English-speaking world. The United Kingdom, the second country in the ranking, and one that houses such honorable institutions as Cambridge and Oxford, also counts with a great number of magnificent universities. Australia is third in the list, closely followed by Canada (which has excellent French-speaking and English-speaking schools). This means that most of the world's top-notch research and best scholars (Nobel Laureates, Fields Medal winners, politicians and philosophers) speak, think and write in English.

In comparison, other so-called world languages seem to be doing pretty badly. Mainland China and France only count with 2 top-100 universities, according to QS. There is not one single Spanish-speaking university on the list, even if Spanish is spoken by 500 million-odd people in more than 20 countries.

Perhaps future parents would like to take this into account when thinking about their children's higher education. This should also give some pause for thought to those who are ideologically opposed to the concept of private universities. As things are right now, eleven of the best fifteen universities in the world do not receive public funding.

Sunday's Hope: Venezuelans can also vote for change. Maybe.

Since 1998, Hugo Chávez has only lost one out of 12 elections in Venezuela. Perhaps (some would rather say 'hopefully'), he will need to add the election on Sunday to his list of defeats. For on Sunday, Venezuelans are voting for 328 city mayors and 22 state governors, in an election that could weaken Mr. Chávez's strong grip on power and alter the Venezuelan political landscape for years to come.

Although Mr. Chávez is due to remain in the presidency until 2013, this election is putting to the test the Chavista political machinery he has built in the last decade. Many international observers believe that the election results will, in effect, represent a verdict by the Venezuelan people on Mr. Chavez's rule. Should a majority vote against his United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) candidates, this may mean that his citizens are not all that happy with his autocratic-like rule. Should the Chavista coalition win most states and most mayoralties, like they did overwhelmingly in 2004, this will mean that, regardless of what the outside world may think of him, a majority of Venezuelans still favor Mr. Chavez's socialist policies.

Of course, a Chavista victory on Sunday could (I repeat, could) also mean that he and his bunch of strongmen decided to rig the election, just like his Nicaraguan pal Daniel Ortega did earlier this month. But let's not judge Mr. Chavez for the actions of his friends. I shall only accuse the Chavista regime of holding unfree and unfair elections if there is sound proof of it. In the meantime, I will be happy to remind you the following: earlier this year, Venezuela's Comptroller General barred 300 candidates from running on Sunday's elections. Needless to say, the vast majority of them belonged to the opposition. Immediately after, the European Union parliament issued a useless resolution condemning the Comptroller's action and called Mr. Chavez to "foster a more participatory government". Again, needless to say, the Venezuelan government couldn't care less about the EU's opinion.

The helpless bully that he is, Mr. Chávez has already warned that he will deploy the military if the opposition tries to destabilize the country or overthrow the government during the elections. It is hard to know whether Mr. Chávez would consider an electoral defeat to equal a destabilization of the country, in which case he would call on his troops. But perhaps he knows that, just like he had to do last December, when he lost the referendum that would have given him kingly powers, he would be better if he respected the voice of the people. If Mr. Chávez does not want to waste the very little legitimacy he still has, he will need to accept a possible electoral defeat. And we, his ideological opponents who would be very glad to see him enfeebled, must also accept his equally possible victory if the elections happen to be free and fair.

----------------

Post Scriptum: rumor has it that Mr. Chávez has released his own CD featuring him singing traditional Venezuelan songs. Two comments on that: this may be a blow from which Venezuelan folklore will never recover, and at least now we know what Mr. Chávez does when he should be governing. If you are Venezuelan you can reportedly get the CD for free... I'm sure it's flying off the shelves...

The Inca example: why Colombians need to act a bit more like the Peruvians

In the last 10 years, Colombia's economic growth has been modest in average. In 1999 there was a painful crisis: the economy contracted more than 4%. Ever since, recovery has been slow, although in 2006 and 2007 the Colombian economy grew at a healthy 6.5% and 7% , respectively. Nonetheless, this acceleration was ephemeral: this year Colombia is expected to grow between 3.5% and 4.5%, meaning that the country is back to its normal (and disappointing) pattern. Of course, the world recession is one reason for Colombia's downturn. However, there are other domestic causes (high interest rates, for example) that also made the economy cool off.

Another interesting Latin American case is Peru. Since 2002, the Peruvian economy has consistently outperformed Colombia's, achieving a staggering 9% GDP growth rate in 2007. Colombia has not experienced such fast annual growth in at least 28 years. True, in recent history Peru has experienced many more economic crises than Colombia (the Peruvian economy contracted in 1982, 1983, 1988, 1989, and again in 1998, whereas the 1999 contraction was the first Colombia had seen in over 60 years), but even so, we Colombians have a thing or two to learn (and envy) from our Peruvian brothers: their Free Trade Agreement with the USA has been ratified; ours, is still in Nancy Pelosi's freezer; and Peru's economy is considerably more open than the Colombian one: the Heritage Foundation reckons that Peruvians enjoy a good deal more of Monetary Freedom (low inflation, few price controls), Trade Freedom (lower average tariffs), and Fiscal Freedom (lower corporate and value added taxes).

Perhaps we Colombians need to start looking South in search for some Inca expertise.

Un Crack financiero a la colombiana: El colapso de las pirámides

Colombia vive su propia crisis financiera --muy a la colombiana. Mientras en Wall Street se preocupan por el efecto de las hipotecas subprime y los credit-default swaps, en muchas pequeñas y grandes ciudades de Colombia también hay miles de personas que están pasando por la misma incertidumbre de no saber qué va a pasar con sus inversiones. Pero lo que está ocurriendo en Wall Street tiene muy poca importancia para el caso colombiano; en chibcha el problema se llama "pirámides", o instituciones que recaudan masivamente dinero del público con promesas de pago de dividendos astronómicos.

Desde hace años, miles de colombianos vienen depositando sus ahorros en las pirámides, que les prometen rendimientos de hasta el 300% en plazos de meses o años. Muchas de esas instituciones, de nombre grandilocuente y gracioso (Dinero Rápido Fácil y Efectivo, DMG inversiones, etc) operan en garajes y en oficinas de centros comerciales baratos. Algunas están constituidas legalmente; otras no. El problema es que las miles de personas que creyeron en las promesas de las pirámides les han entregado 2 billones de pesos a esas instituciones. Para hacerse una idea, basta con saber que 2 billones es una cifra de doce ceros (!) Hoy, una gran parte de estos inversionistas aventureros se encuentran estafados: los guardianes de su dinero, en vez de multiplicarlo, se volaron con él.

En Pasto, capital de Nariño y uno de los focos del fenómeno, un hombre ya fue asesinado por una turba iracunda que reclamaba sus ahorros. También hay toque de queda en varias ciudades para impedir disturbios y las aglomeraciones en frente de las oficinas de las pirámides se han vuelto comunes. De la noche a la mañana, las oficinas cierran y sus representantes desaparecen. Nadie responde. Algunos de los afectados lo habían puesto todo en las mágicas pirámides: dinero para tratamientos médicos, el fruto de la venta de sus propiedades, ahorros de toda la vida... La desesperación ha reemplazado la alegría en sus rostros. Los estafados reclaman justicia y la devolución de su dinero.

Sin embargo, hay otros inversionistas que están viviendo el sueño de la multiplicación fácil del dinero. A muchos, el negocio de las pirámides les ha funcionado muy bien y defienden a las instituciones a capa y espada. "Esta es una institución seria" respondía una mujer a un reportero mientras hacía fila frente a una oficina de una pirámide. Hasta ahora, según ella, le habían pagado sus dividendos de manera cumplida y estaba muy agradecida por ello. DMG, una de las pirámides, parece tener un gran respaldo de sus clientes, quienes se hacen llamar parte de "la gran familia DMG". Aparentemente, la empresa le pertenece a un hombre de 28 años que saltó de la pobreza a la prosperidad en un parpadear. Según un video publicitario, DMG tiene empresas en países como Argentina y Ecuador, y dicen estar comprometidos con "el desarrollo" de Colombia.

Y si por un lado hay estafados y por el otro inversionistas fascinados con la aparente realidad del dinero fácil, en una tercera esquina está el Estado que no sabe cómo responder ante la calamidad. La Fiscalía y el Gobierno se están pasando la pelota de la culpa. La Superintendencia Financiera, la entidad que regula el sistema financiero colombiano, apenas está comenzando a tomar cartas en el asunto, ordenando el cierre de una pirámide y el mayor seguimiento a los libros contables de otras. Muchos se preguntan, y con toda razón, si las pirámides que sí llegan a pagar dividendos tan altos están relacionadas con el narcotráfico para lavar sus dineros. El comandante de la Policía Nacional, General Oscar Naranjo, dijo que le pedirá ayuda a la Drug Enforcement Administration para salir de la duda. Por ahora, sin embargo, lo que impera es el caos y la incertidumbre de miles de colombianos. ¿Qué hacer?

Primero, hay que ser claros: las miles de personas que decidieron invertir su dinero en las pirámides lo hicieron por voluntad propia, dejándose persuadir por las promesas de riqueza fácil y libre de riesgo. Nadie debe asumir la responsabilidad por sus propias acciones ingenuas e insensatas. Es una lástima que unos pillos se hayan aprovechado de una población económicamente iletrada para robarles su dinero, pero en el mundo real nadie ofrece dividendos del 150% o el 300% -- es simplemente ilógico, y la simple promesa debería ser suficiente para levantar sospechas. El tema de las pirámides ha aparecido en los medios de comunicación desde hace dos años, y muchos depositaron sus ahorros allí a sabiendas de que había casos de estafa. Por muy lamentable que sea la situación de los miles de afectados, nadie debe esperar que ahora se les repare la plata perdida con dineros del contribuyente.

Ahora bien, la prioridad debe ser la captura de todos aquéllos que se han robado el dinero y, en la medida de lo posible, hay que coartarlos para que regresen el dinero. Será una batalla larga que posiblemente nunca tendrá éxito total. Verificar las denuncias de cada uno de los estafados será un proceso tedioso. Sin duda, habrá muchos afectados que jamás volverán a saber de su plata. Sin embargo, el gobierno central y los gobiernos departamentales no deben esperar un momento más para solucionar el problema y los ladrones deben responder. El Presidente Uribe ya anunció que se decretará la captura de todos aquéllos dueños de pirámides que no devuelvan el dinero en el plazo de una semana. Aunque la medida presidencial es por fin una respuesta a la crisis, tiene pinta de no ser más que una acción simbólica para apaciguar los ánimos --falta ver si alguien en verdad sí irá a la cárcel o si se devuelve el dinero.

De otro lado, las pirámides que siguen en funcionamiento deben ser investigadas a fondo por los órganos de control y las autoridades del Estado. ¿De dónde sacan sus recursos? ¿En qué invierten el dinero de los inversionistas? ¿Quiénes son los dueños? ¿Tienen nexos con el crimen organizado o están involucrados en actos ilegales? La Superintendencia Financiera (que tendrá un nuevo director, luego de que el antiguo haya renunciado debido al escándalo) tendrá que usar todo su poder regulador ayudada por la Policía Nacional. Las que tengan nexos con el crimen, claro está, tendrán que ser cerradas y sus dueños puestos en prisión. El dinero que se pueda devolver, deberá ser devuelto a los inversores, esperando que no haya policías corruptos que se hagan con ellos, como ya ha sucedido en Nariño.

Cabe añadir que, como siempre, el mercado terminará corrigiéndose a sí mismo. Con el escándalo de las pirámides, y la evidencia de que sólo son organizaciones de dudosa reputación que se esfuman en el aire con el dinero de miles de ciudadanos de buena fe, cada vez habrá menos personas que estén dispuestas a invertir su dinero en aventuras tan riesgosas. Poco a poco, las pirámides serán cada vez menos, aunque es difícil decir si desaparecerán completamente. Mientras tanto, algunas, como DMG, tendrán que rendirle cuentas al Estado y defender su propia causa.

(Foto tomada de Portafolio.com)

Democracy's Lesson: On Barack Obama and the Election Night.

After 22 months of intense campaigning, Barack Obama has been elected America’s 44^th President. The U.S. election, probably the longest and most expensive one in history, ended on a high note on November 4, when almost 120 million of Americans rushed to the ballot boxes in order to choose George Bush’s successor. No doubt, there was anxiety all over. When the election returns were slowly unveiled by news channels and radio stations, millions more everywhere waited with bated breaths. Here in France, many bars and restaurants were open all night, and local town halls had free events for people to watch the election results on gigantic screens. It was a party in democracy’s honor.

Thus, Mr. Obama was elected, and deservedly so. His campaign was an example of good organization and extremely successful fundraising. He campaigned tirelessly all around America (and in Europe), becoming a source of hope and inspiration for countless thousands. Starting as an underdog, without many supporters and little money, he went to beat Hillary Clinton within a Democratic party that still reveres the memory of her husband’s presidency. Slowly, Mr. Obama became some sort of celebrity, being able to convene immense crowds who were ready to listen and to believe in his message. For many, he is nothing less than a messianic figure.

One of the adjectives most frequently used to describe this election was “historic”. And so it was. Next year, Mr. Obama will become the first African American President in a country that was marked by slavery and terrible discrimination. His achievement has an immense value for America’s black minority, and arguably, for all the many other minorities in the United States (Mr Obama won 66% of the Latino vote, for example). No longer will Europeans be able to talk of America as a land of racial inequality with the same smugness, not least because ethnic tensions are running high in Europe as of late. Many wonder, for instance, whether the French or the Germans would be able to vote for a leader of Algerian or Turkish origin. Indeed, the United States has taught the world a democratic lesson. Even with an unbelievably unpopular president, two wars abroad, and a painful economic crisis, the Americans have not taken the streets to loot and destroy. Revolutions (à la française, one might add) are not part of American political personality. Instead, people in the United States used their vote to reject George Bush’s legacy, showing once more that peaceful political change is both possible and highly desirable.

However, those who read this should not fall under the impression that I adore Barack Obama. In fact, for a long time I supported John McCain for President. Of course, my opinion does not really matter given that I am not an American citizen and I cannot vote. Nevertheless, Mr. Obama’s relative inexperience and his protectionist rhetoric during the primaries made me uneasy (remember what he said about renegotiating Nafta?). I was also worried about Mr. Obama’s stance towards Colombia: he is against the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which the American Congress still has not voted upon. Although he recognizes that President Uribe has made great progress in Colombia, Mr. Obama still cites the murders of Colombian work union leaders as his main reason to oppose the FTA (as a side note, Mr. Obama voted in favor of Peru’s FTA with the US). While many Colombian analysts think that it is only a matter of time for the FTA with Colombia to be passed, I am not too optimistic. A Congress with a now even larger presence of Democrats might be less likely to vote in favor of the treaty. On the contrary, I found Mr. McCain’s unwavering support of free markets both appealing and brave, especially at a time of economic distress in the United States. Besides, Mr. McCain was a great deal more outspoken about his support for Colombia and for President Alvaro Uribe (Mr. McCain visited the country during his campaign), while Mr. Obama never seemed to realize that Colombia remained the only true ally of the United States south of the border.

This is not to say, of course, that I remained a McCain backer all along. His choice of the unworldly Sarah Palin as his running mate was puzzling, and, as The Economist remarked, it left serious doubts about his judgment. The scenario of Ms. Palin having to assume the Presidency was simply shocking. Mr. McCain’s economic plan seemed to be less impressive and adequate than Mr. Obama’s (this, again, according to a survey of economists published by The Economist a few weeks ago). A third thing that made me doubt about the desirability of a McCain administration was the widespread preference for Mr. Obama by people living outside the United States. Here in France, for example, there is immense enthusiasm for the new president-elect. Had McCain won, the image of the United States abroad would probably not have benefited as much; instead, the Obama victory has already helped to soothe anti-American sentiments. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, for example, has already said that he is ready to “enter a new phase” in the relations with the United States. For these and other reasons, I realized that an Obama presidency (my doubts about him notwithstanding) would be best for the US and the world.

Now, how successful President Obama will be remains to be seen. There are still two more months of the Bush administration, and given that politics is the realm in which the unexpected always happens, it is difficult to say how Mr. Obama will fare over the next four years. Of course, to be cherished by millions of human beings is already a great start. He has surrounded himself with respected experts on many subjects, and he better continue that way: he will need as much good advice as possible in order to overcome the great challenges ahead of him. I wish him the best, and I am confident that he will do a fine President. For his own and the world’s sake, I hope he succeeds.