Suchergebnisse

Resumen: Este artículo expone en forma sucinta dos formas muy diferentes de entender la política, a saber: la de algunos autores "clásicos", representados por Platón, Aristóteles, Cicerón, Agapito Diacono y Tomás de Aquino, y la de Maquiavelo. Los primeros, salvando algunas diferencias, entienden la política como un saber moral práctico, como una noble actividad que debe ser ejercida por los mejores en vistas al bien común. Maquiavelo, por su parte, la entiende como una técnica, totalmente desarraigada de la moral, cuyo fin es obtener, mantener y acrecentar el poder. ¿Cuál de estas dos tradiciones impera en la actualidad? Considerando que no es fácil responder esta amplia y compleja pregunta, el autor recurre al juicio del Magisterio de la Iglesia Católica, para arrojar luces sobre esta cuestión.

Resumen: En este artículo se expone en forma sucinta dos formas muy diferentes de concebir la política, a saber: la de algunos autores denominados clásicos, cuyos principales representantes son Platón, Aristóteles, Cicerón y Tomás de Aquino, y la forma moderna representada por Maquiavelo. Los primeros, salvando algunas diferencias, entienden la política como un saber moral práctico, como una noble actividad que debe ser ejercida por los mejores en vistas al bien de todos. Maquiavelo, por su parte, la entiende como una técnica, totalmente desarraigada de la moral, cuyo fin es obtener, mantener y acrecentar el poder. Al parecer, y es lo que se intentará demostrar en la exposición, hay indicios suficientes para afirmar que el maquiavelismo se ha «impuesto» a los clásicos. La perspectiva desde la cual se abordara esta pregunta, es la del Magisterio reciente de la Iglesia Católica ; Abstract: This article briefly discussed in two very different ways of thinking about politics, namely that of some classic authors, whose main representatives are Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Aquinas, and modern represented by Machiavelli. The first, saving some differences, understand politics as a practical moral knowledge as a noble activity that must be exerted by the best in view of the good of all. Machiavelli, meanwhile, sees it as a technique, totally uprooted morals, whose purpose is to obtain, maintain and increase power. Apparently, and this is what we will try to show in the exhibition, there is enough evidence to state that Machiavellianism was «imposed» on the classics. The perspective from which this question is addressed, is the recent Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

COVID-19 became a global health emergency when it threatened the catastrophic collapse of health systems as demand for health goods and services and their relative prices surged. Governments responded with lockdowns and increases in transfers. Empirical evidence shows that lockdowns and healthcare saturation contribute to explain the cross-country variation in GDP drops even after controlling for COVID-19 cases and mortality. We explain this output-pandemia tradeoff as resulting from a shock to subsistence health demand that is larger at higher capital utilization in a model with entrepreneurs and workers. The health system moves closer to saturation as the gap between supply and subsistence narrows, which worsens consumption and income inequality. An externality distorts utilization, because firms do not internalize that lower utilization relaxes healthcare saturation. The optimal policy response includes lockdowns and transfers to workers. Quantitatively, strict lockdowns and large transfer hikes can be optimal and yield sizable welfare gains because they prevent a sharp rise in inequality. Welfare and output costs vary in response to small parameter changes or deviations from optimal policies. Weak lockdowns coupled with weak transfers programs are the worst alternative and yet are in line with what several emerging and least developed countries have implemented.