[Trending News] The definitive loss of innocence

Surely some readers are already familiar with the facts that move in these hours to the country. But this note would be unintelligible if it would not start there. On Friday afternoon, an unknown company launched a financial product called $ Libra to invest in it who would like to do it. A few minutes later, the president Javier Milei recommended that they invest in $ Libra. In just half an hour, the pound value passed from zero to 4,000 million dollarsaccording to some relevant analysts of the market. That is, many people understood that the value of $ Libra would grow a lot thanks to the presidential recommendation. And so it happened at the beginning. But when the $ pound value was at its peak, suddenly He collapsed. The small investors who followed the moment of euphoria shot by the president lost much of his money.

As all this can be reviewed transparently, in a few hours what happened was known. The creators of $ Libra were owners of approximately 80 percent of that asset: only one of them, half. When they saw their value multiply, they sold. They took, in a few hours, a figure that ranges between 70 and 100 million dollars, according to different market analysts. Without presidential participation, that maneuver would not have occurred because no one knew either the company or $ Libra. To have some dimension of the problem, a simple comparison is enough: the celebrities José López bags contained 9 million dollarsthe tenth of the money made by the creators of $ Libra in one afternoon.

The president's public participation was limited to three interventions by X, his favorite social network. In the first, he promoted $ Libra with very strong and enthusiastic arguments. “Liberal Argentina grows. This private project will be dedicated to encourage the growth of the Argentine economy, anchoring small companies and Argentine enterprises. The world wants to invest in Argentina. Vivalibertadproject.com. $ Pound. Long live the Freedom Fare !!! ”. That text was reproduced with excitement by the usual fans of the president in the networks, even by the most aggressive, relevant and famous. Some of them reproduced the accounting seat that showed that they had put part of their savings.

A few hours later the second presidential intervention occurred. When the perplexity – even that of many unconditional ones – expanded through the social network of his friend Elon Musk, Milei erased his tweet. Following that, when the value of $ Libra had already collapsed, the president wrote: “A few hours ago I published a tweet, like so many other infinite times, supporting an alleged private entrepreneurship that obviously I have no link. I was not internalized from the details of the project and after having internalized I decided not to continue disseminating (that's why I erased the tweet). To the unclean rats of the political caste that they want to take advantage of this situation to harm them I mean that every day they confirm how chattering politicians are, and increase our conviction of kicking them in the ass. Vllc! ”

It is very interesting to analyze the literalness of the president's messages. In the first It seems to know very well what you are talking about. “This private project will be dedicated to encourage the growth of the Argentine economy, anchoring small companies and Argentine enterprises,” he wrote, before facilitating investment by placing the necessary link to make it and the contract prior to investment. In the second, the president had changed his point of view. It was “… an alleged private venture that obviously I have no link. I was not internalized from the details of the project… ” In the middle, the scandal had been unleashed.

Naturally, the presidential behavior caused a debate inflated in the networks where, for once, the libertarian world was defensive. Many of their gladiators chose the word “error” to characterize the presidential attitude. That, in itself, is a lot, for those who have been prodigos in superlative praise, and in an environment where criticizing the president, even for an error, usually receives an exemplary punishment.

Other people thought differently. For example, the former head of Milei's campaign advisors, Carlos Rodríguezhe wrote in the most elegant part of his text: “It will be difficult to look for a parsley to blame for this robbery. Milei has a degree in Economics of the UB, Master in Economics of the UTDT, Doctor Honoris Causa del Esteade, self -proclaimed Nobel Prize and President of Argentina. He is clearly qualified in the economic and financial issue and therefore is responsible for his act. Of course, one might ask what role the members of the advisors' Council played in this scam. ” It was an almost explicit reference to Demián Reidelthe man for Milei for the virtual world and another of the many finance specialists who nourish the most important paintings of the ruling party.

In an ideal democracy there are very specific methods to settle these debates: Parliament forms an independent investigative commission or justice investigates in a serious, fast and credible way. Argentine democracy usually lacks these mechanisms. But the dynamic, this time, can be difficult to control. For example, What will the Republicans and Republicans do of the PRO in the face of such a problem? Are they willing to incinerate themselves to loc Clean file? If they do, they will be marked once again. If they do not, the problem will be for the government. Some judge will have the cause. This time it will be very monitored. Will you choose to draw it and stay in the midst of a very intense debate about your own person? Or will it advance and the problem will be for the government?

Several members of the opposition blocks, meanwhile, have already announced that they will ask for the political judgment To the president, an idea that, in principle, seems to lack force in Parliament. But, again, that will leave those who work in an investigation. For example, when the clean form project in the Senate is debated, opposition leaders will expand on the subject. Another memorable scene is coming in which the different participants in Argentine political life will discuss who is their thief. Everyone will have, as seen, their arguments.

There are several unanswered questions, as is often the case after the outbreak of an episode of these characteristics. In principle: Will this change social support to the president? If the experiences of the past, or other countries, serve to answer that doubt, the answer is that it probably not, at least in the short term. Donald Trump It was reelected despite the fact that it had been convicted in very serious causes and the media were full of serious complaints that included criminal sexual behaviors, economic crimes and even an attempted coup. Carlos Menem y Cristina Kirchner They were reelected in the midst of endless allegations of the highest emotional component.

The cost will be another magnitude. If, so far, Milei was more and more to differentiate himself from “the unclean rats of the political class”, as he defines them, now a solid argument appears to include it in that set, in a very prominent role in addition. If he has taken for proven that Lali Espósito o María Becerra They are barely charged for their work, what isn't you going to say about it after this? It is foreseeable that the president reacts like so many other times, multiplying his aggressiveness against other people who have nothing to do with the issue, to divert the matter. Perhaps in this case it is not the best of strategies.

It also appears an obvious concern about the president's personality. What happened to you? Was he deceived? Could it be that a man who proved to be so intelligent is deceived in this simple way? Some of its defenders argue that it was carried away by the fever produced in the United States a financial asset associated with the image of Donald Trump in the days before his assumption. But those who know about the subject explain the multiple differences between one case and the other: the control mechanisms, the fact that Trump had not assumed, the direct and open participation of their children, among other details.

But something worse happens: that has not been deceived. To clear that doubt there are several details that the government should clarify. The Tweet that recommended the investment remained fixed – it was the most prominent of the presidential account – for five hours, when dozens of official accounts had spent hours claiming an explanation. It was not a mere recommendation, but something that the president wanted to be read and promoted. The tweet was published just a few minutes after the launch of $ Libra: A mere chance or obvious coordination? In addition, the entire operation – the $ LIBRA launch, the presidential tweet that promoted and recommended – occurred with a timing Very timely: just when the markets had closed on a Friday, when there was time to dissipate the shock before the next opening. In addition, the president himself participated in public acts with some of the creators of $ Libra who denote a previous link.

If those details suggest that there was complicity, of course very delicate questions about presidential morals open. But also How did not realize that the maneuver would be evidenced and he exposed very quickly? Many times it is difficult to rationally explain the behavior of human beings, and within it, that of presidents.

Either of the two hypotheses – the deceased or deceiving – is problematic. Among other reasons, because Javier Milei is nothing less than the man in whose hands is the fate of many millions of people.