10 PM: ONPE Presidential Results at 88.10% – Valid Vote

It is to be expected that a significant commentary on the election results will be concerned with the reaction of international markets and investors. It is also to be expected that the prospect of a Humala presidency, or even one of Alan Garcia, makes investors nervous. But we need to concentrate more on the conditions in Peru that are making Humala and Garcia attractive to so many voters. In spite of economic ‘growth’ of 5% annually in recent years, half of the population of 27 million lives on less than $1 a day.
It has become clear that at a global level we are facing two challenges: one is global poverty and inequality, the other is environmental degradation. We are told continually that international investment is the way out of poverty, but is Peru (along with other cases around the world) casting doubt on this? Is resource-based, export-driven ‘growth’ really building the kind of development that percolates through the population, building diversified, sustainable improvement in quality of life that is faithful to local values and traditions? If international investors want to make a difference, should they be concerned about supporting kinds of enterprise that not only produce profits but have an impact on the way they are distributed? This would be real ‘Corporate Social Responsibiilty’, and not just window-dressing. It could also be in the long-term interest of the investors themselves.

Kent, your wife needs to register with the Peruvian consulate that covers her jurisdiction. (I don’t know where you live, but you can find on the web the closest one to you). Registration is done by obtaining a new DNI (national identity document) with her current address. It is too late to do it for this round of elections. In fact, she will have to pay a nominal fine for not having voted. But she will be registered for the next time. Hope this helps. If you live in the USA, you can go to http://www.consuladoperu.com to find the closest consulate.

Talking of investors doing this or doing that is pointless.
When leftists win elections in Latin America (or anywhere else)it is because the people who vote for them believe that the poverty of some people is caused by the wealth of other people. That “the rich” and “the poor” have different long term interests and that different policies favour these interests.
Whilst voters believe such things they will support interventionist policies – the stealing of property (nationalization), “progresive” taxation, wild government spending (“social justice”) and endless regulations.
Investors can not change such things by “socially responsible” investment or any other clever scheme.
Investors just have to avoid such countries, or (if they are already there) get out. It is a shame that natural resources can not be developed – but it is pointless to try and develop things only to see them taxed or nationalized away.
It is also a pity that the minority of the population who do not believe in such ideas have to suffer because of the attitudes of the majority – but that is democracy.
The doctrine that poverty is caused by wealth is false, but very deep rooted. It is taught (in various forms) by the some of the media, much of the education system (especially in the Universities)and even by part of the Catholic church.
The supporters of the doctrine range from gentle scholars to savage kidnappers (the endless kidnappings, and the rapes and murders that go with them, in Latin American are justified on the basis that the victims are rich and the criminals are poor – and that the wealth of the former creates the poverty of the latter).
The voters must simply be left with the consequences of their actions. In the short term they will have some fun looting (or rather the government will loot in their name), in the long run (if they continue with their folly and refuse to learn from experience)there will be mass starvation.
The doctrine of envy (“social justice”) eventually leads not just to the destuction of “the rich” – it leads to the destruction of everyone.
One can try and reason with people (via trying to break the near monopoly of the left over such things as education), but a society that holds “social justice” as a basic moral principle is very difficult to drag back to sanity. And trying to humour people (with “social investment” stunts and using the language of social justice whilst trying to change what it means) is useless.
All one can do is to tell the truth as clearly as one can. If people insist on following the path of looting then one must leave them to it – eventually they will starve.

Not so fast Gene. When Argentina went belly up a few years back and their debt went down to 20 cents on the dollar, a U.S. hedge fund went in and bought up heaps of it. Within a year, the structured settlement on the debt was greater than 35 cents per dollar. So a 75% return in less than 18 months. Now that’s capitalism. Same thing will happen with Peru when they get some good government after the bad. And I’m not saying Humala will be bad. He may surprise everyone.

“global poverty and inequality, the other is environmental degradation” How long have these global issues existed? Even in “western” society these issues are at the forefront of political debates, so are the results of this election a reflection of an attitude that foreign investment is NOT the salvation to the issues you have raised? The lack of education and to a certain extent the power of media has misled many to believe self-sufficiency is a viable business model. I don’t believe even China with the largest domestic consumer population would survive let alone prosper if it were not for foreign investment. So is the explosion of the middle class in China a result of “Corporate Social Responsibility”? I think not. Whether $1/day or $30,000/year, when does the issue of inequality really begin and end? This election is just a matter of media driving choice rather than individuals making educated decisions. My interest in this election is related to investment in companies (mining) with operations in Peru. I have no concerns about their continuing operation in Peru regardless of who wins this election. Any attempt to interfere with international investments will result in locals decreasing their earnings from $1/day to nothing…which is the lesser evil?

kleuless, China holds a lot of foreign debt. Have you checked recently to see which country owes the most to China? I expect that you’ll find that it’s your own.
Your neo-liberal approach has proven to be disastrous for Andean (and other) countries and it’s main purpose is to manipulate and create fear, not to mention make a lot of money on the backs of impoverished people.
What a novel idea some folks have that the best way for Capitalism to flourish is to educate the poor!!!!
What you don’t appear to “get” is that by educating people rather than exploiting them they become consumers – isn’t that what you want?

ok, max, but you’re talking portfolio investment, while i was speaking about direct investment.

Kleuless, you are right. Education is over-rated. Everyone knows how to trade. All education does is separate the types of traders and give them pedigrees for some sort of social-awareness which is needed to control the masses. What nobody addresses is that it costs more than $2,000 in Peruvian government fees to start a new business. So that eliminates 50% of the country from ever starting one. And when you do, government administrators come in assigning penalties to circumvent business growth unless you give them a handout. The folks in Miraflores and San Isidro have created this nation where they are the only ones with the money to incorporate. They have luxury beach houses comparable to some of the best in the U.S. 30 minutes to an hour south of Lima while others live in squalor and are eliminated from being able to transact business due to the laws created by these lawyers like Lourdes Flores. Meanwhile those same people sell off mineral rights to western multinationals without sharing the wealth with the country. It’s a miserable place and someone needs to fix it. It won’t be Flores. She’s part of the oligarchy that created this problem.

Mary…such a profound observation. Bravo, it must have been difficult for you to form a coherent sentence given you are unable to distinguish between a handle and a name. I sympathize with the challenges you may have going through your day-to-day activities, which others may take for granted. Sorry.