[By Daniel Ñuñez Arancibia, Senator of the Republic] On July 10th, José Antonio Kast announced his brand-new economics coordinator, Jorge Quiroz, who presented their economic proposal as a supposed “take-off”.
The pillars of this supposed economic “take-off” by Kast and Quiroz would be the reduction of taxes for large corporations, a decrease in public spending, and the deregulation of the economy. Quiroz did not hesitate to state that “our proposal seeks to substantially and unapologetically deregulate”.
But what does “unapologetically deregulate” really mean? Who benefits from this high-sounding phrase? An Italian intellectual asserted almost a century ago that in politics, you know people better by what they do than by what they say. So, what has Jorge Quiroz done in his professional career?
Jorge Quiroz: A Track Record Linked to Collusion
Quiroz’s track record is telling. He has been directly involved in two of the country’s most scandalous collusion cases: the chicken cartel and the pharmaceuticals cartel.
In the first case, he developed the economic model that allowed the major poultry companies to carve up the market through production quotas—an openly anti-competitive practice. In the second case, he issued a technical report in defence of Salcobrand, one of the pharmacy chains involved in the collusion, downplaying the damage caused and even stating that “what the Prosecutor’s Office identified as increased sales revenue does not constitute either an abnormal increase or harm to the market or to anyone.”
We are talking about an economist who, far from condemning these practices, rationalises them as part of the “normal” functioning of the market. His technical defence of this conduct implies not only an indifference to the abuse of consumers—especially the most vulnerable, such as the elderly and those with chronic illnesses—but also an economic worldview in which ethics and the common good have no place.
Therefore, the real substance of Kast’s “unapologetic deregulation” is to give free rein to large economic groups to act without controls, even if that implies collusion, market concentration, and abuse of a dominant position. It is, in effect, an economic programme to free the powerful from any oversight or limits.
To this is added the dogma of lowering taxes for large companies, something which in Chile has already been shown not to generate growth or sustained investment, but rather tax evasion, avoidance, and the concentration of wealth. As empirical evidence has repeatedly shown, countries that have managed to develop have done so by strengthening their productive base, investing in innovation, added value, and quality jobs—not with tax gifts to those who have the most.
Quiroz and Kast: Old Recipes, Same Results
Kast’s proposal does not address the structural causes of economic stagnation: the lack of productive diversification, the excessive dependence on extractivism, the low added value of our exports, and the growing precarity of employment. On the contrary, it aims to deepen the very same model that has failed to improve the lives of the vast majority.
Behind the grandiose discourse of an economic “take-off” lies an old neoliberal recipe book: slashing the state, privileges for large conglomerates, and more economic concentration.
Kast has no real proposals for workers, for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), or for the regions. Only empty promises and a programme tailor-made for the economic elite.