Temas de relações internacionais, de política externa e de diplomacia brasileira, com ênfase em políticas econômicas, em viagens, livros e cultura em geral. Um quilombo de resistência intelectual em defesa da racionalidade, da inteligência e das liberdades democráticas.
O que é este blog?
Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;
Dois artigos publicados hoje no GLOBO, um em cima do outro, resumem bem o quadro lamentável de nossa economia. Um deles, de Fabio Giambiagi, mostra como o gasto público crescente tem sido o grande vilão do Brasil. O problema, como o economista reconhece, é que a origem disso está na cultura nacional:
É preciso repensar o Estado brasileiro. Um dos problemas é que a demanda por mais gasto público é parte da cultura nacional. Quase todos os brasileiros são contra a “gastança”, mas muita gente acha natural se aposentar perto dos 50 anos, ter um amigo que “arrumou um cargo no Governo” ou ter um primo “encostado no INSS”. É necessário que esse tema entre na agenda nacional. O ponto de partida é criticar esse processo. Para isso, nossa oposição faria bem em lembrar a velha frase do ex-ministro Gustavo Capanema, de que “pouco importa que a oposição não tenha fundamento ou seja injusta; importante mesmo é que ela ponha o Governo em apuros”. Está na hora de alguém questionar seriamente esse processo contínuo de aumento do gasto público.
O outro, de Raul Velloso, fala do intervencionismo estatal na economia, mostrando como o governo Dilma desconfia do sistema de preços, fundamental para o bom funcionamento econômico. Esse já foi tema de coluna de Maílson da Nóbrega na Veja recentemente, e merece toda a atenção. Um governo arrogante que ignora a importância dos preços livres vai conseguir apenas prejudicar nosso desenvolvimento. Diz Velloso:
O fato é que as autoridades não parecem acreditar nas sinalizações que o sistema de preços proporciona, contrariando séculos de experiência e a consolidação do mercado como a melhor solução para reger as relações econômicas de qualquer país. Por isso, ou pela mera busca de ganhos eleitorais, as recentes intervenções no domínio econômico podem conduzir o Brasil a uma situação de permanente baixo crescimento. A verdade é que a política econômica praticada nos últimos tempos perdeu funcionalidade, fixando-se em tentar resolver problemas por ela mesma criados.
Em resumo, gastos públicos crescentes e excesso de intervenção estatal na economia são dois dos principais vilões nacionais. Infelizmente, o PT tem boa dose de culpa, mas não conseguiria causar tanto estrago se não contasse com o apoio da mentalidade predominante no país, que enxerga o governo como um messias salvador da Pátria. É hora de mudar essa cultura; e também de trocar de governo.
Banco Mundial vê 'nuvens negras' no horizonte econômico da América Latina
Segundo estudo, a desaceleração do motor chinês e a mudança na política monetária dos EUA trouxeram volatilidade e incerteza aos mercados em desenvolvimento, entre eles o Brasil
Veja.com, 9/04/2014
Bird: emergentes estão desacelerando e Brasil deve crescer 2% ou menos (Sabelo Mngoma/AP)
O Banco Mundial vê "nuvens negras" no horizonte econômico da América Latina devido à incerteza e volatilidade geradas pela mudança na política monetária dos Estados Unidos e pela desaceleração da economia chinesa. "Os mercados financeiros globais seguem nervosos e voláteis", afirmou o organismo internacional, em um estudo divulgado nesta quarta-feira.
O Banco Mundial destacou que o crescimento nos países emergentes passa por "uma desaceleração bastante generalizada", de cerca de três pontos porcentuais em comparação com os níveis pós-crise de 2008 e 2009. A previsão de crescimento para o Brasil é de 2%, ou pouco menos, este ano. Para a América Latina e o Caribe, espera-se um crescimento de 2,3%, abaixo dos 2,5% divulgados anteriormente pelo Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI).
Na terça-feira, o Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) e a Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) já haviam alertado para os crescentes riscos econômicos nos países emergentes. O FMI chegou a reduzir sua projeção de crescimento para a economia brasileira em 2014, de 2,3% para 1,8%.
O estudo divulgado nesta quarta-feira ainda chamou atenção para a "heterogeneidade" da região. Se, por um lado, estimativas apontam para uma contração de 1% na Venezuela em 2014, por outro, expectativas para o Panamá e o Peru indicam um crescimento de 7% e 5,5%, respectivamente. Chile e Colômbia também seguem acima a média regional, com avanços na ordem de 3,5 %. Já no México, a previsão é de alta de cerca de 3%, impulsionado pelas últimas reformas econômicas realizadas no país.
El Banco Mundial es contundente con América Latina: no hay margen para el error. Un día después de que el Fondo Monetario Internacional recortara el crecimiento a la región, el organismo habla de que las economías del subcontinente americano se asientan en este momento en una fase de lento crecimiento que le llevará a crecer un 2,3% este año. Es dos décimas menos de lo anticipado por la institución gemela en la víspera. Por eso reclama que se intensifiquen las reformas.
La institución constata una desaceleración generalizada en los países emergentes, que es tres puntos porcentuales inferior a la media antes de la crisis financiera. En el caso concreto de América Latina, califica en su análisis el ritmo actual de “decepcionante”. Es solo una décima menos que en 2013, pero menos de la mitad del 5% al que acostumbró en los años buenos. “Desafortunadamente, hay más factores que hacen de lastre que de impulso”, opina.
El contexto es complejo, como muestra el informe. Banco Mundial también se refiere al futuro económico de China como gran factor de volatilidad, por su efecto en el precio de las materias primas, junto al ajuste de las carteras de inversión desde los países emergentes hacia activos más seguros en las economías avanzadas. Como fuerza que actúa en sentido opuesto está la expansión del comercio global gracias a la reactivación económica en las economías más prósperas.
“Lo severo que estos choques externos sean es incierto y su impacto en América Latina dependerá del grado de exposición y de la capacidad que cada país de la región tenga para absorberlos”, indica el análisis elaborado por el equipo que lidera Augusto de la Torre. El economista explica que el viento de cola se disipa y el riesgo para el crecimiento muta. No es solo China. La débil recuperación en Europa y el lento crecimiento en EE UU también influyen.
Como señala de la Torre, se trata de factores que están fuera del control de los países en América Latina pero que hay que tener en cuenta porque es consecuencia de la globalización. El economista señala que la desaceleración en la región es "evidente" y explica que el crecimiento "parece estar estancándose en un ritmo lento". Su temor es que sea más una tendencia que un punto bajo en el ciclo. "Hay una cosa que podemos controlar y es la calidad de nuestras políticas", añade.
Grandes diferencias
El rendimiento es muy heterogéneo, como se ve también en los datos del FMI. En un extremo está Venezuela, con una contracción del 1% del crecimiento este año. En el otro Panamá, que crecerá un 7%, seguido por Perú, con el 5,5%. Otros países que harán de motor de la región son Chile y Colombia, con un crecimiento superior al 3,5%, por encima de la media. También destaca el rebote de México, que repuntará al 3% gracias a las reformas, que califica de "impresionantes".
El optimismo de los inversores hacia México contrasta con el de Brasil, la mayor economía de América Latina. Es el país que hace de lastre, con un crecimiento proyectado para este año por debajo del 2%. El Banco Mundial lamenta en este caso que no se haya forjado una agenda de reforma para romper a corto plazo con este escenario de bajo crecimiento, baja tasa de ahorro y baja inversión. "Ya no se puede contar con la ayuda de factores externos", dijo de la Torre.
Es decir, coincidiendo con la valoración del FMI, los países emergentes dejaron de ser las estrellas del crecimiento. Sin embargo, el Banco Mundial se muestra optimista aunque con cautela al hablar de América Latina. A favor de la región, a diferencia de Asia, juega que supo capitalizar el viento de cola externo para potenciar la demanda interna y logró una mayor integración del sistema financiero. Eso hace ahora que sean menos vulnerables a choques externos que en el pasado.
Es más, los economistas del Banco Mundial señalan que en la mayoría de países de la región habrá fluctuaciones en los ciclos de negocios similares a las que se ven en las economías avanzadas. Es decir, el patrón pasado expansión y contracción es historia. También indica que tienen más margen de maniobra para adoptar políticas monetarias y cambiarias para hacer frente a las turbulencias.
Ruptura con el pasado
Otra ruptura con el pasado, y que hace a América Latina más resistente a los choques externos, es que la región logró durante las últimas dos décadas reequilibrar la manera en la que se financia. Ahora ya no depende tanto como en los años 1990 del crédito que le llega de los bancos internacionales y la inversión es más directa. Es más, en lugar de pedir prestado, presta al mundo.
Esta mayor integración financiera de América Latina da tranquilidad. Pero la región no es inmune, porque la inversión directa extranjera y las remesas también están sujetas a ciclos y pueden actuar en sentidos opuestos. El gran reto es lograr que las dos actúen en la misma dirección por eso se vuelve a pedir que se intensifiquen las reformas para mejorar la competitividad vía un incremento de la productividad.
También reclama un mejor diseño de las políticas sociales en los presupuestos nacionales, para hacer frente a la presión fiscal derivada de un menor crecimiento económico. Es, indican desde el Banco Mundial, un reto importante si los países de América Latina quieren mantener el rápido ritmo de progreso social al que se acostumbró durante la pasada década. “Desafortunadamente, en todos los países no será posible conseguirlo”, concluye.
A modo de que conclusión, pide a los países de la región que utilicen el potencial de la inversión extranjera y de las remesas en políticas de innovación y productividad. En el caso de los hogares que reciben remesas, se recomienda que inviertan ese dinero de sus familiares en salud, educación y vivienda. Eso, a su vez, permitirá crear un clima de negocio que atraerá a sus propios trabajadores y más inversión extranjera.
Estão abertas por 60 dias, a contar de 20/01/2014 (prazo final 21/03/2014), as inscrições para Professor Doutor no Departamento de Economia, da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo.
As vagas estão distribuídas entre as seguintes áreas:
Economia Brasileira e História Econômica Geral e do Brasil; Microeconomia; Macroeconomia e Desenvolvimento Econômico; Introdução à Economia e Economia Financeira.
Informamos, ainda, que estarão abertas de 03/02 a 18/02/2014 as inscrições para Livre Docente nas seguintes áreas do conhecimento:
Microeconomia; Macroeconomia; Teoria do Valor e História do Pensamento Econômico; Métodos Quantitativos; História Econômica Geral; Economia Internacional; Economia Agrícola; Economia do Trabalho; Economia Industrial – Organização Industrial; Economia do Setor Público – Finanças Públicas; Sociologia Econômica; Economia Regional e Urbana; Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social e Crescimento Econômico; Metodologia da
Economia; Economia Brasileira Contemporânea – Economia Brasileira; Formação Econômica e Social do Brasil; Economia dos Mercados de Capitais: Derivativos e Renda Fixa; Macroeconomia Keynesiana; Economia Institucional; História do Pensamento Econômico Recente; Tópicos em Economia Financeira e Economia Financeira.
La croissance chinoise à son plus bas depuis 13 ans
Le Monde.fr | • Mis à jour le |Par Harold Thibault (Shanghaï, correspondance)
L'économie chinoise a enregistré une croissance de 7,7 % sur l'ensemble de l'année 2013. Il s'agit d'un niveau équivalent à celui affiché en 2012 par la deuxième économie mondiale. C'est aussi le plus bas depuis treize ans.
Le produit intérieur brut (PIB) a atteint ce même niveau de 7,7 % de progression sur le dernier trimestre 2013, selon les statistiques officielles, publiées lundi 20 janvier.
L'objectif d'une croissance de 7,5 % du PIB, que s'était fixé Pékin, est donc franchi, alors que des doutes s'étaient fait entendre au cours de l'année.
La croissance chinoise avait en effet continué à accuser, pendant toute la première moitié de l'année 2013, une décélération engagée depuis deux ans.
Le tournant est intervenu au troisième trimestre, après que le gouvernement a dévoilé, en juillet, un mini-plan de relance.
Ce dernier a été construit sur trois axes : suspendre la fiscalité des très petitesentreprises pour préserver les emplois ; réduire les contraintes administratives pesant sur les exportateurs ; et accélérer l'investissement dans les infrastructures urbaines, notamment dans la construction de lignes de métro.
Ces mesures de soutien ont eu l'effet escompté entre juillet et septembre : l'économie chinoise est remontée d'un coup de 7,5 % à 7,8 % de croissance.
Leur appui se fait également ressentir sur la fin de l'année : la production industrielle progresse de 9,7 % en décembre sur un an, les ventes de détail de 13,6 %, et l'investissement dans les infrastructures est en hausse de 19,6 % sur l'ensemble de l'année 2013.
UN NIVEAU DE CROISSANCE SIMILAIRE CETTE ANNÉE
Les économistes s'interrogent désormais sur l'objectif de croissance que se fixera Pékin pour 2014, qui sera révélé officiellement après le Nouvel an chinois, c'est à dire en mars.
Mais ce chiffre aurait d'ores et déjà été débattu en décembre, lors d'une conférence à huis clos des dirigeants du Parti communiste sur les questions économiques.
Il semble que le chiffre de 7 % aurait été évoqué à cette occasion. Mais que le plus probable est que pouvoir chinois retienne un objectif similaire au résultat de 2013, soit 7,5 % de croissance du PIB.
Nombre de banques tablent sur un scénario similaire.
The New York Times Books Review: December 19, 2013
Economic nostalgia can have a strong appeal, especially following more than five years of a financial crisis and its aftermath. In the United States, people talk longingly of the mid-20th century, when the middle class was growing and upward mobility was the norm. In Europe and Japan, many hark back to the 1980s, before the euro was born and the Japanese bubble burst. Even in China and India, two of the world’s more dynamic economies, some like to celebrate a time when life did not revolve around breakneck growth.
Illustrated. 360 pp. Princeton University Press. $29.95.
The biggest accomplishment of Angus Deaton’s “Great Escape” is to bring perspective to all this wistfulness. Deaton, a respected professor of economics at Princeton, does not stint on describing the world’s problems, be they income inequality in rich countries, health problems in China and the United States or H.I.V. in Africa. Large sections of the book revolve around such troubles and potential solutions. Yet Deaton’s central message is deeply positive, almost gloriously so. By the most meaningful measures — how long we live, how healthy and happy we are, how much we know — life has never been better. Just as important, it is continuing to improve.
Deaton is surely aware that many readers will view these claims with skepticism, especially coming from someone whose discipline often seems to elevate money over basic human needs. He addresses this skepticism with both sweeping and granular descriptions of how life has improved. Life expectancy has risen a stunning 50 percent since 1900 and is still rising. Despite the resulting population explosion, the average quality of life has surged. The share of people living on less than $1 a day (in inflation-adjusted terms) has dropped to 14 percent, from 42 percent as recently as 1981. Even as inequality has surged within many countries, global inequality has very likely fallen, thanks largely to the rise of Asia. “Things are getting better,” he writes, “and hugely so.”
Much of the most rapid change, of course, occurred long ago or — for Deaton’s readers in the United States and Europe — is happening far away. In the industrialized world, it can be easy to focus on bad news (like slow-growing wages and rising obesity) and dismiss the latest innovations (say, the newest iPhone) as materialist distractions. But this, too, would be a mistake. The pace of progress may have slowed in the West. For selected groups, on selected measures, progress may even have stalled. For most people, however, it has not stopped.
The digital revolution has allowed people to remain in touch with friends and family who once would have grown distant. The democratization of air travel, for all its indignities, has helped, too. The greatest progress against cancer and heart disease has come in the last 20 to 30 years. And although Deaton does not emphasize it, nearly every form of discrimination has become less common. When people talk gauzily of life in postwar America, they presumably are not referring to the lives of women, African-Americans, gays, lesbians, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Latinos, Asian-Americans or the disabled.
Most of us can find miniature versions of this tale in our families. Deaton’s grandfather returned from World War I to a Scottish mine and rose to become a supervisor. Deaton’s father, despite not graduating from high school, became a civil engineer and lived twice as long as his own father. My own grandfather escaped the Nazis, to New York, but succumbed to cancer as a fairly young man in 1950. Had modern medicine advanced only a few decades more rapidly, my father may well have grown up with a father. In the starkest terms, most of us today have at least one family member or friend who would not be alive absent the innovations of the last several decades.
Perhaps most impressive — and, at the same time, most worrisome — is that progress is by no means inevitable. Humanity has spent most of its history not making progress, with neither life spans nor incomes rising. “For thousands of years,” Deaton writes, “those who were lucky enough to escape death in childhood faced years of grinding poverty.”
“The Great Escape” of Deaton’s title refers to the process that began during the Enlightenment and made progress the norm. Scientists, doctors, businessmen and government officials began to seek truth, rather than obediently accept dogma, and they began to experiment. In Immanuel Kant’s definition of the Enlightenment: “Dare to know! Have the courage to use your own understanding!” The germ theory of disease, public sanitation, the Industrial Revolution and modern democracy soon followed.
Deaton’s writing is unfailingly accessible to the lay reader. At times, he repeats himself (he is definitely not a fan of foreign aid) or delves into technical subjects that will not interest everyone, like the calculation of exchange rates. But readers looking to learn some economics without picking up a textbook may enjoy these tangents. All in all, “The Great Escape” joins “Getting Better” — a 2011 book by Charles Kenny that concentrated on poor countries (and was more positive about foreign aid) — as one of the most succinct guides to conditions in today’s world.
The great, unanswered question is how rapidly the progress will continue. Deaton pronounces himself cautiously optimistic. But he also acknowledges rising threats, global warming being the most obvious of them. Beyond climate change, economic growth has slowed and inequality has risen in most rich countries, leaving the middle class and poor with only modest gains. The skew is so severe in the United States that a vast majority of Americans — the bottom 99 percent, he calculates — have done worse than a vast majority of French in recent decades, despite our reputation for economic dynamism. In China, meanwhile, a growth slowdown may just be beginning, and it could bring true political tumult, including war.
From a historical perspective, the most worrisome development may be the tendency not to heed the central lesson of the Enlightenment and, by extension, of Deaton’s Great Escape: Facts matter, especially when they conflict with dogma and preconceived notions. Pretending otherwise has consequences.
Knowledge — which is to say education — is humanity’s most important engine of improvement. Deaton concludes, based on the data, that rising education is the most powerful cause of the recent longevity boom in most poor countries, even more powerful than high incomes. A typical resident of India is only as rich as a typical Briton in 1860, for example, but has a life expectancy more typical of a European in the mid-20th century. The spread of knowledge, about public health, medicine and diet, explains the difference.
Unfortunately, knowledge and facts are often on the defensive today. Fundamentalists of various stripes keep many countries from completing their own great escape. In the West, science still sometimes yields to dogma, on climate change, on evolution and on economic policy. Elites on both the right and left question the value of education for the masses and oppose attempts to improve schools even as they spend countless hours and dollars pursuing the finest possible education for their own children.
It is true that many of today’s biggest problems, including economic growth, education and climate, defy easy solutions. But the same was true, and much more so, about escaping centuries of poverty and early death. It was hard, and it involved a lot of failure along the way. The story Deaton tells — the most inspiring human story of all — should give all of us reason for optimism, so long as we are willing to listen to its moral.
David Leonhardt, a former economics columnist and Washington bureau chief for The New York Times, is leading a new project for the paper that will focus on politics and policy.
Pope Francis and, clockwise from top left: Keynes, Polanyi, Hayek, and Marx (Reuters/Giampiero Sposito/Wikimedia Commons)It would make for some pretty amazing headlines if Pope Francis turned out to be a Marxist. Between his hints at rehabilitating liberation theology—condemned by his predecessors—and talk about casting off "the economic and social structures that enslave us," Marxism isn't totally out of the question. But happily for nervous church leaders, Francis's first Apostolic Exhortation, issued Tuesday, doesn't quite suggest someone who would get "Marx" in an Internet-style "Which Economic Theorist Are You?" quiz. Granted, he wouldn't exactly get Friedrich von Hayek or Ayn Rand, either. But you know whom he might plausibly be matched with, though? A favorite political economist of anti-free market academics: Karl Polanyi. Karl Polanyi is most famous for his book The Great Transformation, and in particular for one idea in that book: the distinction between an "economy being embedded in social relations" and "social relations [being] embedded in the economic system."
Polanyi's Big Idea: The Economy Has to Serve Society, Not the Other Way Around
Economic activity, Polanyi says, started off as just one of many outgrowths of human activity. And so, economics originally served human needs. But over time, people (particularly, policy-making people) got the idea that markets regulated themselves if laws and regulations got out of their way. The free market converts told people that "only such policies and measures are in order which help to ensure the self-regulation of the market by creating the conditions which make the market the only organizing power in the economic sphere." Gradually, as free market-based thinking was extended throughout society, humans and nature came to be seen as commodities called "labor" and "land." The "market economy" had turned human society into a "market society."
In short (as social sciences professors prepare to slam their heads into their tables at my reductionism), instead of the market existing to help humans live better lives, humans were ordering their lives to fit into the economy.
What Pope Francis Said Now, back to the pope. Pope Francis, in his exhortation, notably does not call for a complete overhaul of the economy. He doesn't talk revolution, and there's certainly no Marxist talk of inexorable historical forces. Instead, Francis denounces, specifically, the complete rule of the market over human beings—not its existence, but its domination. "Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest," he writes. "Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded," and "man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption." He rejects the idea that "economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world." Instead, he argues, growing inequality is "the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation," which "reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control." And he repeats the exact language he used in an early address: "Money must serve, not rule!" Seeing the similarities yet?
Polanyi, the Pope, and Blaming the Market for Big Crises
Where things get really interesting is when Pope Francis brings up the financial crisis. "One cause of this situation," he writes, "is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person!" It's nothing new to say the financial crisis came from a lack of regulation. That's a fairly popular analysis. But what Pope Francis is saying is more Polanyan, hearkening back to the idea that the tipping point has to do with the relationship between the market and society/humanity, and which is subordinate to the other. Just as Polanyi argued that the extension of the market economy across the globe (through the gold standard) was the root cause of World War I (and you'll have to go back to the original book for that, but it's a beautifully, hilariously gutsy, Guns, Germs, and Steel kind of argument), Francis is arguing that failing to keep humanity at the center of our economic activity was the root cause of the financial crisis.
A Vision for the Future
One of the tricky and crucial parts of Polanyi's argument is that he doesn't actually believe (at least, back in the 1940s, when he was writing) that we're living in a world where the economy has become fully disembedded from society. This "Utopia," he writes, that many economic theorists and policymakers are foolishly striving for, "could not exist for any length of time without annihilating the human and natural substance of society; it would have physically destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness." Pope Francis has a similarly gloomy view of global survival in the face of unchecked capitalism: "In this system, which tends to devour anything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule." So what's the way out? At the time Polanyi's book was published, he was betting on social democracy being the answer, so long as governments worked together internationally. And you know what? That is pretty darn close to what the pope urges as well. He doesn't think this can be solved with personal charity:
Growth in justice ... requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison ... We need to be convinced that charity “is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)”. ... Each meaningful economic decision made in one part of the world has repercussions everywhere else; consequently, no government can act without regard for shared responsibility. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find local solutions for enormous global problems which overwhelm local politics with difficulties to resolve. If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation, ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just of a few.
The parallels aren't perfect. Polanyi has some ideas about the Gospels ignoring social reality that the pope might not be on board with. But for now, at least, Polanyi certainly looks like a closer fit for the pope than Marx. And the pope and Polanyi have this in common: They're both surprisingly popular on liberal university campuses right now. If you find a shot of His Holiness reading The Great Transformation onhis bus ride, let us know.
Heather Horn is a senior associate editor at The Atlantic. She is a former features editor and staff writer for The Atlantic Wire, and was previously a research assistant at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
In today's excerpt - from Cleopatra: A Life by Stacey Schiff. The economy of Egypt during Cleopatra's reign was robust and efficient. This made Cleopatra fabulously wealthy -- even by today's standards -- and one of the wealthiest monarchs in the world. She was wealthier than Caesar, but had no standing army, and was thus both coveted by and vulnerable to Rome:
Cleopatra: A Life by Stacy Schiff
by Back Bay BooksDelanceyplace, 13/12/2013
"The Ptolemaic system [the Ptolemys were Cleopatra's dynastic family and the Greek rulers of Egypt, after its conquest by one of Alexander the Great's generals] has been compared to that of Soviet Russia; it stands among the most closely controlled economies in history. No matter who farmed it -- Egyptian peasant, Greek settler, temple priest -- most land was royal land. As such, Cleopatra's functionaries determined and monitored its use. Only with government permission could you fell a tree, breed pigs, turn your barley field into an olive garden. All was scrupulously designed for the sake of the record-keeping, profit-surveying bureaucrat rather than for the convenience of the cultivator or the benefit of the crop. You faced prosecution (as did one overly enterprising woman) if you planted palms without permission. The beekeeper could not move his hives from one administrative district to another, as doing so confused the authorities. No one left his village during the agricultural season. Neither did his farm animals.
"All land was surveyed, all livestock inventoried, the latter at the height of the flood season, when it could not be hidden. Looms were checked to make sure that none was idle and thread counts correct. It was illegal for a private individual to own an oil press or anything resembling one. Officials spent a great deal of time shutting down clandestine operations. (Temples alone were exempt from this rule for two months of every year, at the end of which they, too, were shut down.) The brewer operated only with a license and received his barley -- from which he pledged to make beer -- from the state. Once he had sold his goods he submitted his profits to the crown, which deducted the costs of raw materials and rents from his income. Cleopatra was thereby assured both of a market for her barley and of profits on the brewer's sales. Her officials audited all revenues carefully, to verify that the mulberries and willows and acacia were planted at the proper time, to survey the maintenance of every canal. In the process, they were especially and frequently exhorted to disseminate throughout Egypt the reassuring message that 'nobody is allowed to do what he wishes, but that everything is arranged for the best.'
"Unparalleled in its sophistication, the system was hugely effective and, for Cleopatra, hugely lucrative. The greatest of Egypt's industries -- wheat, glass, papyrus, linen, oils, and unguents -- essentially constituted royal monopolies. On those commodities Cleopatra profited doubly. The sale of oil to the crown was taxed at nearly 50 percent. Cleopatra then resold the oil at a profit, in some cases as great as 300 percent. Cleopatra's subjects paid a salt tax, a dike tax, a pasture tax; generally if an item could be named, it was taxed. Owners of baths, which were private concerns, owed the state a third of their revenue. Professional fishermen surrendered 25 percent of their catch, vintners 16 percent of their tonnage. Cleopatra operated several wool and textile factories of her own, with a staff of slave girls. She must have seemed divine in her omniscience. A Ptolemy 'knew each day what each of his subjects was worth and what most of them were doing.'
"How wealthy was she? Into her coffers went approximately half of what Egypt produced. Her annual cash revenue was probably between 12,000 and 15,000 silver talents. That was an astronomical sum of money for any sovereign, in the words of one modern historian 'the equivalent of all of the hedge fund managers of yesteryear rolled into one.' (Inflation was an issue throughout the century, but it affected Cleopatra's silver less than her bronze currency.) The most lavish of lavish burials cost 1 talent, the prize a king tossed out at a palace drinking contest. A half-talent was a crushing fine to an Egyptian villager. A priest in Cleopatra's day -- his post was a coveted one -- made 15 talents yearly. That was a princely sum ... Pirates set a staggering 20-talent ransom on the head of the young Julius Caesar, who, being Caesar, protested that he was worth at least 50. Given a choice between a 50-talent fine and prison, you opted for jail. You could build two impressive monuments for a much-loved mistress for 200 talents. Cleopatra's costs were high ... But by the most stringent of definitions -- that of Rome's wealthiest citizen -- she was fabulously well-off. Crassus claimed that no one was truly rich if he could not afford to maintain an army.*
"*On one contemporary list Cleopatra appears as the twenty-second richest person in history, well behind John D. Rockefeller and Tsar Nicholas II, but ahead of Napoleon and J. P. Morgan. She is assigned a net worth of $95.8 billion, or more than three Queen Elizabeth IIs. It is of course impossible accurately to convert currencies across eras."
Desde o início, ou seja, a partir da eleição do cardeal Bergoglio como novo papa, eu tinha reparado que ele era bastante diferente no plano dos comportamentos sociais -- podendo colocar em ordem a imensa bagunça sexual da Igreja -- mas totalmente igual aos outros, ou pior, no que se relacionava à sua doutrina (?) econômica, na verdade, um conjunto de preconceitos habituais de muitos religiosos católicos contra a economia de mercado.
Não sei se o papa é um primitivo econômico, ou se apenas faz demagogia política (se aproximando, assim, um pouco, da teologia da liberação, bastante marxista na sua condenação do lucro e da concentração de rendas, riquezas e propriedades), mas o fato é que ele escorrega, cada vez que fala de economia.
Pretendia fazer uma análise de suas declarações econômicas, completamente equivocadas, e só não o fiz por falta de tempo, mas creio que este artigo pode ajudar na tarefa de rebater essas concepções equivocadas sobre o mundo da economia.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Pope Francis waves as he arrives at St. Peter's Square at the Vatican. (REUTERS/Giampiero Sposito)It’s official: 2013 has been the Year of the Pope. The latest evidence? Time has named Francis its Person of the Year, noting
that the pontiff, during his first nine months in office, “has placed
himself at the very center of the central conversations of our time:
about wealth and poverty, fairness and justice, transparency, modernity,
globalization, the role of women, the nature of marriage, the
temptations of power.” Indeed, the pope’s writings and public
pronouncements reveal a deeply caring and passionate man who speaks from
the heart. In Evangelii Gaudium, an “apostolic exhortation” released late last month, the pope bemoans inequality, poverty, and violence in the world.
But here’s the problem: The dystopian world that Francis describes,
without citing a single statistic, is at odds with reality. In appealing
to our fears and pessimism, the pope fails to acknowledge the scope and
rapidity of human accomplishment—whether measured through declining
global inequality and violence, or growing prosperity and life
expectancy.
The thesis of Evangelii Gaudium is simple: “unbridled”
capitalism has enriched a few, but failed the poor. “We have to
remember,” he writes, “that the majority of our contemporaries are
barely living from day to day, with dire consequences. A number of
diseases are spreading. The hearts of many people are gripped by fear
and desperation, even in the so-called rich countries. The joy of living
frequently fades, lack of respect for others and violence are on the
rise, and inequality is increasingly evident. It is a struggle to live
and, often, to live with precious little dignity.”
Just how free the free market really is today is debatable. The
United States is perceived as the paragon of free-market capitalism. And
yet over the last two decades, according to Wayne Crews of the
libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington has issued 81,883 regulations—or
nine per day. Maybe the marketplace should be regulated less, and maybe
it should be regulated more. But unbridled it is not.
Moreover, the government redistributes some 40 percent
of all wealth produced in America—up from 7 percent a century ago. Much
of that wealth comes from the rich and pays for everything from defense
and roads to healthcare and education, which are enjoyed by Americans
from all income groups. The top 1 percent of income earners earned 19
percent of all income in 2010 and paid more than 38 percent of all income taxes. The top 10 percent paid more than 70 percent
of all income taxes. Maybe the rich should contribute more, and maybe
they should contribute less. But contribute they do—well in excess of
the biblical tithe.
As for the negative consequences of “trickle-down” economics that the pope bemoans, let’s look at them in turn.
First, consider inequality. Academic researchers—from Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University, to Surjit Bhalla, formerly of the Brookings Institution and Rand Corporation, to Paolo Liberati
of the University of Rome—all agree that global inequality is
declining. That is because 2.6 billion people in China and India are
richer than they used to be. Their economies are growing much faster
than those of their Western counterparts, thus shrinking the income gap
that opened at the dawn of industrialization in the 19th century, when
the West took off and left much of the rest of the world behind.
Paradoxically, the shrinking of the global inequality gap was only
possible after India and China abandoned their attempts to create
equality through central planning. By allowing people to keep more of
the money they earned, the Chinese and Indian governments incentivized
people to create more wealth. Allowing inequality to increase at home,
in other words, diminished inequality globally. And global inequality,
surely, is the statistic that should most concern the leader of a global
religion.
The graph below shows the narrowing gap between Chinese (orange) and
global (red) incomes. As China embraced capitalism in the late 1970s,
its economy started growing faster than the world average, making the
world less unequal in the process. The figures in the graph are adjusted
for inflation and purchasing power parity (in other words, they take
into account that the cost of identical goods—such as a pair of shoes or
a pound of beef—may be significantly different in two countries,
depending on the price of labor, land, capital, etc.)
GDP, per person, 2011 international dollars, PPP
Second, let’s look at poverty. According to the Brookings Institution researchers Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gertz,
the “rise of emerging economies has led to a dramatic fall in global
poverty.” The authors “estimate that between 2005 and 2010, the total
number of poor people around the world fell by nearly half a billion,
from over 1.3 billion in 2005 to under 900 million in 2010. Poverty
reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled in history: never before
have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period
of time.”
If anything, the speed of human progress seems to be accelerating. As Charles Kenny of the Center for Global Development writes,
“4.9 billion people—the considerable majority of the planet—[live] in
countries where GDP has increased more than fivefold over 50 years.
Those countries include India, with an economy nearly 10 times larger
than it was in 1960, Indonesia (13 times), China (17 times), and
Thailand (22 times larger than in 1960). Around 5.1 billion people live
in countries where we know incomes have more than doubled since 1960,
and 4.1 billion—well more than half the planet—live in countries where
average incomes have tripled or more.”
The graph below shows the percentage of the population living on less
than $1.25 a day in Bangladesh (orange), China (blue), Vietnam
(purple), and India (green) beginning in the 1980s. The dollar figure
is, again, adjusted for inflation and purchasing power parity.
Poverty gap at $1.25 per day, adjusted for inflation and PPP, percent of population
Third, consider violence. In The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined—a
book that spans 800 pages and millennia of human development—Steven
Pinker of Harvard University documents a tremendous decline in global
violence. According to Pinker, “Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly
as war and genocide in the 20th century. The murder rate in medieval
Europe was more than thirty times what it is today. Slavery, sadistic
punishments, and frivolous executions were unexceptionable features of
life for millennia, then were suddenly abolished. Wars between developed
countries have vanished, and even in the developing world, wars kill a
fraction of the numbers they did a few decades ago. Rape, hate crimes,
deadly riots, child abuse—all substantially down.”
Rape and homicide rates in the United States, percent of 1973 level
Rate of deaths in genocides, per 100,000 people
Last,
but not least, consider disease. Measles, polio, and cholera, which
destroyed innumerable lives in the past, have been all but eradicated.
The spread of HIV/AIDS has been checked by the increasing use of
marvelous antiretroviral (ARV) therapies. Some 10 million people,
mostly Africans, are being treated with ARVs—an intervention mostly
financed by the West. Even cancer rates, which have increased together
with life expectancy, are beginning to decline—at
least in rich countries. Speaking of living longer, the average global
life expectancy at birth hovered around 30 years from the Upper
Paleolithic to 1900. Even in the richest countries, like those of
Western Europe, life expectancy at the start of the 20th century rarely
exceeded 50 years. Today, the average global life expectancy is 68
years.
Antiretroviral therapy coverage, percent of people with advanced HIV
Life expectancy at birth, years
Pope
Francis has a big heart, but his credibility as a voice of justice and
morality would be immeasurably improved if he based his statements on
facts.
