quinta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2011

China as "currency manipulator": as time goes by... (The Economist)


Free trade and the yuan

One step forward, one back

As trade deals head towards approval, a backlash grows against China

Designed to get up a politician’s nose
THIS was supposed to be a good week for American trade policy. On October 3rd Barack Obama submitted three long-stalled trade agreements to Congress for ratification. Republican and Democratic leaders promised speedy passage. If all goes as planned, the pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea could be ratified in time for a state visit on October 13th by Lee Myung-bak, the Korean president.
But that advance for trade was tempered by a revival of protectionism against China. Also on October 3rd the Senate voted by an overwhelming and bipartisan 79-19 to proceed with a bill that would punish China for keeping its currency artificially low. The legislation enables a company to demand an investigation of a country it thinks is using an undervalued currency for unfair trade advantage. If the government concludes that the currency is indeed “fundamentally misaligned”, countervailing duties could be imposed. China, predictably, has given warning of dire consequences if the bill becomes law; “waves of trade protectionism that would favour nobody”, declared Xinhua, a Chinese government-controlled news agency.
A similar bill in the House of Representatives has more than enough co-sponsors to guarantee passage, if it gets to a vote. However, Republican leaders in the House, who like free trade more than do their rank and file, are not inclined to act; John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House, called the bill “pretty dangerous”. A similar bill passed the House last year, and versions of it have repeatedly made progress in the Senate, but none has yet reached a president’s desk for signing. Mr Obama has also kept his distance. Despite frequent tough talk, his Treasury department has, in its twice yearly currency reports, declined officially to label China a “currency manipulator”.
Congressional threats are a useful crowbar for extracting concessions. China first allowed its tightly controlled currency to rise in 2005 when the Senate was on the verge of passing a similar measure. The rise came to a halt in 2008 when the Chinese authorities sought to cushion exporters from the turbulence of global recession but resumed in 2010 just weeks before the House passed a bill (see chart). After rising 7%, the yuan again stopped appreciating in early August as the world economy threatened to come unglued and as investors fled the euro for the dollar, which rose sharply on a trade-weighted basis.
There are reasons to believe that the yuan is not as obviously undervalued as it once was. Fiscal and monetary stimulus, which jolted domestic demand, has caused China’s current-account surplus to narrow dramatically, from 10.1% of GDP in 2007 to a projected 2.9% this year, according to Nomura, a financial services group, which sees it almost disappearing by 2013. Nevertheless, the protectionist threat in America remains very much alive. America’s trade deficit with China continues to widen. Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, has said that on his first day in office he would order China to be designated a currency manipulator in preparation for imposing punitive duties.
Public hostility to free trade has risen, and has been matched by growing political truculence, notes the report of a task force of trade experts organised by the Council on Foreign Relations. Presidents have relied on their fast-track Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to negotiate pacts that Congress can ratify or reject but not amend. But Congress has declined to grant the Oval Office TPA power since its expiration in 2007. The report says Mr Obama himself violated the spirit of the TPA by insisting on further concessions from Colombia, Panama and Korea, whose trade agreements were negotiated by George Bush in 2006-07. It could be years before free traders have another deal to celebrate.

A piada da semana: corrupcao na Bulgaria e no Brasil...

Realmente a piada é só para quem acompanha o noticiário em seus mínimos detalhes, mas ela é fabulosa...
Paralelamente, se pode sugerir uma nova área de cooperação entre a fabulosa Bulgária e o poderoso Brasil: como se alegou que não havia muita possibilidade de cooperação por causa de corrupção numa das partes (agora esqueci exatamente qual), o jeito é assinar um fabuloso e poderoso "acordo quadro de cooperação científica e tecnológica para o combate conjunto a práticas corruptas e a pessoas corruptas" (talvez um dos principais artigos operacionais fosse o de intercâmbio não de best practices, mas de pessoas corruptas, que ficariam momentaneamente paralisadas, e diminuiriam sua "produtividade" na corrupção por problemas linguísticos).
Enfim, segue a piada...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 



Reinaldo Azevedo, 06/10/2011

A notícia mais engraçada de todas é aquela segundo a qual uma das dificuldades de o Brasil fazer negócio com a Bulgária é o elevado grau de corrupção daquele país.
Pronto! Já contei a piada.

Reflexão
Agora vamos refletir sobre a piada, tentando extrair dela um ensinamento, uma sentença, uma lei geral, quiçá um corolário: o governo brasileiro está mesmo se profissionalizando e resiste a negociar com amadores.

The second economy: digitization (and all that comes with...)


The second economy

McKinsey Quarterly, October 2011

Economist Brian Arthur argues that digitization is creating a second economy that’s vast, automatic, and invisible. The implications—for employment and for the shape of developed economies—are profound.

The second economy

Digitization is creating a second economy that’s vast, automatic, and invisible—thereby bringing the biggest change since the Industrial Revolution.

In 1850, a decade before the Civil War, the United States’ economy was small—it wasn’t much bigger than Italy’s. Forty years later, it was the largest economy in the world. What happened in-between was the railroads. They linked the east of the country to the west, and the interior to both. They gave access to the east’s industrial goods; they made possible economies of scale; they stimulated steel and manufacturing—and the economy was never the same.
Deep changes like this are not unusual. Every so often—every 60 years or so—a body of technology comes along and over several decades, quietly, almost unnoticeably, transforms the economy: it brings new social classes to the fore and creates a different world for business. Can such a transformation—deep and slow and silent—be happening today?
We could look for one in the genetic technologies, or in nanotech, but their time hasn’t fully come. But I want to argue that something deep is going on with information technology, something that goes well beyond the use of computers, social media, and commerce on the Internet. Business processes that once took place among human beings are now being executed electronically. They are taking place in an unseen domain that is strictly digital. On the surface, this shift doesn’t seem particularly consequential—it’s almost something we take for granted. But I believe it is causing a revolution no less important and dramatic than that of the railroads. It is quietly creating a second economy, a digital one.
Let me begin with two examples. Twenty years ago, if you went into an airport you would walk up to a counter and present paper tickets to a human being. That person would register you on a computer, notify the flight you’d arrived, and check your luggage in. All this was done by humans. Today, you walk into an airport and look for a machine. You put in a frequent-flier card or credit card, and it takes just three or four seconds to get back a boarding pass, receipt, and luggage tag. What interests me is what happens in those three or four seconds. The moment the card goes in, you are starting a huge conversation conducted entirely among machines. Once your name is recognized, computers are checking your flight status with the airlines, your past travel history, your name with the TSA1 (and possibly also with the National Security Agency). They are checking your seat choice, your frequent-flier status, and your access to lounges. This unseen, underground conversation is happening among multiple servers talking to other servers, talking to satellites that are talking to computers (possibly in London, where you’re going), and checking with passport control, with foreign immigration, with ongoing connecting flights. And to make sure the aircraft’s weight distribution is fine, the machines are also starting to adjust the passenger count and seating according to whether the fuselage is loaded more heavily at the front or back.
These large and fairly complicated conversations that you’ve triggered occur entirely among things remotely talking to other things: servers, switches, routers, and other Internet and telecommunications devices, updating and shuttling information back and forth. All of this occurs in the few seconds it takes to get your boarding pass back. And even after that happens, if you could see these conversations as flashing lights, they’d still be flashing all over the country for some time, perhaps talking to the flight controllers—starting to say that the flight’s getting ready for departure and to prepare for that.
Now consider a second example, from supply chain management. Twenty years ago, if you were shipping freight through Rotterdam into the center of Europe, people with clipboards would be registering arrival, checking manifests, filling out paperwork, and telephoning forward destinations to let other people know. Now such shipments go through an RFID2 portal where they are scanned, digitally captured, and automatically dispatched. The RFID portal is in conversation digitally with the originating shipper, other depots, other suppliers, and destinations along the route, all keeping track, keeping control, and reconfiguring routing if necessary to optimize things along the way. What used to be done by humans is now executed as a series of conversations among remotely located servers.
In both these examples, and all across economies in the developed world, processes in the physical economy are being entered into the digital economy, where they are “speaking to” other processes in the digital economy, in a constant conversation among multiple servers and multiple semi-intelligent nodes that are updating things, querying things, checking things off, readjusting things, and eventually connecting back with processes and humans in the physical economy.
So we can say that another economy—a second economy—of all of these digitized business processes conversing, executing, and triggering further actions is silently forming alongside the physical economy.
Aspen root systems
If I were to look for adjectives to describe this second economy, I’d say it is vast, silent, connected, unseen, and autonomous (meaning that human beings may design it but are not directly involved in running it). It is remotely executing and global, always on, and endlessly configurable. It is concurrent—a great computer expression—which means that everything happens in parallel. It is self-configuring, meaning it constantly reconfigures itself on the fly, and increasingly it is also self-organizing, self-architecting, and self-healing.
These last descriptors sound biological—and they are. In fact, I’m beginning to think of this second economy, which is under the surface of the physical economy, as a huge interconnected root system, very much like the root system for aspen trees. For every acre of aspen trees above the ground, there’s about ten miles of roots underneath, all interconnected with one another, “communicating” with each other.
 
The metaphor isn’t perfect: this emerging second-economy root system is more complicated than any aspen system, since it’s also making new connections and new configurations on the fly. But the aspen metaphor is useful for capturing the reality that the observable physical world of aspen trees hides an unseen underground root system just as large or even larger. How large is the unseen second economy? By a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation (see sidebar, “How fast is the second economy growing?”), in about two decades the digital economy will reach the same size as the physical economy. It’s as if there will be another American economy anchored off San Francisco (or, more in keeping with my metaphor, slipped in underneath the original economy) and growing all the while.
Now this second, digital economy isn’t producing anything tangible. It’s not making my bed in a hotel, or bringing me orange juice in the morning. But it is running an awful lot of the economy. It’s helping architects design buildings, it’s tracking sales and inventory, getting goods from here to there, executing trades and banking operations, controlling manufacturing equipment, making design calculations, billing clients, navigating aircraft, helping diagnose patients, and guiding laparoscopic surgeries. Such operations grow slowly and take time to form. In any deep transformation, industries do not so much adopt the new body of technology as encounter it, and as they do so they create new ways to profit from its possibilities.
The deep transformation I am describing is happening not just in the United States but in all advanced economies, especially in Europe and Japan. And its revolutionary scale can only be grasped if we go beyond my aspen metaphor to another analogy.
A neural system for the economy
Recall that in the digital conversations I was describing, something that occurs in the physical economy is sensed by the second economy—which then gives back an appropriate response. A truck passes its load through an RFID sensor or you check in at the airport, a lot of recomputation takes place, and appropriate physical actions are triggered.
There’s a parallel in this with how biologists think of intelligence. I’m not talking about human intelligence or anything that would qualify as conscious intelligence. Biologists tell us that an organism is intelligent if it senses something, changes its internal state, and reacts appropriately. If you put an E. coli bacterium into an uneven concentration of glucose, it does the appropriate thing by swimming toward where the glucose is more concentrated. Biologists would call this intelligent behavior. The bacterium senses something, “computes” something (although we may not know exactly how), and returns an appropriate response.
No brain need be involved. A primitive jellyfish doesn’t have a central nervous system or brain. What it has is a kind of neural layer or nerve net that lets it sense and react appropriately. I’m arguing that all these aspen roots—this vast global digital network that is sensing, “computing,” and reacting appropriately—is starting to constitute a neural layer for the economy. The second economy constitutes a neural layer for the physical economy. Just what sort of change is this qualitatively?
Think of it this way. With the coming of the Industrial Revolution—roughly from the 1760s, when Watt’s steam engine appeared, through around 1850 and beyond—the economy developed a muscular system in the form of machine power. Now it is developing a neural system. This may sound grandiose, but actually I think the metaphor is valid. Around 1990, computers started seriously to talk to each other, and all these connections started to happen. The individual machines—servers—are like neurons, and the axons and synapses are the communication pathways and linkages that enable them to be in conversation with each other and to take appropriate action.
Is this the biggest change since the Industrial Revolution? Well, without sticking my neck out too much, I believe so. In fact, I think it may well be the biggest change ever in the economy. It is a deep qualitative change that is bringing intelligent, automatic response to the economy. There’s no upper limit to this, no place where it has to end. Now, I’m not interested in science fiction, or predicting the singularity, or talking about cyborgs. None of that interests me. What I am saying is that it would be easy to underestimate the degree to which this is going to make a difference.
I think that for the rest of this century, barring wars and pestilence, a lot of the story will be the building out of this second economy, an unseen underground economy that basically is giving us intelligent reactions to what we do above the ground. For example, if I’m driving in Los Angeles in 15 years’ time, likely it’ll be a driverless car in a flow of traffic where my car’s in a conversation with the cars around it that are in conversation with general traffic and with my car. The second economy is creating for us—slowly, quietly, and steadily—a different world.
A downside
Of course, as with most changes, there is a downside. I am concerned that there is an adverse impact on jobs. Productivity increasing, say, at 2.4 percent in a given year means either that the same number of people can produce 2.4 percent more output or that we can get the same output with 2.4 percent fewer people. Both of these are happening. We are getting more output for each person in the economy, but overall output, nationally, requires fewer people to produce it. Nowadays, fewer people are required behind the desk of an airline. Much of the work is still physical—someone still has to take your luggage and put it on the belt—but much has vanished into the digital world of sensing, digital communication, and intelligent response.
Physical jobs are disappearing into the second economy, and I believe this effect is dwarfing the much more publicized effect of jobs disappearing to places like India and China.
There are parallels with what has happened before. In the early 20th century, farm jobs became mechanized and there was less need for farm labor, and some decades later manufacturing jobs became mechanized and there was less need for factory labor. Now business processes—many in the service sector—are becoming “mechanized” and fewer people are needed, and this is exerting systematic downward pressure on jobs. We don’t have paralegals in the numbers we used to. Or draftsmen, telephone operators, typists, or bookkeeping people. A lot of that work is now done digitally. We do have police and teachers and doctors; where there’s a need for human judgment and human interaction, we still have that. But the primary cause of all of the downsizing we’ve had since the mid-1990s is that a lot of human jobs are disappearing into the second economy. Not to reappear.
Seeing things this way, it’s not surprising we are still working our way out of the bad 2008–09 recession with a great deal of joblessness.
There’s a larger lesson to be drawn from this. The second economy will certainly be the engine of growth and the provider of prosperity for the rest of this century and beyond, but it may not provide jobs, so there may be prosperity without full access for many. This suggests to me that the main challenge of the economy is shifting from producing prosperity to distributing prosperity. The second economy will produce wealth no matter what we do; distributing that wealth has become the main problem. For centuries, wealth has traditionally been apportioned in the West through jobs, and jobs have always been forthcoming. When farm jobs disappeared, we still had manufacturing jobs, and when these disappeared we migrated to service jobs. With this digital transformation, this last repository of jobs is shrinking—fewer of us in the future may have white-collar business process jobs—and we face a problem.
The system will adjust of course, though I can’t yet say exactly how. Perhaps some new part of the economy will come forward and generate a whole new set of jobs. Perhaps we will have short workweeks and long vacations so there will be more jobs to go around. Perhaps we will have to subsidize job creation. Perhaps the very idea of a job and of being productive will change over the next two or three decades. The problem is by no means insoluble. The good news is that if we do solve it we may at last have the freedom to invest our energies in creative acts.
Economic possibilities for our grandchildren
In 1930, Keynes wrote a famous essay, “Economic possibilities for our grandchildren.” Reading it now, in the era of those grandchildren, I am surprised just how accurate it is. Keynes predicts that “the standard of life in progressive countries one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high as it is to-day.” He rightly warns of “technological unemployment,” but dares to surmise that “the economic problem [of producing enough goods] may be solved.” If we had asked him and his contemporaries how all this might come about, they might have imagined lots of factories with lots of machines, possibly even with robots, with the workers in these factories gradually being replaced by machines and by individual robots.
That is not quite how things have developed. We do have sophisticated machines, but in the place of personal automation (robots) we have a collective automation. Underneath the physical economy, with its physical people and physical tasks, lies a second economy that is automatic and neurally intelligent, with no upper limit to its buildout. The prosperity we enjoy and the difficulties with jobs would not have surprised Keynes, but the means of achieving that prosperity would have.
This second economy that is silently forming—vast, interconnected, and extraordinarily productive—is creating for us a new economic world. How we will fare in this world, how we will adapt to it, how we will profit from it and share its benefits, is very much up to us.
About the Author
W. Brian Arthur is a visting researcher with the Intelligent System Lab at the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) and an external professor at the Santa Fe Institute. He is an economist and technology thinker and a pioneer in the science of complexity. His 1994 book, Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy (University of Michigan Press, December 1994), contains several of his seminal papers. More recently, Arthur was the author of The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves (Free Press, August 2009)

Mao Invisivel: tudo o que voce sempre quis saber sobre essa "coisa" invisivel (talvez a propria mao de Adam Smith)...

Bem, se trata de um programa de debates, em inglês, animado por um jornalista do The Guardian, no seguimento de uma série dedicada às grandes ideias da humanidade (entre as quais eu colocaria o brigadeiro e o pão de queijo, mas existem controvérsias a respeito):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/audio/2011/oct/06/big-ideas-podcast-adam-smith-audio


The Big Ideas podcast: Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'

In the third of a series of philosophy podcasts, Benjamen Walker and guests consider the legacy of Smith's much-abused phrase
When we asked you to nominate some intellectual cliches for this series earlier this year, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" cropped up repeatedly, with mentions by Comment is free regulars steffanjohnJonathanKentand TimWorstall – and PatDavers claiming that "we'd have hours of fun with that one". Well, let the fun commence.
In the third episode of The Big Ideas, Benjamen Walker discusses the meaning and uses of Smith's concept with philosopher John Gray, academic Marianne Johnson, economist Eamonn Butler and Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee. We'll be following up the podcast over the course of this and next week with a series of articles looking at Smith's idea from different perspectives.
As we mention in the podcast, Smith himself only used the phrase "invisible hand" sparingly. It crops up for the first time in part IV of the first chapter of Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759):
The proud and unfeeling landlord views his extensive fields, and without a thought for the wants of his brethren, in imagination consumes himself the whole harvest … [Yet] the capacity of his stomach bears no proportion to the immensity of his desires..the rest he will be obliged to distribute among those, who prepare, in the nicest manner, that little which he himself makes use of, among those who fit up the palace in which this little is to be consumed, among those who provide and keep in order all the different baubles and trinkets which are employed in the economy of greatness; all of whom thus derive from his luxury and caprice, that share of the necessaries of life, which they would in vain have expected from his humanity or his justice … The rich … are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society …
The second mention is in book one, chapter seven, of The Wealth of Nations (1776):

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
So what is the "invisible hand"? Is it a sound economic principle grounded in scientific fact? Or is it a nebulous myth? One thing is sure: with stockmarkets tumbling and global economics in permanent crisis, Smith's concept continues to be one of the most controversial big ideas around.

Thanks Steve... you were great!

Nunca tive, nenhum outro computador, que não fosse um Apple.

Desde meu primeiro MacIntosh Plus, jamais comprei qualquer outro computador, que não fosse Apple.
Devo ter tido praticamente todos os computadores da linha, por vezes mais de um ao mesmo tempo.
Thanks Steve: você foi responsável pelo maior crescimento de minha produtividade pessoal no trabalho intelectual. Sem seus computadores (e agora diversas outras "ferramentas" de trabalho) eu não teria produzido tanto, e tão bem, tão facilmente...
Thanks, você foi grande, um dos maiores...

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Dados técnicos de meu primeiro computador Apple (o primeiro a gente nunca esquece):


NAME  MACINTOSH Plus
MANUFACTURER  Apple
TYPE  Home Computer
ORIGIN  U.S.A.
YEAR  January 1986
END OF PRODUCTION  October 1990
BUILT IN LANGUAGE  None
KEYBOARD  Full-stroke 78 keys with numeric keypad
CPU  Motorola MC 68000
SPEED  7.8336 MHz
RAM  1 MB (up to 4 MB) IBM RAM SIMM's as well as any other 1MB SIMM could be added
ROM  128 KB
GRAPHIC MODES  512 x 342 dots
COLOrsc  Monochrome
SOUND  Tone Generator & Digital-Analog converter (22KHz sampling rate)
SIZE / WEIGHT  34.5(H) x 24.5 (W) x 27.5 (D) cm / 7.48 kg
I/O PORTS  RS 232/422 x 2 for printer and modem, SCSI, external F.D. unit, ext. loudspeaker
BUILT IN MEDIA  One 3.5'' 800 KB disk-drive
OS  Macintosh System (from 3.2 to 7.5)
POWER SUPPLY  Built-in power supply
PRICE  $2,600

Postagem em destaque

Guerra política interna e crise global: o Brasil diante da eleição de 2026 - Maria luiza Falcão (Brasil 247)

  HOME  >  BLOG Guerra política interna e crise global: o Brasil diante da eleição de 2026 O mundo atravessa uma fase de instabilidade cr...