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.

quarta-feira, 13 de junho de 2012

China "socialista" cobra ambiente para investimentos do Brasil capitalista

Esta é sem dúvida inédita nos anais da história do capitalismo. A China está cobrando do Brasil um melhor ambiente de negócios para poder fazer investimentos capitalistas no país.
Parece que os socialistas somos nós...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

China cobra do governo melhora do ambiente de negócios no país

Carga tributária elevada e complexa dificulta a entrada e a ampliação dos investimentos chineses no Brasil

Simone Cavalcanti, de Pequim

Brasil Econômico, 13/06/2012



A subdiretora do Departamento de Américas do Ministério do Comércio chinês, Xu Yingzhen, fez duras críticas ao ambiente de negócios no Brasil e às investidas antidumping do governo brasileiro contra seu país. Para ela, muito embora esteja havendoumaperspectiva positiva a respeito de futuros investimentos e da instalação de empresas chinesas no país, a complexidade do sistema tributário e a elevada carga de impostos são problemas muito reportados ao governo local pelas companhias que buscam o solo verdeamarelo como mais um lugar de sua estratégia de internacionalização. Além disso, afirmou, o processo de obtenção de vistos de trabalho para chineses têm demorado muito, o afeta o funcionamento de muitas empresas.

“Esperamos que o ambiente de investimentos do Brasil seja mais transparente, estável e mais aberto”, disse. “Há o problema do sistema tributário complexo, pois muitas de nossas empresas enfrentam a questão de que em todos os estados a lei para os tributos é diferente e isso geralmente afeta a operação”, disse, ressaltando que as autoridades chinesas estão em negociação com o governo federal brasileiro, além dos governos estaduais para tentar solucionar esse tipo de dificuldade.

No entanto, mostrou-se otimista afirmando que os investimentos chineses devem seguir a tendência de alta pelos próximos anos. Não apenas porque seus parceiros tradicionais, como Estados Unidos e países da União Europeia, estão em dificuldades para reanimar sua atividade, mas porque as companhias chinesas estão vendo a economia brasileira com muita vitalidade e tem acreditado nos esforços do governo de que manterá um nível de crescimento mais alto que a média mundial.

Porém, a subdiretora afirmou que não poderia quantificar o volume a ser investido porque essa decisão cabe somente às empresas. Para ter uma ideia, em 2011, o investimento chinês na América Latina foi em torno de US$ 10 bilhões, o que equivaleu a 16,8% do total da China no mundo. “Sempre incentivamos que as empresas chinesas invistam no Brasil gerando emprego. Ao mesmo tempo, temos interesse que venham empresas brasileiras para China.”

Comércio
Xu Yingzhen mostrou-se insatisfeita também com o crescimento de ações antidumping do Brasil contra a China. Afirmou que o país fica apenas atrás da Argentina no número de casos dentro da América Latina. Nos últimos dois anos, o governo brasileiro de fato intensificou a defesa comercial cercando, inclusive, triangulações de produtos chineses que entravam ilegalmente pelo Uruguai. A elevação pode ser explicada porque, cada vez mais, as relações comerciais têm se intensificado. No ano passado, segundo ela, o volume de trocas entre seu país e a região cresceu 31,5%, chegando a US$ 241,5 bilhões e, em sua maior parte justamente para o Brasil e a Argentina.

A subdiretora fez questão de ressaltar o incômodo do governo chinês com relação às medidas protecionistas argentinas para barrar as importações. Assim como reclama o Brasil, a China também tem visto suas mercadorias paradas nos portos sem permissão para ingressar naquele mercado. “Temos recebido muitas queixas de prejuízos às empresas. Essas medidas aumentarama instabilidade dos negócios e cremos que violam as regras da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC)”, afirmou.

A representante do governo chinês disse ainda que espera ver o compromisso assumido pelo então presidente brasileiro Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva e pelo argentino Néstor Kirchner de reconhecer a China como economia de mercado, o que não ocorreu formalmente até hoje. 

Ninguem tem medo do ridiculo? - Rio+2.000? ($$$)

Confesso que eu tenho medo do ridículo, não por mim, mas pelo país, em face de tantos visitantes estrangeiros e de alguns (poucos) chefes de Estado, devidamente espoliados pela esperteza nacional.
Mais ridículo ainda seria pagar muito para obter muito pouco, uma simples declaração, que depois pode ser esquecida na gaveta...


Entendimento do Itamaraty é de que da Rio+20 deve sair apenas uma declaração conjunta (leia mais)

Redes Sofitel e Othon podem proibir check in até de chefes de Estado se o Itamaraty não confirmar os pagamentos das reservas pela Terramar Viagens e Turismo. Por Leandro Mazzini  (leia mais)

Historiadores exageram nas analogias - Niall Ferguson e Nouriel Roubini

Mesmo historiadores sensíveis, como Niall Ferguson, e economistas sensatos, como Nouriel Roubini (mas ele já cometeu algumas impropriedades, ao acreditar que Marx estava certo ao prever as crises capitalistas), podem se deixar fascinar por falsas analogias da história.
Todos, na verdade, são tentados a comparar a crise atual com a de 1929, que por sua vez deslanchou a crise bancária de 1931 e precipitou o mundo na grande depressão dos anos 1930.
Os dois autores deste artigo, aliás interessante, acreditam que a atual crise bancária europeia poderia levar para a ruptura da democracia na região, o que não só é totalmente falso, como francamente ridículo.
Enfim, eles têm direito de fazerem as analogias que desejam, mas existem regras para isso, e devemos comparar o que é comparável.
Ora, a Europa atual, e o capitalismo de nossos dias, assim como o papel dos Estados, e dos bancos centrais, são totalmente diferentes do que tínhamos nos anos 1920 e 30.
Em todo caso, vale a leitura, se deixarmos de lado esses alertas totalmente desprovidos de fundamento.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 


 

The Perils of Ignoring HistoryThis Time, Europe Really Is on the Brink

FROM DER SPIEGEL
  • The article you are reading originally appeared in German in issue 24/2012 (June 11, 2012) of DER SPIEGEL.

People line up outside the Postscheckamt in Berlin to withdraw their deposits in July 1931. The 1931 European banking crisis contributed directly to the breakdown of democracy.Zoom
DPA
People line up outside the Postscheckamt in Berlin to withdraw their deposits in July 1931. The 1931 European banking crisis contributed directly to the breakdown of democracy.
The European Union was created to avoid repeating the disasters of the 1930s, but Germany, of all countries, has failed to learn from history. As the euro crisis escalates, Berlin should remember how the banking crisis of 1931 contributed to the breakdown of democracy across Europe. Action is urgently needed to stop history from repeating itself.
Is it one minute to midnight in Europe?
The failure of German public opinion to grasp the dire state of affairs in Europe today is inviting a repeat of precisely the crisis of the mid 20th century that European integration was designed to avoid.
With every increase in the probability of a disorderly Greek exit from the monetary union, the pressure on the Spanish banks increases and with it the danger of a Mediterranean-wide bank run so big that it would overwhelm the European Central Bank. Already there has been a substantial re-nationalization of the European financial system. This centrifugal process could easily continue to the point of complete disintegration.
We find it extraordinary that it should be Germany, of all countries, that is failing to learn from history. Fixated on the non-threat of inflation, today's Germans appear to attach more importance to the year 1923 (the year of hyperinflation) than to the year 1933 (the year democracy died). They would do well to remember how a European banking crisis two years before 1933 contributed directly to the breakdown of democracy not just in their own country but right across the European continent.
Astonishingly few Europeans (including bankers) seem to remember what happened in May 1931 when Creditanstalt, the biggest Austrian bank, had to be bailed out by a government that was itself on the brink of insolvency. The ensuing European bank crisis, which saw the failure of two of Germany's biggest banks, ushered in the second half of the Great Depression. If the first half had been dominated by the American stock market crash, the second was all about European banks going bust.
What happened next? The banking crisis was followed by President Hoover's one-year moratorium on payment of World War I war debts and reparations. Nearly all sovereign borrowers subsequently defaulted on all or part of their external debts, beginning with Germany. Unemployment in Europe reached an agonizing peak in 1932: In July of that year, 49 per cent of German trade union members were out of work.
The political consequences are well known. But the Nazis were only the worst of a large number of extremist movements to benefit politically from the crisis. "Anti-system" parties in Germany -- including Communists as well as fascists -- had won 13 percent of votes in 1928. By November 1932, they won nearly 60 percent. The far right also fared well in Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. Communists gained in Bulgaria, France and Greece.
The result was the death of democracy in much of Europe. While 24 European regimes had been democratic in 1920, the number was down to 11 in 1939. Even bankers know what happened that year.
Those of us who repeatedly warned in the 1990s that the experiment of monetary union would end badly would be gloating now -- if we were not so troubled by the prospect of history repeating itself.
Losing Faith
What is the situation today? Europe's periphery is in depression. According to the IMF, gross domestic product will contract this year by 4.7 percent in Greece and 3.3 percent in Portugal. Unemployment is 24 percent in Spain, 22 percent in Greece and 15 percent in Portugal. Public debt already exceeds 100 percent of GDP in Greece, Ireland, Italy and Portugal. These countries, along with Spain, are now effectively shut out of the bond market.
Now comes the banking crisis. We have warned for more than three years that continental Europe needed to clean up its banks' woeful balance sheets. Next to nothing was done. In the meanwhile, a silent run on the banks of the euro zone periphery has been underway for two years now: cross-border, interbank and wholesale funding has rolled off and been substituted with ECB financing; and "smart money" -- large uninsured deposits of high net worth individuals -- has quietly exited Greek and other "Club Med" banks.
But now the public is finally losing faith and the silent run may spread to smaller insured deposits. Indeed, if Greece were to exit, a deposit freeze would occur and euro deposits would be converted into new drachmas: so a euro in a Greek bank really is not equivalent to a euro in a German bank. Greeks have withdrawn more than €700 million ($875 million) from their banks in the past month.
More worryingly, there was also a surge of withdrawals from some Spanish banks last month. On a recent visit to Barcelona, one of us was repeatedly asked if it was safe to leave money in a Spanish bank. This kind of process is potentially explosive. What today is a leisurely "bank jog" could easily become a sprint for the exits. Indeed, a full run on other PIIGS banks would be impossible to avoid in the event of a Greek exit. Rational people would ask: Who is next?
In the meantime, the credit crunch in the euro-zone banks on the periphery remains severe as banks -- unable to achieve the new 9 percent capital targets by raising private capital -- are selling assets and contracting credit, thus making the euro-zone recession more severe. Fragmentation and balkanization of banking in the euro zone, together with domestication of public debt, is now well underway.
The process of political fragmentation is also speeding up. In the last Greek elections, seven in 10 voters cast their ballots for smaller parties opposed to the austerity program imposed on Greece in return for two EU-led bailouts. Established parties are also losing out to splinter parties in Italy, where the comedian Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement has just won control of the city of Parma, and in Germany, where a maverick party called the Pirates is all the rage. Less frivolous populists now have substantial support in France, the Netherlands and Norway. This trend is ominous.
Reducing Moral Hazard
The way out of this crisis seems clear.
First, there needs to be a program of direct recapitalization -- via preferred non-voting shares -- of euro-zone banks both in the periphery and the core by the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and its successor the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). The model should be the US's successful Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
The current approach of recapping the banks by the sovereigns borrowing from domestic bond markets -- and/or the EFSF -- has been a disaster in Ireland and Greece. It has led to a surge of public debt and made the sovereign even more insolvent while making banks more risky as an increasing amount of the debt is in their hands.
Direct capital injections would bypass the sovereign and avoid the surge in public debt. In practice, the euro-zone taxpayer would become a shareholder in euro-zone banks and the current balkanization of banking would be partially reversed. This might also help overcome the political resistance to cross-border mergers and acquisitions in coddled domestic banking systems.
Of course, over time, sound banks that restore capital through earnings would be able to buy back the public preferred shares. So this partial nationalization would be temporary.
Second, to avoid a run on euro-zone banks -- a certainty in the case of a "Grexit" and likely in any case -- a EU-wide system of deposit insurance needs to be created.
To reduce moral hazard (and the equity and credit risk undertaken by euro-zone taxpayers through the recap and the deposit insurance scheme), several additional measures should also be implemented:
  • The deposit insurance scheme has to be funded by appropriate bank levies: This could be a financial transaction tax or, better, a levy on all bank liabilities -- both deposits and other debt claims.
  • To limit the potential losses for euro-zone taxpayers, there needs to be a bank resolution scheme in which unsecured creditors of banks -- both junior and senior -- would take a hit before taxpayer money is used to cover bank losses.
  • Measures to limit the size of banks to avoid the too-big-to-fail problem need to be undertaken. In the case of Bankia, the merger of seven smaller caixas merely created a bank that was too big to fail.
  • We also favor an EU-wide system of supervision and regulation. If the euro-zone taxpayer backstops the capital and deposits of euro-zone banks, then supervision and regulation cannot remain at the national level, where political distortions lead to less than optimal oversight of banks.
True, European-wide deposit insurance will not work if there is a continued risk of a country leaving the euro zone. Guaranteeing deposits in euros would be very expensive as the exiting country would need to convert all euro claims into a new national currency, which would swiftly depreciate against the euro. On the other side, if the deposit insurance holds only if a country doesn't exit, it will be incapable of stopping a bank run. So more needs to be done to reduce the probability of euro zone exits.
Part 2: No Alternative to Debt Mutualization
Specifically, three actions are needed:

  • Fiscal austerity policies should not be excessively front-loaded while structural reforms that accelerate productivity growth should be sped up.
  • Economic growth needs to be jump-started in the euro zone. Without growth, the social and political backlash against austerity will be overwhelming. Repaying debt cannot be sustainable without growth.
  • The policies to achieve this include further monetary easing by the ECB, a weaker euro, some fiscal stimulus in the core, more bottleneck-reducing and supply-stimulating infrastructure spending in the periphery (preferably with some kind of "golden rule" for public investment), and wage increases above productivity in the core to boost income and consumption.

Finally, given the unsustainably high public debts and borrowing costs of certain member states, we see no alternative to some kind of debt mutualization.
There are currently a number of different proposals for euro bonds. Among them, the German Council of Economic Experts' proposal for a European Redemption Fund (ERF) is to be preferred -- not because it is the optimal one but rather because it is the only one that can assuage German concerns about taking on too much credit risk.
The ERF is a temporary program that does not lead to permanent euro bonds. It is supported by appropriate collateral and seniority for the fund and has strong conditionality. The main risk is that any proposal that is acceptable to Germany would imply such a loss of national fiscal policy sovereignty that it would be unacceptable to the euro-zone periphery, particularly Italy and Spain.
Giving up some sovereignty is inevitable. However, becoming subject to a "neo-colonial" submission of one's fiscal policy to Germany -- as a senior periphery leader put it to us at a recent meeting of the Nicolas Berggruen Institute (NBI) in Rome -- is not acceptable.
Not Optional
Until recently, the German position has been relentlessly negative on all such proposals. German officials have repeatedly opposed the direct recapitalization of troubled banks. Chancellor Merkel has consistently ruled out euro bonds. Some German spokesmen have made it sound as if they actually want a Greek exit from the euro zone. Others have been over-eager to impose the same fiscal regime on Spain as has already been imposed on Portugal.
We understand German concerns about moral hazard. Putting German taxpayers' money on the line will be hard to justify if meaningful reforms do not materialize on the periphery. But such reforms are bound to take time. Structural reform of the German labor market was hardly an overnight success. By contrast, the European banking crisis is a financial hazard that could escalate in a matter of days.
We have tried to come up with proposals that address German anxieties. But we want to emphasize that action is urgently needed. Germans must understand that bank recapitalization, European deposit insurance and debt mutualization are not optional. They are essential steps to avoid an irreversible disintegration of Europe's monetary union. If Germans are still not convinced, they must understand that the costs of a breakup of the euro zone would be astronomically high -- for themselves as much as for anyone.
After all, Germany's current prosperity is in large measure a consequence of monetary union. The euro has given German exporters a far more competitive exchange rate than the old deutsche mark would have. And the rest of the euro zone remains the destination for 42 percent of German exports. Plunging half of that market into a new Depression can hardly be good for Germany.
Ultimately, as Chancellor Merkel herself acknowledged last week, monetary union always implied further integration into a fiscal and political union.
But before Europe gets anywhere near taking this historical step, it must first of all show that it has learned the lessons of the past. The EU was created to avoid repeating the disasters of the 1930s. It is time Europe's leaders -- and especially Germany's -- understood how perilously close they are to doing just that.


Um Stalin sem Gulag, no Brasil: ainda bem...

Falta o bigode, mas a atitude e o estilo são os mesmos, sem falar do treinamento de inteligência com uma das mais duráveis ditaduras do mundo contemporâneo (e da qual ele se orgulha). Mas que se esclareça: Stalin, não porque ele não quisesse, mas por que ele não pode, e não pôde (se ouso restabelecer o uso do circunflexo, que neste caso me parece necessário).
O homem, que via a si mesmo como um Richelieu do cerrado central, o grão-vizir do Planalto, o déspota do poder despótico que teriam implantado os companheiros, se pudessem, se tivessem podido (bem que eles queriam, não tenho dúvida disso), esse homem é o chefe da quadrilha, o tirano que teríamos tido -- e não tivemos, ainda bem, pois seria igualzinho a um Pinochet tupiniquim, um Fidel Castro de fancaria -- esse homem vai, finalmente, a julgamento.
Talvez queira convocar (já está fazendo) as "massas" para protestar, caso seja condenado; acredito que deveria ser, a menos que alguns juízes do STF se comportem como poltrões, ou subservientes. Em todo caso, seria o último grasnar de um ganso de opereta, um candidato a líder fascista com os atributos que ele próprio acredita ser de esquerda (mas que, na verdade, cada vez mais se parece com o fascismo ordinário).
Estamos próximos de uma conclusão do caso mais criminoso que a República já enfrentou, a ameaça mais grave que tivemos de uma máfia no poder (ainda não está excluída, pois já vivemos em repúbliqueta sindical, em sistema corporativo), um peronismo de botequim, daqueles bem desclassificados.
A sociedade brasileira, na sua parte sã, precisa ver se consegue resistir ao abraço de afogado de um candidato a Stalin tropical. Os vendidos, e os comprados, são muitos, mas a maior parte da sociedade rejeita esse estilo truculento e tendencialmente totalitário de fazer política.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Editorial do Estado de S.Paulo, 13/06/2012

A partir de 1.º de agosto, o ex-presidente do PT, ex-ministro da Casa Civil e deputado cassado José Dirceu será julgado pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) por formação de quadrilha e corrupção ativa. Pelo primeiro delito, poderá ser condenado a até três anos de prisão. Pelo segundo, a até 12. O então procurador-geral da República que o denunciou ao Supremo em 2005, Antonio Fernando de Souza, apontou Dirceu como “chefe da quadrilha” ou da “sofisticada organização criminosa” que produziu o mensalão, a compra sistemática de apoio de deputados federais ao governo Lula. A denúncia ao STF foi aceita por unanimidade. No ano passado, o atual procurador, Roberto Gurgel, ratificou o pedido de condenação de Dirceu e de 35 outros réus (dos 40 citados da primeira vez, 1 faleceu e outro fez acordo para ser excluído do processo; para 2 outros, um dos quais, Luiz Gushiken, colega de Dirceu no Ministério, Gurgel pediu a absolvição.
Dirceu alega inocência e se diz alvo histórico do “monopólio da mídia”. A imprensa desejaria vê-lo destruído não pelos seus atos no governo Lula, mas pelo que decerto ele considera ser o conjunto da sua obra como o maior líder revolucionário socialista do Brasil contemporâneo, uma espécie atípica de Che Guevara que não fez guerrilha, escapou de ser eliminado e chegou ao poder graças à democracia burguesa. O julgamento que o aguarda, disse dias atrás aos cerca de mil estudantes presentes ao 16.º Congresso Nacional da União da Juventude Socialista, ligada ao PC do B, no Rio, será a “batalha final”. Desde os tempos da militância estudantil, ele sempre se teve em alta conta. “Batalha final” é não só uma expressão encharcada de heroísmo, que pode ser usada da extrema direita à extrema esquerda, mas é consanguínea da “luta final” dos “famélicos da terra”, nas estrofes da Internacional, o célebre hino revolucionário francês de 1871.
Do alto de sua autoestima e na vestimenta de vítima que enverga, até que faria sentido ele propagar que o julgamento no STF representará o momento culminante do confronto de proporções épicas que nunca se furtou a travar em defesa de seus ideais. Mas a arena que ele tem em mente é outra - e outros também os combatentes. “Essa batalha deve ser travada nas ruas também”, conclamou, “se não a gente só vai ouvir uma voz pedindo a condenação, mesmo sem provas (a dos veículos de comunicação).” Em outras palavras, se a Justiça está sob pressão da mídia para condená-lo, que fique também sob pressão do que seria a vanguarda dos movimentos sociais para absolvê-lo. Se der certo, a voz do povo falou mais alto. Se não der, o veredicto da Corte está desde logo coberto de ilegitimidade, como se emanasse de um tribunal de exceção.
Em 2000, dois anos antes da primeira eleição de Lula, Dirceu conclamou o professorado paulista a “mais e mais mobilização, mais e mais greve, mais e mais movimento de rua”, porque eles - os tucanos como o governador Mário Covas - “têm de apanhar nas ruas e nas urnas”. Pouco depois, no dia 1.º de junho, o governador, já debilitado pelo câncer que o mataria no ano seguinte, foi covardemente agredido por manifestantes diante da Secretaria da Educação, no centro de São Paulo. Depois, Dirceu quis fazer crer que não incentivara o ataque: foi tudo “força de expressão”. Não há, portanto, motivo para surpresa quando ele torna a invocar “as ruas”. Na sua mentalidade ditatorial - em privado, desafetos petistas já o qualificaram de “stalinista irrecuperável” -, ele se esquece até do dito marxista de que a história se repete como farsa.
Como já se lembrou, o então presidente Collor conclamou a população a protestar contra a tentativa de destituí-lo. A população, especialmente os jovens, aproveitou para pedir o seu impeachment. Como também já se lembrou, hoje em dia os jovens nem sequer saem de casa em defesa de bandeiras mais nobres, a começar pelo repúdio à impunidade dos corruptos, que dirá para assediar o STF no caso do principal réu de um caso de corrupção comparável apenas, talvez, aos dos escândalos da República de Alagoas. Mas é óbvio que a tentativa rudimentar de intimidação repercutirá no tribunal. Se Dirceu não se deu conta disso é porque, como Lula já disse, ele está mesmo “desesperado”

terça-feira, 12 de junho de 2012

Argentina: na descida continua para a decadencia

Pode-se reconhecer que um país está em decadência quando os patrões não mandam mais em suas empresas, quando a República Sindical, que existe, de fato, decide sobre como devem ser conduzidos os negócios da empresa.
Assisti a esse filme na Inglaterra pré-Tatcher, onde os patrões do Times tampouco podiam decidir quantos gráficos iriam imprimir o jornal.
A Inglaterra se safou da decadência, mas foi difícil. A Argentina vai perseverar na decadência, e não se vê quem terá coragem de inverter o processo.
Ah sim: o Brasil vai pelo mesmo caminho...


Com greve de trabalhadores, jornal 'La Nación' não chega às bancas

Pela primeira vez em 142 anos, o jornal não circulou; os funcionários da gráfica pedem melhores salários e a readmissão de 30 colegas

O Estado de S. Paulo, 12 de junho de 2012

O jornal argentino La Nación não foi impresso nesta terça-feira, 12, pela primeira vez em 142 anos de história. O motivo foi uma greve dos trabalhadores das gráficas do jornal que, de acordo com fontes sindicais, pedem melhores salários e a readmissão de 30 funcionários.
Jornal não chegou às bancas nesta terça-feira - Reprodução
Reprodução
Jornal não chegou às bancas nesta terça-feira
Os operários não trabalharam e bloquearam, durante toda a noite de ontem, a entrada dos setores de impressão do jornal em protesto pela suspensão dos 30 trabalhadores, que ocorreu em meio a um conflito salarial. Durante o último fim de semana, os operários reduziram o ritmo da produção para protestar contra os baixos salários.
Segundo representantes da Federação Gráfica Bonaerense (da província de Buenos Aires), o La Nación suspendeu os 30 funcionários no domingo e contratou outros 20 trabalhadores, o que originou a greve. O veículo de comunicação denunciou que a paralisação impediu a distribuição do jornal para as bancas "pela primeira vez em 142 anos" e considerou a medida "intempestiva e ilegal".
"Estes atos repudiáveis e injustificados ocorrem no âmbito de uma negociação conjunta na qual a empresa tem feito todos os esforços para atender as demandas sindicais", acrescentou o jornal em uma nota publicada em sua página na internet. A nota também ressalta a "vontade permanente de diálogo" por parte da empresa.
Com informações da Efe

Coreia do Norte = Somalia? Nao! Muito pior...

Na Somália, pelo menos existem microempresários da pirataria, que podem se lançar em atividades privadas de alto rendimento, evitando assim a miséria geral da população.
Na Coreia do Norte, esse tipo de atividade de alto risco, totalmente capitalista, não é sequer permitida. Acho que os habitantes desse imenso campo de concentração que é a Coreia do Norte estão pior do que os somalis...


It's official: Dingo did take that baby

Shanghai Daily, June 13, 2012

Millions of North Korean children are not getting the food, medicine or health care they need to develop physically or mentally, leaving many stunted and malnourished, the United Nations said yesterday.

Nearly a third of children under age five show signs of stunting, particularly in rural areas, and chronic diarrhea due to a lack of clean water, sanitation and electricity has become the leading cause of death among children. 

Hospitals are spotless but bare; few have running water or power, and drugs and medicine are in short supply, the UN said in a detailed update on the humanitarian situation in North Korea.

"I've seen babies ... who should have been sitting up who were not sitting up, and can hardly hold a baby bottle," said Jerome Sauvage, the UN's Pyongyang-based resident coordinator for North Korea.

The UN has called for US$198 million in donations this year - mostly to help feed the hungry. 

Last month, North Korea's premier, Choe Yong Rim, urged farmers to do their part to alleviate food shortages, according to a report from the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

Worries of another drought have been raised by a reported shortfall of rain this spring, which will likely lead to a reduced harvest. 

"I have been working at the farm for more than 30 years, but I have never experienced this kind of severe drought," An Song Min, a farmer at the Tokhae Cooperative Farm in the Nampho area, said as he stood in parched fields where the dirt crumbled through his fingers.

North Korea does not produce enough food to feed its 24 million people, and relies on limited purchases of food from other countries as well as outside donations to make up the shortfall. 

About 16 million North Koreans - two-thirds of the country - depend on government rations, the UN report said. There are no signs the government will undertake the long-term structural reforms needed to spur economic growth, it said.

The land in the mountainous north is largely unsuitable for farming, and deforestation and outmoded agricultural techniques - as well as limited fuel and electricity - mean farms are vulnerable to natural disasters, including flooding, drought and harsh, cold winters, the UN report said. Provinces in the southern "cereal bowl" produce most of the country's grains, but the food does not always reach the far northeast. 

A crop assessment last October indicated that 3 million people would need outside food help this year.

Sauvage noted that North Korea, proud of its free health care system, runs spotlessly clean hospitals but with limited facilities. "The proportion of doctors to households is very high," Sauvage said. "Unfortunately, there's not a lot in the doctor's toolkit."

Governo maquia suas contas (como sempre...)


Governo inclui subsídios como despesa de capital

Editorial, O Estado de S.Paulo, 12 de junho de 2012
O Tesouro, ao apresentar suas contas, insistiu em dois pontos: as despesas com pessoal e encargos sociais diminuíram e os gastos de capital cresceram muito. As duas afirmações merecem exame cuidadoso, pois contam apenas meia-verdade.
Os dispêndios com a folha salarial, no documento do Tesouro Nacional, que se refere ao primeiro quadrimestre, revelam um crescimento de 1,7%, caindo porém de 4,59% do PIB, em 2011, para 4,35%, neste ano. Como o Tesouro não fornece sua estimativa do PIB, é difícil saber se foram levados em conta os resultados do PIB do primeiro trimestre, que mostraram um crescimento muito fraco do conjunto da economia. Um aumento de 1,7% da folha, levando em conta a inflação, é aceitável, porém o que se verifica é que no Judiciário e no Legislativo houve redução de 10,2%, mas no Executivo o aumento foi de 5,4%, muito acima da inflação. A conclusão evidente é que aí não chegou a haver um grande exemplo de austeridade.
O exame das despesas de capital é mais complexo, pois, na sua apresentação, o governo mistura despesas de custeio e capital, numa parte, e, em outra, num item chamado "outras despesas de custeio e capital" explicita quais são as de capital propriamente ditas (leia-se investimentos) para as quais se dispõe de mais informações.
No primeiro grupo, as despesas aumentaram R$ 17,2 bilhões em relação ao mesmo período de 2011 e aí se misturam custeio, financiamentos, subsídios e subvenções - esses dois últimos itens somando R$ 6,4 bilhões. Constam também as despesas com o Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC), que aumentaram R$ 3,8 bilhões (50%) e podem ser consideradas investimentos, mas que acusam um grande atraso, especialmente no que se refere aos gastos com a infraestrutura.
Nas "outras despesas de custeio e capital", que somam R$ 67,4 bilhões, entram R$ 27 bilhões como despesas de capital, com um aumento de 28,4%. Mas o maior aumento é o do Ministério das Cidades, de 99,6%, que gastou R$ 279,8 milhões. No entanto, grande parte dessa quantia se refere a subsídios do programa Minha Casa,Minha Vida, um programa que funciona melhor porque está nas mãos de empresas privadas.
Ora, os outros subsídios, que visam a diminuir a taxa de juros, como no caso do BNDES e nos créditos para a agricultura, ficaram na lista de subsídios mesmo, sem disfarces. Nesse caso, o governo procurou potencializar de fato seus investimentos por não ter outros exemplos para mencionar.

Reagan em Berlim: "Derrube este muro, Mr Gorbachev"

Um dia realmente histórico este 12 de Junho de 1987.
Dois anos depois, não Gorbachev, mas o povo de Berlim oriental começou a derrubada do muro.
Mas é verdade que nada teria ocorrido se a URSS tivesse continuado no mesmo caminho da repressão.
O que ocorreu foi que Gorbachev não fez nada, e disse aos comunistas alemães para não fazerem nada.
Este foi o seu histórico papel: o de não fazer nada.
Mas isso não teria talvez ocorrido sem a provocação de Reagan...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Raze Berlin Wall, Reagan Urges Soviet



By GERALD M. BOYD
Special to the New York Times

RELATED HEADLINEReagan Calls on Gorbachev to Tear Down the Berlin WallOTHER HEADLINESU.S. Drops Its Case Against A Marine In Embassy Spying: Lack of Evidence Cited: New Retreat by Prosecution Leaves Unclear the Extent of Damage in Moscow
Goetz Jury Hears Gharge By Judge And Deliberates: The Panel Is Asked to Weigh 2 Contrasting Portraits -- Self-Defense at Issue
PTL Asks Court For Protection From Creditors
Clashes Continue In Center Of Seoul:Bystanders Cheer as Radicals Defy Barrages of Tear Gas
A Middle-Class Mandate: Thatcher Victory Shows a Changed Britain, As Voters Support Own Economic Interest
Rise in Producer Prices Eases
Workers and Police Clash Briefly As Pope Visits a Solidarity Center
In Land of Cricket, the Grand Slam Resounds
Presbyterians and Judaism
Bakassa Sentenced to Die
A Pact on Boarder Babies
WEST BERLIN, June 12 -- President Reagan sought today to undercut Europe's perception of Mikhail S. Gorbachev as a leader of peace, bluntly challenging the Soviet leader to tear down the Berlin wall.
Speaking 100 yards from the wall that was thrown up in 1961 to thwart an exodus to the West, Mr. Reagan made the wall a metaphor for ideological and economic differences separating East and West.
''There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace,'' the President said.
''Secretary General Gorbachev, if you seek peace - if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe - if you seek liberalization: come here, to this gate. ''Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. ''Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.''
Mr. Reagan made the remarks with the Brandenburg Gate in East Berlin in the background. An East Berlin security post was in view.
The Berlin police estimated that 20,000 people had turned out to hear the President, but some observers thought the crowd was smaller than that.
The Soviet press agency Tass said that Mr. Reagan, by calling for destruction of the wall, had given an ''openly provocative, war-mongering speech'' reminiscent of the cold war.
Reagan Peers Into East Berlin
Before the speech, Mr. Reagan peered across the wall from a balcony of the old Reichstag building into East Berlin, where a patrol boat and a gray brick sentry post were visible. Later, when asked how he felt, he said, ''I think it's an ugly scar.''
Asked how he regarded a perception among some people in Europe that Mr. Gorbachev was more committed to peace, Mr. Reagan said, ''They just have to learn, don't they?''
Administration officials had portrayed the speech as a major policy statement. But the main new initiative was a call to the Soviet Union to assist in helping Berlin become an aviation hub of Central Europe by agreeing to make commercial air service more convenient.
Some Reagan advisers wanted an address with less polemics but lost to those who favored use of the opportunity to raise East-West differences and questions about Mr. Gorbachev's commitment to ending the nuclear arms race and his internal liberalization policies.
''In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom,'' Mr. Reagan said. ''Yet, in this age of redoubled economic growth of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice. It must make fundamental changes or it will become obsolete.''
Shield of Bulletproof Glass
Speaking with two panes of bulletproof glass shielding him from East Berlin, Mr. Reagan stressed a theme of freedom and peaceful reunification of Berlin.
That was a point made by President Kennedy in his ''Ich bin ein Berliner'' speech two years after the wall was built.
''Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men,'' Mr. Reagan said. ''Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar.''
Using this speech to portray Moscow as the villain in the arms race, Mr. Reagan said 10 years ago it had challenged the Western alliance with a ''grave new threat'' by deploying SS-20 nuclear missiles that could strike West European capitals. But, Mr. Reagan said, the alliance remained strong and had deployed Pershing 2 and cruise missiles, so the prospects for eliminating such nuclear weapons is ''within the reach of possibility.''
''While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur,'' he said.
Mr. Reagan, whose speech was broadcast to West European countries, said it was unclear whether Mr. Gorbachev's campaign of liberalization represented ''profound changes'' or ''token changes.''
The wall has been an attractive symbol to American Presidents, including Mr. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.
Taking note of that pattern, Mr. Reagan said, ''We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it is our duty to speak in this place of freedom.''
The trip, in which Mr. Reagan also took part in a ceremony celebrating Berlin's 750th anniversary, provided the President with a lift at the end of the economic summit meeting in Venice of the seven major industrialized democracies.
At the end of a second event in Berlin, at Tempelhof Airport, miniature parachutes rained down as symbols of the 1948-49 airlift that kept the city alive during a Soviet land blockade.
Greeted by Kohl
Chancellor Helmut Kohl of West Germany greeted the President and then flew aboard Air Force One to Bonn to receive him there.
Speaking before the President, Mr. Kohl said that the countries of the Soviet bloc's Warsaw Pact ''must abandon their conventional superiority and their aggressive military doctrine.''
Suggesting Berlin as a start for cooperation between East and West, Mr. Reagan urged international meetings, summer exchanges of youngsters from West Berlin and East Berlin, culture exchanges and sports events, including Olympic Games jointly in the two countries.
Several times, Mr. Reagan addressed addressed the Germans in their language. In one case, Mr. Reagan made a special appeal to East Berliners by saying, ''Es gibt nur ein Berlin,'' or ''There is only one Berlin.''
He began his remarks by quoting from a popular old song: ''I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: 'Ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin,' or 'I still have a suitcase in Berlin.' ''
===========

Uma análise contemporânea:

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Reagan at the Wall

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • EMAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
Providence, R.I.
Brian Stauffer, photograph from Associated Press
Opinion Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
ON June 12, 1987, the cold war entered a terminal phase, in ways that few could have anticipated, and in fact, almost no one did — with the exception of a president down on his legendary luck.
If in 1984 Ronald Reagan had proclaimed that it was “morning again in America,” three years later the evening was coming fast for a presidency that had spent most of its energy. The Iran-contra scandal had damaged him, and in March 1987 only 42 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing. Reagan’s diary reveals a president losing focus, with entries registering more enthusiasm for old videos than the crushing business of state. On May 23, 1987, a good day: “Ran a movie about Big Foot & to my surprise I was in it — a shot of me & Bonzo on a TV set.”
But the aging actor still had a trick or two up his sleeve. For months, a trip had been planned to Berlin, a city famous for its stages. John F. Kennedy had given one of the greatest speeches of his presidency there in 1963; it would be a challenge for Reagan to duplicate the excitement of that visit. Like him, the cold war seemed to be losing steam. But Reagan’s loyal aides pitched the idea of a major speech at the Brandenburg Gate, and the writers began to crank out drafts. A single line kept calling attention to itself: an appeal to tear down the Berlin Wall, which ran alongside the gate.
In a way, it was a no-brainer. No one had ever liked the wall, since its construction in 1961. But to express that antipathy in 1987, as tensions were winding down, was impolitic. An encouraging new leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, was bravely campaigning for perestroika (restructuring), glasnost (opening) and a third word we don’t remember as well, uskorenie (acceleration). Things were trending in the right direction in United States-Soviet relations. Most of Reagan’s foreign policy advisers opposed adding incendiary language.
There were other complications as well. The Brandenburg Gate offered an impressive backdrop, but it was so close to East Berlin that the Secret Service feared the president could be exposed to Communist snipers. Yet building a protective barrier would erect a wall around him at the same time that he was calling for the wall to be torn down. Worse, it would deny TV audiences a chance to see the wall. An ingenious solution was found — a glass partition that gave a clear view of the wall, and the gate.
But to those attuned to nuance, the gate posed its own problems.
It was not much of a gate, and for most of its history, it was illegal for anyone who was not a member of the Prussian royal family to walk through its central passage. A huge ceremonial structure, it borrowed features from the Acropolis, in tribute to the long fascination ancient Greece exerted upon the German imagination (a fascination that in no way extends to the current German-Greek relationship). For many Germans, however, its ghosts did not conjure Aegean democracy or Beethoven, but helmet-tipped Prussians and goose-stepping Nazis. The Reagan team might have been sensitive on that point, after the controversy caused by his visit to a Nazi cemetery on his previous trip to Germany.
One of Reagan’s gifts, however, was not to care about the wisps of history, or the contrary advice of his advisers. He insisted that the line be included, and so, midway through the speech, the president said, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” The lines were delivered crisply. It is unusual for a president to use the second-person imperative — it’s one of the reasons we remember J.F.K.’s invocation to “ask not.” Near the end, Reagan spotted a bit of graffiti spray-painted on the wall, and read it aloud: “This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality.”
Shortly after, he flew back to Washington. His diary entry for June 12 does not overwhelm with its acuity (“I was surprised that we traveled in bright sunshine for about 8 of the 8 1/2 hour flight. It didn’t get dark until a little less than an hour out and yet it was after 3 A.M. back where we left”). But something had changed in the atmosphere. A gate had opened. And two years later, it was exactly as he predicted. The wall fell — not because Mr. Gorbachev tore it down, but because he did nothing at all.
To this day, Reagan attracts fierce partisans, eager to claim he “won” the cold war, and this speech is often cited in that argument. The claim feels forced, given that the U.S.S.R. outlasted his presidency by two years. But on this day, Reagan’s inner actor proved shrewder than most who would have counseled realpolitik. His theatrical turn on Berlin’s greatest stage stated a great moral truth, the way the best theater does, and proved the accuracy of Mr. Gorbachev’s third concept, uskorenie — acceleration.
Mr. Gorbachev deserves some of the credit, and in fact, the vast majority of young Germans in 1989 felt gratitude to him, not to Ronald Reagan. No one deserves more credit than the young graffiti-painters who protested against the wall for 28 years, and finally liberated themselves. But surely some recognition should go to a president who had the good sense to ignore the advice he was given, and read the writing on the wall.
Ted Widmer, who was a speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, is the director of the John Carter Brown Library at Brown University and the author of “Ark of the Liberties: America and the World.”

Apple: sempre renovando os sistemas...

Je suis preneur, como diriam os franceses...
(desculpem a inserção publicitária, mas se trata apenas de um registro).


Apple annonce IOS 6, avec Google en ligne de mire

Le Monde.fr | 

La première keynote de la WWDC (World Wide Developper Conference) sans Steve Jobs, qui s'est tenue lundi 11 à San Francisco, n'a pas réservé de grande surprise, comme aurait pu le faire un nouveau modèle de son iconique iPhone. Tim Cook, qui officiait à la place du charismatique patron de la firme à la pomme, s'est tout d'abord félicité du succès de l'App Store qui permet de télécharger des programmes sur soniPhone ou son iPad. Plus de 400 millions de comptes ont été ouverts avec des cartes de crédit et 30 milliards d'applications ont été téléchargées, selon l'entreprise.

Comme prévu, Apple a annoncé le renouvellement de sa gamme d'ordinateurs, dont les processeurs seront plus rapides et la mémoire plus étendue. Le fabricant a également présenté un ordinateur portable doté d'un écran à la résolution record (2880 X 1800 pixels), avec une mémoire, un processeur et une batterie dopés. Cet appareil sera enfin équipé d'une prise HDMI, pour le relier à une télévision par exemple. Tout cela avec une épaisseur inférieure à celle d'un doigt. Le prix sera élevé : le modèle le plus puissant sera vendu 3 700 dollars.
Avec ce nouveau produit, Apple espère continuer à séduire d'anciens utilisateurs de PC. Plus de 66 millions de machines fonctionnent désormais sur son système d'exploitation Mac OS X, trois fois plus qu'il y a trois ans. Et les consommateurs adoptent rapidement ses nouvelles versions. Plus de 40 % d'entre eux ont acheté la dernière en 9 mois - il a fallu 27 mois pour que Windows 7 atteigne ce niveau, a souligné Apple.
OFFENSIVE CONTRE ANDROID ET GOOGLE
L'entreprise californienne a dévoilé la nouvelle mouture de son système d'exploitation, baptisée "Montain Lion", qui sera disponible le mois prochain pour 19,99 dollars. Elle propose une synchronisation améliorée avec iCloud : calendrier, documents, notes, listes de choses à se rappeler et les conversations via des messages avec ses amis que l'on peut enrichir de photos ou de vidéos. Un centre de notifications permet de regrouper tous les messages qui apparaissent sur l'écran. Le système intègre aussi la reconnaissance vocale et une nouvelle version de Safari, le navigateur d'Apple, et la fonction air play pour visionner l'écran de son ordinateur sur sa télé.
La physionomie de Lion se rapproche d'iOs, le système d'exploitation destiné aux appareils mobiles de la marque (tablettes et smartphones). Plus de 365 millions d'iPad, iPhone ou iPod touch ont été vendus depuis leur lancement, et les trois quarts utilisent la dernière version d'IOS. "Ce qui est loin d'être le cas pour les machines fonctionnant sur Android", s'est amusé à souligner Tim Cook. Selon Apple, 47 % des photos échangées sur Twitter proviennent de machines iOS, qui compterait 75 % d'utilisateurs satisfaits, contre moins de la moitié pour les utilisateurs d'Android de Google, a affirmé Apple.
La firme a dévoilé la nouvelle version d'IOs, IOs 6, qui offre 200 améliorations dont une meilleure intégration de Facebook et de Siri. Le système de reconnaissance vocale sera proposée dans de nouveaux langages dont le coréen, l'espagnol et le chinois. Siri fonctionnera aussi sur la dernière version de l'iPad. IOs 6 offrira aussi une nouvelle version de Map, l'application de cartographie avec GPS intégré. Il abandonne celle qui était fournie jusqu'à présent par Google, plus que jamais son principal concurrent sur mobiles et tablettes.