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.
quinta-feira, 2 de maio de 2013
Venezuela: perfeitamente em ordem com a clausula democratica do Mercosul
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Venezuelan opposition protests vote
By Emilia Diaz-Struck and Juan Forero
The Washington Post, Wednesday, May 1, 213
CARACAS, Venezuela — Unable to force a sweeping review of last month’s disputed presidential election, opposition supporters marched in the streets Wednesday to demonstrate their fury at the ruling party’s efforts to blunt a recount.
On International Workers’ Day, Venezuelans from both sides of the sharp political divide staged rallies, as is custom in Latin America. But in Caracas, the capital, and in the provinces, thousands of the government’s adversaries heeded the call of opposition leader Henrique Capriles to demand a complete audit of the April 14 vote.
Capriles, a 40-year-old governor who claims the election was stolen by Nicolás Maduro, characterized the protests as “the fight for truth against lies” and pledged to keep the pressure on the government.
But Capriles being forced into the streets was indicative of another reality: The opposition has limited options for redress in a country where the ruling United Socialist Party controls the electoral board and the Supreme Court, which Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, packed with loyal supporters.
The opposition is also unlikely to get a hearing in the National Assembly, whose president, Diosdado Cabello, a force in the ruling party, has thrown opposition legislators off committees and banned them from speaking for refusing to recognize Maduro as president.
When opposition lawmakers on Tuesday unfurled a banner reading “coup against the parliament,” Maduro’s allies delivered a beating that left several lawmakers bruised and battered, the government’s critics said.
For Julio Borges, a leading adversary of Maduro who was shown bleeding profusely in a video that went viral, it was the third time he had been attacked on the floor of the chamber.
“What we’re left with is to go into the streets to protest,” said Mayerlica Cedeño, 48, a teacher who joined anti-government demonstrators in Caracas. “We’re taking the streets but without guns. We do it with horns and signs and banners. We want the votes to be counted.”
‘Democracy or dictatorship?’
Opposition leaders and some human rights groups, including New York-based Human Rights Watch, say recent government actions against the opposition are raising concerns about whether officials are violating rights and becoming increasingly authoritarian.
“It’s getting completely out of control, completely out of line,” said JoséMiguel Vivanco, the Americas director for Human Rights Watch, which has compiled reports on abuses in Venezuela. “Is it a democracy or a dictatorship? I think Venezuela is on the verge of losing any serious claim to being a democracy.”
On Monday, a retired general, Antonio Rivero, was charged with conspiracy and inciting violence after a video surfaced of him appearing to coordinate protests. That came five days after an American filmmaker, Timothy Tracy, was arrested and accused of being a secret agent spearheading plans to destabilize the government.
The National Assembly has also announced an inquiry into violence that officials say left nine people dead after Capriles refused to recognize Maduro’s victory. The government contends that Capriles plans to use the unrest to take power. He was been warned that a jail cell awaits him.
“Sooner rather than later, he will have to pay for those crimes,” said Pedro Carreño, a ruling party lawmaker who is to lead a special committee empowered to investigate opposition leaders and their role in the protests.
Rights groups and labor unions allied with the opposition say that government ministries are trying to punish workers who voted for Capriles. In a widely circulated video, Housing Minister Ricardo Molina pledges before state employees to personally fire those who are activists in “fascist parties.”
“Let me say with total clarity, I do not care at all about labor rules. In this situation, they don’t matter,” he said, as workers cheered and shouted. “That’s how to govern!”
“I don’t accept that anyone can come here and speak badly of the revolution.”
Voting irregularities?
Political analysts and electoral experts, among them Jennifer McCoy of the Carter Center, say the crisis could be defused with an extensive review of the automated voting system to address concerns raised by the opposition.
“The concerns are not about the machines and whether they counted accurately,” said McCoy, who is the Americas director at the center and has observed six elections here. “The questions are much more about who voted. Was there double voting? Was there impersonation of voters? And was there coerced voting?”
But the National Electoral Council made clear this past weekend that an audit set to begin Monday on 46 percent of the votes would be far more limited than Capriles had demanded.
Tibisay Lucena, head of the council, said that Capriles had generated “false hopes” and that the planned audit would “in no way affect the electoral results” issued by her agency on election day.
The opposition thinks there might have been irregularities in as many as 6,000 of the nearly 14,000 voting centers, said Humberto Villalobos, who has worked with a team of opposition technicians to identify irregularities. The opposition also alleges that government supporters used ID cards from dead voters to cast ballots, that some people voted multiple times, that prospective voters were walked through the voting process and instructed to endorse Maduro, and that opposition witnesses were forced out of voting centers.
Villalobos said the opposition is particularly interested in reviewing the electronic fingerprints taken by automated machines, which would show whether there were multiple voters or if some voters used other people’s IDs to vote. The electoral council’s more limited audit would only compare vote totals from machines with paper receipts for each vote. Capriles’s camp would not be permitted to participate.
“Their audit is one where they define the conditions and all the proposals,” Villalobos said. “It’s not an audit where we can participate.”
Facing scant possibilities of redress from state institutions, Capriles may want to detail the evidence publicly, said David Smilde, an analyst with the Washington Office on Latin America who has studied the political situation in Venezuela.
“Capriles still has people’s attention,” Smilde said. “And calling people’s attention to the government’s arbitrary actions can be quite effective. If they could present their evidence in the court of public opinion, and Capriles could keep denouncing some of these things, it could have an impact.”
Forero reported from Charleston, W.Va.
© The Washington Post Company
A França, enferma dos seus impostos - Le Monde
LE MONDE01.05.2013 à 18:45
Editorial du "Monde". Dans leur brutalité, les chiffres en disent souvent plus que les traités d'économie. Ils livrent un diagnostic cru, l'état des lieux avant que le discours politique vienne embellir ou assombrir la réalité selon que l'on est au gouvernement ou dans l'opposition.
La dernière livraison d'Eurostat, l'organisme de statistiques de l'Union européenne, lundi 29 avril, vient ainsi confirmer ce que l'on savait depuis quelque temps déjà : la France est malade de sa fiscalité. Pathologie lourde, à laquelle ni la droite ni la gauche n'ont jamais réellement voulu remédier.
Là est, pourtant, une partie du "mal français" : la globalisation de l'économie et les nouvelles conditions de concurrence n'ont fait, ces dernières années, que l'exacerber davantage.
L'impôt, ce n'est pas toujours une simple affaire de taux, ou pas seulement. Eurostat rappelle que le taux global d'imposition, en pourcentage du produit intérieur brut, situe la France dans le peloton de tête de l'UE. Avec un taux de 43,9 % en 2011, elle est à la quatrième place, derrière le Danemark, la Suède et la Belgique.
Ce chiffre ne dit pas tout. Il n'a de sens que rapporté à la qualité des services publics obtenue en contrepartie de l'impôt. Contrairement à ce qu'on serine aux Français, ils n'en n'ont pas pour leur argent. Les prestations publiques dans la plupart des pays d'Europe du Nord sont supérieures à ce qu'elles sont en France.
Qu'il s'agisse de l'éducation en général, de la sécurité, de l'intégration des quartiers défavorisés, des transports publics, de l'état des prisons, de la justice et de la police et, même, parfois, de la santé, l'Etat-providence est plus performant au Danemark ou en Suède qu'il ne l'est en France. Pourquoi ? La question, celle du bon usage de l'argent public, est trop rarement posée.
Dans un pays taraudé par le chômage de masse, la droite et la gauche ont-elles mené depuis quinze ans une politique fiscale favorable aux entreprises ? La réponse est non. En 2013 comme en 2012, la France détient le record d'Europe pour l'impôt sur les sociétés avec un taux maximal de 36,1 % contre 29,8 % en Allemagne. Elle est aussi le pays européen où le capital est le plus taxé, loin au-dessus de la moyenne européenne.
Pas étonnant que les marges de nos entreprises figurent parmi les plus faibles de l'UE. Si les profits d'aujourd'hui sont les investissements de demain, alors il est urgent de revenir sur les mécanismes d'imposition du capital : en France, ils découragent l'entrepreneuriat.
Le 29 avril, François Hollande a annoncé pour les entrepreneurs une batterie de mesures allant dans le bon sens. Il détricote partiellement ce qu'il a mis en oeuvre en arrivant à l'Elysée... Alléger la charge pesant sur les entreprises, c'est ce qu'ont fait nos voisins du Nord, sans démolir l'Etat-providence.
Cela devrait être à la portée d'un gouvernement qui se veut social-démocrate.
quarta-feira, 1 de maio de 2013
A frase da semana: a Argentina tem tudo e esta' prosa... (CK)
O Itamaraty e a imprensa - Matias Spektor
Salami science: quanto mais artigos melhor? - Fernando Reinach
Darwin e a prática da 'Salami Science' | |
Fernando Reinach O Estado de São Paulo, 29/04/2013
Em 1985, ouvi pela primeira vez no Laboratório de Biologia Molecular a expressão "Salami Science". Um de nós estava com uma pilha de trabalhos científicos quando Max Perutz se aproximou. Um jovem disse que estava lendo trabalhos de um famoso cientista dos EUA. Perutz olhou a pilha e murmurou: "Salami Science, espero que não chegue aqui". Mas a praga se espalhou pelo mundo e agora assola a comunidade científica brasileira.
"Salami Science" é a prática de fatiar uma única descoberta, como um salame, para publicá-la no maior número possível de artigos científicos. O cientista aumenta seu currículo e cria a impressão de que é muito produtivo. O leitor é forçado a juntar as fatias para entender o todo. As revistas ficam abarrotadas. E avaliar um cientista fica mais difícil. Apesar disso, a "Salami Science" se espalhou, induzido pela busca obsessiva de um método quantitativo capaz de avaliar a produção acadêmica.
No Laboratório de Biologia Molecular, nossos ídolos eram os cinco prêmios Nobel do prédio. Publicar muitos artigos indicava falta de rigor intelectual. Eles valorizavam a capacidade de criar uma maneira engenhosa para destrinchar um problema importante. Aprendíamos que o objetivo era desvendar os mistérios da natureza. Publicar um artigo era consequência de um trabalho financiado com dinheiro público, servia para comunicar a nova descoberta. O trabalho deveria ser simples, claro e didático. O exemplo a ser seguido eram as duas páginas em que Watson e Crick descreveram a estrutura do DNA. Você se tornaria um cientista de respeito se o esforço de uma vida pudesse ser resumido em uma frase: Ele descobriu... Os três pontinhos teriam de ser uma ou duas palavras: a estrutura do DNA (Watson e Crick), a estrutura das proteínas (Max Perutz), a teoria da Relatividade (Einstein). Sabíamos que poucos chegariam lá, mas o importante era ter certeza de que havíamos gasto a vida atrás de algo importante.
Hoje, nas melhores universidade do Brasil, a conversa entre pós-graduandos e cientistas é outra. A maioria está preocupada com quantos trabalhos publicou no último ano - e onde. Querem saber como serão classificados. "Fulano agora é pesquisador 1B no CNPq. Com 8 trabalhos em revistas de alto impacto no ano passado, não poderia ser diferente." "O departamento de beltrano foi rebaixado para 4 pela Capes. Também, com poucas teses no ano passado e só duas publicações em revistas de baixo impacto..." Não que os olhos dessas pessoas não brilhem quando discutem suas pesquisas, mas o relato de como alguém emplacou um trabalho na Nature causa mais alvoroço que o de uma nova maneira de abordar um problema dito insolúvel.
Essa mudança de cultura ocorreu porque agora os cientistas e suas instituições são avaliados a partir de fórmulas matemáticas que levam em conta três ingredientes, combinados ao gosto do freguês: número de trabalhos publicados, quantas vezes esses trabalhos foram citados na literatura e qualidade das revistas (medida pela quantidade de citações a trabalhos publicados na revista). Você estranhou a ausência de palavras como qualidade, criatividade e originalidade? Se conversar com um burocrata da ciência, ele tentará te explicar como esses índices englobam de maneira objetiva conceitos tão subjetivos. E não adianta argumentar que Einstein, Crick e Perutz teriam sido excluídos por esses critérios. No fundo, essas pessoas acreditam que cientistas desse calibre não podem surgir no Brasil. O resultado é que em algumas pós-graduações da USP o credenciamento de orientadores depende unicamente do total de trabalhos publicados, em outras o pré-requisito para uma tese ser defendida é que um ou mais trabalhos tenham sido aceitos para publicação.
Não há dúvida de que métodos quantitativos são úteis para avaliar um cientista, mas usá-los de modo exclusivo, abdicando da capacidade subjetiva de identificar pessoas talentosas, criativas ou simplesmente geniais, é caminho seguro para excluir da carreira científica as poucas pessoas que realmente podem fazer descobertas importantes. Essa atitude isenta os responsáveis de tomar e defender decisões. É a covardia intelectual escondida por trás de algoritmos matemáticos.
Mas o que Darwin tem a ver com isso? Foi ele que mostrou que uma das características que facilitam a sobrevivência é a capacidade de se adaptar aos ambientes. E os cientistas são animais como qualquer outro ser humano. Se a regra exige aumentar o número de trabalhos publicados, vou praticar "Salami Science". É necessário ser muito citado? Sem problema, minhas fatias de salame vão citar umas às outras e vou pedir a amigos que me citem. Em troca, garanto que vou citá-los. As revistas precisam de muitas citações? Basta pedir aos autores que citem artigos da própria revista. E, aos poucos, o objetivo da ciência deixa de ser entender a natureza e passa a ser publicar e ser citado. Se o trabalho é medíocre ou genial, pouco importa. Mas a ciência brasileira vai bem, o número de mestres aumenta, o de trabalhos cresce, assim como as citações. E a cada dia ficamos mais longe de ter cientistas que possam ser descritos em uma única frase: Ele descobriu...
|
Venezuela: fascismo do seculo XXI - Blog Venezuela News and Views
Blog Venezuela News and Views, Wednesday, May 01, 2013
XXI century fascism in full blown action in Venezuela
Representatives Machado and Borges after a working day |
I am not going to go into the beating up details, there are articles already up, and already in English. I am just putting the basic video below where you can see clearly that Venezuelan flagged jackets wearing chavista representatives are brutally attacking opposition Representatives It says it all, this was not a "spur of the moment angst expression".
Exclusivo: Video muestra la golpiza que ocurrió... por Globovision
You also need to know that while the brawl took place the TV cameras went up to the ceiling, while the microphones amplified the voice of the chavista speaker pretending that all was normal. Of course Maduro was in national cadena so we had to wait a while until thecadena was over so finally Globovision showed the violence. No word yet as tot he Televen or Venevision mentioning "the incident". The deliberate set up, with the stupid aim that just maybe the country would not find out.....
Now, rather than go into the gory details that regular readers of this blog already know happened, let's try to think about the why.
The first thing to note is that the Speaker, Diosdado Cabello, not selected by Chavez to succeed him, was presiding over it all, did not try to stop it, had armed body guards just in case and even laughed at the thing. So yes, he did all what a fascist would be expected to do.
But surely he cannot be THAT stupid not to know that this is going to have repercussions internationally (and at home as apparently chavismo numbers would be already dropping in surveys). Why is Diosdado thus doing something which in the end can only damage Maduro as the opposition representatives are already pointing out? Well, those able to comment, because 7 are reported injured and one in a hospital tonight. We must also comment that even if Cabello and Carreño argument that the opposition representatives are in open rebellion, there are legal mechanisms available to silence them fast without having to make such a public PR disaster. What gives?
It is possible that it is the order from Cuba and that they are trying to go as far as they can to silence the opposition through repression (1). But this is dangerous because a delegation of 3 representatives with that video in hand would be enough to go to the OAS and demand that the Chart for democracy and human rights is applied to Venezuela. Small comfort you may say but forcing people like Dilma or Santos to take position at the OAS in favor a Maduro can bring them quite a lot of grief at the time where they are planning their reelection.... (2)
Or, it is possible that a scorn Cabello, knowing that Maduro is getting ready to do him in, who knows that he is unelectable, is doing such idiotico-fascist antics to sink along with Maduro. With an even crazier variation, that he may be able to replace Maduro through a coup, because Maduro cannot silence the opposition. This has to be the reason, there is no other one that makes sense. I am open to suggestions and will add them below this line if any reader comes up with something original and believable.
-----------------
1) It is possible that this hypothesis is operating as unaccountably the Venezuelan american has arrested for terrorism a rather naive "gringo" making a documentary. This last week end, pre-Tuesday night parliament battle is already picked up by a very strongly worded Washington Post Editorial that covers this week end repressive actions including the arrest of General Rivero (while the New York Times seems concerned elsewhere?).
2) In Colombia not only Uribe but now Pastrana is attacking Santos policies on Venezuela.
Terminou sua Declaracao de Imposto de Renda? Nao pense que a Receita vai descansar...
Petrobras: politizada, a servico do governo
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Mantega é reeleito na Petrobrás e minoritário protesta
29 de abril de 2013 | 20h 37
Sabrina Valle, da Agência Estado
Acionistas atacaram influência do governo nas decisões da companhia; nome do ministro, reconduzido à presidência do conselho, foi vaiado
RIO - Acionistas minoritários da Petrobrás aproveitaram nesta segunda-feira a assembleia anual da companhia para protestar contra a influência do governo na gestão. Um dos acionistas chegou a vaiar, de forma relativamente tímida, mas sendo escutado pelos mais de 100 presentes, a reeleição do ministro da Fazenda, Guido Mantega, como presidente do conselho de administração da petroleira.
"Fora Mantega", disse o investidor João Antonio Lian, arrancando alguns risos de apoio de investidores e petroleiros ao seu redor. Minoritários também elegeram nesta segunda o presidente da Associação de Investidores do Mercado de Capitais (Amec), Mauro Cunha, para uma cadeira no conselho de administração voltada a acionistas minoritários detentores de ações ordinárias (ON, com direito a voto).
Avanço. A eleição de Cunha para uma das dez cadeiras do conselho teve o apoio de investidores estrangeiros. Apesar de ocorrer sem surpresas, o movimento foi visto no mercado como um avanço em termos de governança na companhia. Até hoje, o governo garantia nomes de seu agrado no cargo com voto de instituições como BNDES e BNDESPar, que desta vez se abstiveram.
Os ataques, em sua maioria lidos ao microfone com pedido de registro em ata, se direcionaram à influência do governo nas decisões da companhia, e não à presidente Graça Foster.
Acionista minoritário, Luís Eduardo Potsch chegou a perguntar se Graça não seria apenas uma "executora das determinações de Brasília". Perguntou ainda se Guido Mantega não seria o verdadeiro CEO (presidente) da Petrobrás.
Em todas as vezes, Graça agradeceu as colocações de forma cordata e não teceu comentários. A executiva não participou dos outros dois compromissos da agenda de relações com investidores desta segunda: a teleconferência com analistas de mercado, pela manhã, para comentar os resultados obtidos pela Petrobrás no primeiro trimestre, e a entrevista coletiva com jornalistas realizada a seguir, com o mesmo propósito. Mas Graça fez questão de conduzir, pela primeira vez desde que tomou posse no cargo, a assembleia. Foi elogiada por parte dos críticos.
Despedida. "Quem manda na Petros (fundo de pensão dos funcionários) é a Petrobrás; e quem manda na Petrobrás é o governo", declarou o presidente do conselho fiscal da Petros, Silvio Sinedino.
Sinedino, que se despede do cargo de membro do conselho de administração da Petrobrás em vaga reservada a representante de empregados, contestou voto da Petros na condição de minoritário.
Os fundos de pensão que integram o grupo de acionistas da empresa, por serem patrocinados por estatais (Petrobrás, Banco do Brasil e Caixa Econômica Federal), têm seus votos questionados pelos demais minoritários. Costumam acompanhar as decisões da União, controladora da petroleira.
Fernando Siqueira, da Associação de Engenheiros da Petrobrás (Aepet), protestou contra o estrangulamento financeiro da companhia por meio do congelamento do preço dos combustíveis.
"Não se pode fazer controle de inflação transferindo todo o ônus para uma única empresa", disse Siqueira.
terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2013
Keynesianos ja' nao entendem mais nada...
Se é que algum dia eles entenderam alguma coisa...
Inflação e pleno emprego
Que tal "refundar" o pais e ter um terceiro mandato?
Bolivia: constitucional avala candidatura de Evo Morales a un tercer mandato en 2014
29/04/2013 - Infolatam
El Tribunal Constitucional de Bolivia resolvió que es constitucional que el presidente del país, Evo Morales, busque un tercer mandato en las elecciones presidenciales de diciembre de 2014.
El presidente de este órgano judicial, Ruddy Flores, informó en una rueda de prensa de que el TC falló a favor de la postulación de Morales, en respuesta a una consulta al respecto remitida a este organismo por el Parlamento, a instancias del partido de Morales.
La sentencia constitucional respalda la postulación de Morales y del vicepresidente del país, Álvaro García Linera, por considerar que el actual mandato que comenzaron en 2009 cuenta como primero del Estado plurinacional, refundado ese año.
“Se ha realizado la refundación del Estado como un Estado Plurinacional y esa refundación emerge de un poder constituyente que ha generado una nueva Constitución Política del Estado que contempla un nuevo orden que contiene la aplicación de la Constitución”, dijo Flores.
La Constitución limita a dos el número de mandatos consecutivos que puede ejercer un presidente en Bolivia, pero Morales siempre ha defendido que el primero de sus Gobiernos (2006-2010) no es computable debido a que tuvo lugar antes de la refundación de su país y a que no completó el período legal de cinco años.
Con este argumento, y a pesar de que nunca ha confirmado que será candidato, Morales ha llegado a asegurar que la consulta al Constitucional era innecesaria y ha aceptado en numerosas ocasiones ser proclamado por sus seguidores.
De ser reelegido, Morales gobernaría Bolivia hasta el año 2020 y se convertiría así en el presidente boliviano que más años ha permanecido en el poder.
Uma Receita Federal cara, ineficiente e injusta
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Make the Government less taxy
Opinion - Pete du Pont
The Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2013
Americans don't like things that are inefficient, costly or unfair. Our federal tax code seems designed to be all three, a failing exacerbated by a patchwork of economically distorting subsidies and preferences found throughout the code and elsewhere.
In a 2009 survey by the Tax Foundation, more than 80% of respondents felt the tax code was complex and that it should be completely overhauled or needed major changes. The only surprise about this result is that 20% could think otherwise.
The federal tax code has become a morass of different rates, deductions, credits, exemptions, exceptions and phase-outs, and it changes every year. The end result is that no one understands how it all works. The Government Accountability Office once presented 19 professional tax preparers with tax-return information, and not a single one generated a return that was correct. It has been estimated that Americans spend well more than six billion hours a year simply filing out tax forms—the equivalent of more than three million people working full-time all year.
Difficulty in understanding and complying with the code is just the start. Tax rates are too high. Individuals and families face a top marginal federal income tax rate in excess of 40%, and that doesn't include state income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes and any number of hidden levies. Taxes this high can only hurt economic growth.
Our individual tax code is, as it should be, progressive, but perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in this direction. The top 10% of taxpayers pay around 70% of federal income taxes, while the bottom half of all taxpayers pay just 2%. Is it not perhaps unfair and potentially damaging to the long-term prospects for economic growth to have such a disparity?
Looking at the corporate tax code, we also see rates that are too high, at 39% when federal and state rates are combined (the highest in the developed world). And ObamaCare imposes new costs on employers and new taxes on life-saving medical devices. Sadly, the corporate tax code is just as complicated and convoluted as the individual code.
But, our nation is hurt by more than just high rates and an unfair and complex code. We also suffer from economic distortion caused by subsidies, grants and other preferences in the code and elsewhere.
There are literally thousands of such preferences. That some are for good causes is certain. Unfortunately, just as certain is the economic inefficiency caused by taking money from one group of decision makers (taxpayers) and transferring it to constituencies favored by the White House and various members and committees in Congress. From politically protected subsidies for corn, peanuts, sorghum and the like, to wasteful tax credits, grants and loans for the flavor of the day in green energy, our federal government tries to pick winners and losers to the tune of billions of dollars a year.
Trying to "pick winners and losers" is probably not an accurate description, since governments have never been very good at picking winners. For years, well-intentioned ethanol preferences have driven up the cost of gasoline and corn, all in the interest of protecting the environment. This approach was not just costly but ineffective, as even Al Gore finally admitted.
We simply have to make some changes. We need a tax code that is flatter, fairer and simpler. Our code should retain its progressivity, but it can do so with lower rates and a wider tax base, something along the lines agreed by President Reagan and a Democratic Congress in the 1980s.
We need to cut back drastically on federal subsidies and preferences. The White House seems intent to repeatedly call for cuts in "oil and gas subsidies." Fine, but let's also cut back on subsidies for other industries. Let's cut agricultural subsidies, green energy subsidies, and any corporate welfare such as loan guarantees, research grants and targeted development funds. Federal subsidies for public broadcasting should be cut, as well as subsidies for Amtrak and speculative high-speed rail projects.
Fixing the tax code to make it encourage instead of discourage economic growth is critical for our nation's long-term success as it competes in the world economy. Cutting Washington's wasteful counterproductive efforts to take taxpayer dollars and hand them out to favored constituencies will not fully solve our deficit problem, but it would help. Putting the two together would be a strong start in solving our nation's economic problems and making our system efficient, cost effective, and fair
Debt and growth - Editorial Wall Street Journal
Editorial The Wall Street Journal
April 29, 2013
Perhaps you've read that America's debt burden is no longer a problem. Former White House economist Larry Summers says the U.S. should borrow even more money today because interest rates are low, and his Keynesian brethren are busy trying to discredit economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart for their famous claim that a country's economic growth begins to fall when debt hits 90% of GDP. Time for Stimulus 5.0!
The Reinhart-Rogoff duo have admitted a math error while defending their core argument, though we've never considered their 90% figure to be dogma. Their main contribution was to remind politicians amid the post-crisis Keynesian spending blowout that public debt isn't a free lunch. It has to be repaid, which means a country must either spend less, tax more, grow faster, repudiate the debt or inflate it away.
The Keynesians are attacking Reinhart-Rogoff with such vitriol now precisely so they can rev up the spending engines once again. In their economic model, more government spending equals more GDP. So governments must keep spending more no matter what they spend it on.
This isn't how these columns, or the classical economic models we follow, think about debt and growth. In our model, every dollar of government spending has to come from somewhere, which means it is either taxed or borrowed from the private economy. Thus the crucial issue isn't merely the level of debt, though at some point that can become a problem. The important matter is what that additional debt is buying.
The nearby chart shows U.S. federal debt held by the public as a share of GDP since the beginning of World War II. Debt soared to well above 100% of GDP during the war, but few thought defeating Hitler and Tojo was a bad investment. Once victory was attained, the debt ratio fell rapidly along with government spending. Private growth resumed despite Keynesian predictions of doom at the time as government spending fell, and debt as a share of GDP continued its gradual decline.
The next big debt burst came in the 1980s, as the Reagan Administration sought to break both the Soviets abroad and stagflation at home. The cure was a tax cut plus more defense spending, which in the short term led to higher deficits. Even then the peak Reagan deficit was only 6% of GDP in 1983, compared to President Obama's first term deficit average of 8.7%.
The key point is that those deficits were buying faster growth and defense goods such as aircraft carriers that would win the Cold War. As rapid economic growth returned, deficits and debt both declined. And when the Soviets surrendered, the Clinton Administration was able to cut (too rapidly) defense spending to 3% of GDP in 2000 from 4.8% in 1992. Modest deficits returned as President Bush cut taxes and boosted defense spending after 9/11. But debt as a share of GDP was still only 40.5% of GDP as recently as the first recession year of 2008.
Contrast that experience with where we are today. President Obama's stimulus spree and the mediocre recovery have doubled the debt to an estimated 76.6% of GDP this year. This is despite a record tax increase in January. The Administration now says the debt to GDP ratio will peak in 2014 at 78.2%, but that will be true only if spending growth slows and economic growth is more rapid.
One reason to be more worried about debt now is what we're borrowing to finance. Spending on wars eventually ends. But today most spending by far goes to social welfare payments and entitlements that are difficult to reduce. Those payments are only going to increase as the baby boomers retire, and as ObamaCare takes effect.
These income transfers spread the wealth but they do nothing to increase the growth of the economy. To the extent that they are financed by higher taxes, they retard growth by taking money that would be invested more productively in the private economy.
Mr. Summers says governments should borrow more now at near-zero interest rates to invest in future growth. But this is what we were told in 2009-2010, when Mr. Summers was in the White House, and the $830 billion stimulus was used to finance not primarily roads or bridges but more unionized teachers, higher transfer payments, and green-energy projects that have since failed. Why will it be different this time?
Another reason to reduce debt today is to create some breathing room if we have another recession or an emergency such as a war. At least going into the 2008 financial panic, the U.S. had room to borrow. The Obama era has blown out the U.S. balance sheet, and it will take many years to restore it to that pre-crisis level.
***
Where we agree with at least some Keynesians is that the main policy goal now should be faster economic growth rather than rapid debt reduction. Where we disagree is how to promote that growth. The Keynesians are now using a false choice between "austerity" and growth to justify more of the government spending they think drives economic prosperity. The brawl over Reinhart-Rogoff is thus less a serious economic debate than it is a political exercise to turn more of the private economy over to government hands.
After five years of trying, we should know this doesn't work. The real way to promote a stronger economy is more austerity and reform in government, and fewer restraints on private investment and risk taking.
Quando e' que o meu sofrimento vai concluir o seu finalzinho do fim?
Eu sofro só de ler, mas também, de vez em quando, junto toda a coragem do mundo, a minha e de todos os outros sofredores, eu passo a ouvir.
E não creio no que estou ouvindo...
Deus, ó Deus dos desgraçados (como diria o poeta condoreiro), afasta de mim esse tormento...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
“Tem gente que acha que democracia é ausência de uns querendo uma coisa e outros querendo outra. Não é, não. Democracia é o fato de que há diferenças e de que a gente convive com elas, procura um ponto de equilíbrio e resolve as coisas. Eu não tenho problema nenhum, podem falar sem problema nenhum, só deixem eu concluir aqui o meu finalzinho, que eu estou no fim."
Politica comercial e industrial brasileira sob escrutinio da OMC - Estadao
Ainda que ele seja bom, excelente aliás, fica difícil para os grandes parceiros comerciais acreditar que ele não terá nada a ver com o mercantilismo, o protecionismo e o dirigismo brasileiro...
Os companheiros certamente não estão ajudando sua eleição, com suas medidas canhestras e anti-OMC, no espírito e na letra...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
EUA, Japão e UE questionam política industrial ‘discriminatória’ do Brasil
Jamil Chade - CORRESPONDENTE / GENEBRA
O Estdado de S.Paulo, 28 de abril de 2013 | 22h 00
Países ricos vão ao comitê de investimentos da Organização Mundial do Comércio pedir explicações ao governo brasileiro por medidas adotadas nos últimos anos que, para eles, beneficiam a indústria nacional em detrimento dos competidores estrangeiros
Da boliburguesia aos lulobilionarios: assim vai a América Latina - Reinaldo Gonçalves
Em lugar de fazer frutificar o que já tem, certos personagens estão sempre querendo mais.
Com o dinheiro dos outros, claro: o seu, o meu, o nosso dinheiro (ou você vai me dizer que não tem FGTS e não contribui para o FAT: mesmo sem saber, você deu dinheiro para o Eike Batista, esse capitalista capitalistérrimo, até estourar sua bolha...).
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
*
Eike Batista contratou uma “consultora esotérica” para tentar espantar o péssimo momento do grupo EBX.
Eu só não entendi por que, com o sol girando ao contrário, Eike chegou a figurar entre os 10 (é isso?) bilionários mais bilionários do mundo mundial: coisa de US$ 30 bilhões. Aí, por alguma razão vinda lá das esferas celestes — parece que esse mundo das energias cósmicas pode ser bem temperamental —, tudo começou a dar tudo errado… Eu estava achando que era porque o vento que ele vendeu não chegou. Mas vejo que não.
Para realinhar as órbitas dos planetas/
Derrubando com assombro exemplar/
O que os astrônomos diriam/
Se tratar de um outro cometa.
Uma redundancia redundante: greve da fome em Cuba (mas nao e' o que parece...)
Carta Capital - Greve de fome em Cuba
Disse para mim mesmo:
-- Mas isso é uma redundância: toda a população cubana faz greve da fome...
Mas não era bem em Cuba, e sim em Guantánamo, que é território americano, e onde os marines, os poucos que ali servem, devem comer por metade da população cubana, por baixo.
Mas se tratava apenas de um protesto contra a manipulação inadequada de um livro religioso.
Portanto, vocês fiquem atentos: não atirem a Bíblia no chão, pois alguém mais sensível pode querer fazer greve...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida