Entre o Gulag e o exilio: dificil escolha

Tem uma seleção que está saindo da primeira fase da Copa com 0 pontos.
Bem, eles tiveram certo "sucesso" contra o Brasil, limitando o desgaste.
Mas, depois, foram 7 a 0 e agora 5 a 0.
Depois dessa, só sobrou o Gulag.
Acho que já recomendei o exílio, coletivo...
Vai ser complicado voltar...

"Herois" nacionais: Stalin desmantelado...

Onde vamos parar? Já não se respeitam nem os grandes nomes nacionais...

Remueven estatua de Stalin en su pueblo natal en Georgia
Margarita Antidze
Reuters América Latina, 25.06.2010

Una estatua del dictador soviético Josef Stalin aparece en esta imagen luego de ser removida de la plaza central de su ciudad natal de Gori, jun 25 2010.

GORI Georgia (Reuters) - Las autoridades de Georgia removieron el viernes por la madrugada una imponente estatua del dictador soviético Josef Stalin de la plaza central de su ciudad natal, retirando del espacio público el monumento del georgiano más famoso.
La estatua de bronce de 6 metros de altura será trasladada al patio de un museo dedicado a Stalin en su nativa Gori, y su lugar en la plaza principal lo ocupará un monumento a las víctimas de la guerra del 2008 en la que Georgia enfrentó a Rusia, informó un funcionario local.
En una operación no anunciada que comenzó después de la medianoche y concluyó antes del amanecer, trabajadores municipales y policías bajaron a la estatua de su pedestal de piedra en la pequeña ciudad, ubicada 80 kilómetros al oeste de la capital, Tiflis.
"Fue muy inesperado", dijo a Reuters Lado Bichashvili, un periodista de la televisora local Trialeti. "Creo que muchas personas estarán enojadas", agregó.
El periodista dijo que la policía trató de evitar que los periodistas filmaran el proceso, llegando en algunos casos a golpear a quienes lo intentaban.
"Este monumento será trasladado al patio del museo Stalin", dijo posteriormente Zviad Khmaladze, un líder del ayuntamiento, en comentarios televisados. "Un nuevo monumento dedicado a las víctimas de la agresión rusa será erigido en ese lugar", agregó.
Las señales visibles del culto a Stalin fueron removidas luego de su muerte en 1953 en toda Georgia y el resto de la Unión Soviética.
Pero el líder sigue siendo admirado por muchos en su ciudad natal, donde el monumento -uno de los pocos dedicados a Stalin que aún seguía en pie- fue levantado un año antes de su muerte.
"Personas de todo el mundo solían visitar Gori para ver ésta estatua y rendirle sus respetos a Stalin", dijo Nugzar Lamazov, quién vive en un pueblo cercano.
Para muchos responsable de millones de muertes en purgas políticas, campos de trabajos forzados y una colectivización agrícola forzada, Stalin es considerado un héroe por quienes dicen que la Unión Soviética no habría derrotado a la Alemania nazi o no se habría industrializado sin él.
Para muchos georgianos, incluido el presidente pro occidental Mikheil Saakashvili, el monumento era un símbolo de la todavía presente influencia de Moscú dos décadas después de que la pequeña nación obtuvo su independencia en 1991 tras el colapso soviético.
Gori fue la ciudad que más sufrió la guerra de cinco días contra Rusia en agosto del 2008. Las bombas impactaron la plaza principal cerca de la estatua y edificios aledaños.
La ciudad fue ocupada durante semanas por tropas rusas después del conflicto, que comenzó cuando Georgia buscó retomar el control de la provincia separatista de Osetia del Sur -apoyada por Moscú-, que está al norte de la ciudad.
Luego del conflicto, algunos funcionarios y georgianos prominentes pidieron la remoción del monumento, diciendo que su presencia en Gori era inmoral luego del bombardeo y la ocupación rusa.
Gori también alberga estatuas y bustos de menor tamaño de Stalin, así como un museo dedicado al dictador fallecido, que nació el 21 de diciembre de 1879.
Muchos partidarios ancianos se reúnen afuera del museo dos veces al año, en su cumpleaños y en el día de su fallecimiento.
Stalin, cuyo nombre real era Dzhugashvili, gobernó la Unión Soviética desde 1924 hasta su muerte.

Pausa para o futebol (miserável)

Não sei o que foi pior: as seleções de Portugal e do Brasil, no 0 a 0 com excessos de caneladas e golpes baixos, ou a Vuvuzela, que até andou discreta nesse jogo.
Acho que a vuvuzela ganha de 1 a 0...

Dividas soberanas: a posicao dos principais paises

"Soberana" é uma palavra muito bonita para um fenômeno que se baseia, na verdade, na irresponsabilidade dos governantes, ao pretender fazer mais do que o permitido por simples leis econômicas.
Antigamente, se recorria a métodos inflacionários, desvalorização da moeda ou outros expedientes de duvidosa racionalidade, mas que faziam sentido em sistemas mais ou menos insulados da economia nacional.
Com a globalização financeira, a integração dos mercados, ou a camisa de força da moeda única (como no caso europeu), esses expediente se tornaram mais difíceis ou impossíveis.
Os governos então recorrem ao financiamento externo, facilitado por enormes volumes de liquidez mundial e facilidade de transações financeiros inter-mercados. Muito fácil fazer syndicated loans -- com os bancos comerciais -- ou emissões de global bonus, com os intermediários financeiros.
A dívida vai se acumulando, com base em projeções superotimistas de melhorias futuras.
Quando ocorre uma crise, como agora, os capitais se retraem e os governos irresponsáveis ficam a descoberto.
Acho tudo isso muito bom, diga-se de passagem, pois vai educando as pessoas -- e, supõe-se também os legisladores -- para a necessidade de comportamentos responsáveis, como, aliás, cada um deve fazer com o seu orçamento pessoal...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Economia global
Gráfico mostra dívida mundial
Opinião e Notícia, 25/06/2010

O gráfico interativo mostra os níveis totais de dívida para diferentes países
(a partir da The Economist)

Apesar de as manchetes falarem bastante da dívida dos governos, essa questão é só uma parte do problema. O fato é que a dívida cresceu, seja de consumidores com os cartões de crédito, empresas pegando empréstimos, ou empresas financeiras utilizando dívidas para comprar ativos arriscados.

O gráfico interativo mostra os níveis totais de dívida para diferentes países. Ele se baseia em dados fornecidos pelo Instituto “McKinsey Global Institute”. Na teoria, não há nível máximo para dívidas em relação ao PIB (Produto Interno Bruto), mas a Irlanda e a Islândia (que não estão no mapa) encontraram o limite na prática. Isso aconteceu quando a dívida dos dois países atingiu de 8 a 10 vezes o PIB.

Veja aqui o gráfico interativo
Dívida mundial (Fonte: Economist)

A dívida também está fragmentada por setor, como pode-se observar no gráfico. Os bancos da Inglaterra em relação à sua economia são enormes. Além disso, a dívida corporativa da Espanha também é bem alta.

Estas figuras irão preocupar os proprietários de títulos do governo desde que a crise de 2008 mostrou que os governos podem ser forçados a garantir a dívida do setor privado.

Pode-se observar também uma atualização da tabela divulgada pela Economist em fevereiro. Ela traz um ranking em termos de seu saldo orçamental primário e de dívida do PIB mais a relação entre o rendimento de sua dívida e o crescimento econômico. A Espanha agora ocupa o lugar da Grécia como o país na pior posição:

Reforma bancaria e financeira nos EUA: visoes contrastantes

Abaixo, um relato do American Banker, órgão informativo da American Banker Association, sobre a reforma regulatória e financeira aprovada em versão preliminar pelo Senado americano, e que deve, provavelmente, ser assinada como lei pelo presidente Barack Obama em aproximadamente uma semana.
Ainda que eu não tenha lido em detalhes a proposta congressual (em grande medida impulsionada pelo Executivo) e que não me julgue minimamente competente neste tipo de assunto, tenho minha opinião sobre o assunto, derivada de certo conhecimento dos mercados financeiros e minhas impressões sobre medidas de política econômica de governos tendencialmente keynesianos, como a atual administração americana.
A despeito de o presidente Obama ter imediatamente anunciado, ao partir para o summit do G20 financeiro no Canadá, que os EUA necessitam um "robust financial sector", minha impressão é a de que os EUA vão continuar a perder espaço no sistema financeiro mundial para parceiros mais ageis e menos regulado.
O que a reforma faz, basicamente, é atar uma bola de ferro nos pés dos banqueiros americanos, para impedi-los de fazer todas aquelas loucuras que resultaram na crise de 2007-2008.
Bem, aquelas "loucuras" foram TODAS estimuladas pela política oficial do FED -- ao manter taxas de juros artificialmente baixas durante muito tempo -- e pela irresponsabilidades das próprias autoridades regulatórias americanas do setor imobiliário -- que avalizaram empréstimos hipotecários por mais de 6 trilhões de dólares, ATENÇÃO, eu disse US$ 6 TRILLIONS, quase 45% do PIB americano, com garantias de menos de 500 bilhões -- e assim, ninguém pode dizer que a ambição e a cupidez dos banqueiros, e as ações irresponsáveis dos "especuladores de Wall Street", foram responsáveis pela debâcle.
O que vai acontecer, portanto, é que o setor financeiro americano vai se tornar menos dinâmico e menos propenso a fazer lucros como fazia antes. Para quem tem preconceito contra os lucros do sistema financeiro -- que alguns idiotas chamam de "financeirização" da economia, seja lá o que isso queira dizer -- pode até parecer uma boa coisa. Eu apenas digo que isso vai deixar os americanos mais pobres e seus bancos mais propensos a serem comprados por competidores mais ativos e dinâmicos, como por exemplo os bancos chineses...
São apenas previsões de um amador...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Endgame: After 20-Hour Session, Reform Talks Yield Final Bill
By Stacy Kaper and Rob Blackwell
American Banker, Friday, June 25, 2010

WASHINGTON — After a marathon final day of debate, the regulatory reform process ended in the early hours of Friday in the same dramatic manner it had been conducted for more than a year: with a near breakdown followed eventually by a miraculous save.

After several hours of late-night wrangling, conferees resolved the two most problematic questions: how to finalize a ban on proprietary trading and limit banks' investment in hedge funds and private equity firms, and whether to force banks to spin-off their derivatives trading desks.

The resolution of those and other pending issues meant the regulatory reform bill is now complete and will return to the full House and Senate for votes next week, where it is expected to pass.

Although there is certain to be more rhetoric and debate next week over the merits of the bill, the end of the conference committee means the final legislation can no longer be altered, short of unforeseen circumstances.

"Nobody thought we could get this done," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, speaking immediately after the conference concluded. "It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this done."

Although at some points the bill looked like it could still fall apart, lawmakers reached final agreement roughly 20 hours after debate first began early Thursday.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, refused to budge on a provision that would force banks to spin off their swaps desks, while moderate House Democrats threatened to vote against the bill if the derivatives measure was not removed.

The final version of the Volcker Rule also remained in limbo, with Senate Democrats and Republicans sparring over how much to allow banks to invest in private-equity firms and hedge funds.

Ultimately, the Lincoln amendment was essentially split into two, so that banks would have to conduct some derivatives activities in an affiliate while it could conduct others in the bank itself.

The derivatives provision was the last to be dealt with and for a time looked like it would not be resolved. Banks have vigorously opposed the Lincoln amendment, arguing it would cost them billions of dollars to spin off their derivatives units. Regulators, too, had argued against the provision, saying it would drive derivatives trades overseas or underground, where they would not be regulated.

For weeks, banking lobbyists and moderate Democrats had been assured the provision would be watered down or eliminated as the final legislation was settled. But Lincoln had continued to hold the line as her political power was bolstered by her primary victory on June 8. The issue finally came to a head Thursday after the New Democrats, a coalition of moderate members, threatened to oppose the final bill if the provision was not removed.

That resulted in a wave of negotiations between Lincoln and House Democrats over the final provision. Around midnight, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., suggested the basic solution where some swaps should be forced into an affiliate while others would be allowed within the bank. The Treasury Department was instrumental in helping to craft the new language.

"What can be retained by banks will be interest rate swaps, foreign exchanges, credit derivatives relative to investment grade entities that are cleared, gold and silver and hedging for the bank's own risk," Peterson said. "What would be required to go under the affiliate would be cleared and non cleared commodities, energies and metals… and all equities and any non cleared credit default swaps."

Peterson said the split was based on what activities banks could already engage in.

"Currently banks are not allowed to invest in commodities, energy; they are not allowed to invest in equities or trade in equities or agriculture," he said. "These are things that are currently not allowed in banking, so why we would allow them to do the derivatives that are related to those things that are currently not allowed in banks? So we took those provisions and put them in the affiliate. These are generally the most risky parts of these derivatives."

He was backed by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, who said the amendment was "the best compromise we can get."

The revised measure was welcomed by some in the banking industry, who noted that it would continue to allow them to engage in interest rate swaps, one of the most prevalent kinds of derivatives institutions engage in.

The provision would also specifically forbid the bailout of any swaps unit and be phased in over two years.

Republicans sought to remove the provision entirely. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., argued the Volcker Rule provision to ban proprietary trading would make the Lincoln measure moot, but the Arkansas Democrat rejected that argument.

"We need to get banks back to the business of banking," Lincoln said. "Clearly, swap dealing is a risky activity and it is something that we need to deal with… banks need to be making small business loans… and not playing in swaps."

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. said the Lincoln provision was just political and would cause a credit crunch.

"You will have less credit in the system," he said. "It's not going to make [the system] safer. It's not going to make it sounder."

Ultimately, however, conferees agreed to accept the Peterson amendment largely unchanged.

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the House Financial Services Committee's international monetary policy subcommittee chairman, worked with New Democrats and New York Democrats on an alternative to the Lincoln swaps ban that would have let regulators push out swaps trading only if they had taken other steps to protect the system, including implementing the Volcker Rule and raising capital.

But Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told Meeks that he would not have the votes in the Senate.

In an interview, Meeks said that he was disappointed with the outcome because he has concerns there could be unintended consequences of the partial pushout of derivatives activities.

"I'm scared that businesses could be driven t o move abroad," he said. "I'm nervous about that because there are various pieces that are pushed out that I wish were still in as far as derivatives go, which I hope does not force some derivatives into the shadow market."

The derivatives piece was finalized roughly three hours after the conference finalized the Volcker Rule, which would limit bank investment in private equity firms and hedge funds. Under the final measure, banks would be allowed some limited investment in such companies equal to as much as 3% of the total ownership interests of the fund. However, their collective investments in those firms could not exceed 3% of the bank's Tier 1 capital.

Senate conferees had earlier suggested a total limit of 3% of tangible common equity -- a more restrictive standard -- but were rebuffed by House conferees.

Citing the inclusion of an amendment from Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in the final bill that would ban the use of trust-preferred securities from counting as Tier 1 capital, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd agreed the House standard made sense.

The final language also restored the so-called Hotel California provision, which would block bank holding companies from converting to investment bank status to escape provisions of the Volcker Rule.

It would allow an initial 2 year transition period for investments in liquid funds, with the possibility to win a maximum of three 1-year extensions for a total of five years. For illiquid investments, there would be a 2 year transition with the possibility of a single extension of no more than five years, for a maximum transition of seven years.

The provision would also provide exemptions for purchasing and selling government obligations, underwriting or market-making related activities, risk-mitigating hedging activities, insurance activities, and Small Business Administration small business investment company investments.

The measure would prohibit any transaction that creates a conflict of interest and limit employee investments in funds.

The conference committee also added a tax on banks to pay for the bill. Under the agreement, banks with more than $50 billion of assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion would be subjected to risk-based special assessments levied by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The agency would be required to collect $19 billion from September 2012 through September 2015, which would be put into a fund at the Treasury Department.

Cheyenne Hopkins contributed to this story

Esquizofrenia economica mundial

Leio a seguinte chamda de matéria na internet:

Brasil e EUA se unem contra corte de gastos da Europa
Com apoio de Lula, americanos pedirão no G-20 estímulo à economia, diante do aperto fiscal

E me pergunto por que essa notícia seria esquizofrênica, no sentido do título deste post.
É que o Brasil e os EUA estão querendo impedir os europeus, sobretudo os alemães, de começarem agora os ajustes, ou seja, reduzir déficit público, corrigir desequilíbrios fiscais e reduzir a dívida pública.
Por causa desses desequilíbrios, o Brasil vem crescendo cada vez menos, como também crescerão pouco nos próximos anos.
Como, aliás, não deixa de lembrar o economista Ricardo Bergamini:

Conforme informações oficias do governo, o Brasil teve um crescimento medíocre de 3,57% ao ano de 2003/2009 para uma média mundial em torno de 5% ao ano no mesmo período.

Taxa Média/Ano de Crescimento Econômico Real no Período de 1964 a 2009 em Percentuais do PIB
Períodos - Média/Ano
1964/84 - 6,29
1985/89 - 4,39
1990/94 - 1,24
1995/02 - 2,31
2003/09 - 3,57
Fonte: IBGE.

1 – Nos 21 anos dos governos militares, o Brasil teve um crescimento econômico real médio de 6,29% ao ano.

2 – Nos 5 anos do governo Sarney, com moratória internacional e hiperinflação, o Brasil teve um crescimento econômico real médio de 4,39% ao ano.

3 – Nos 5 anos dos governos Collor e Itamar, o Brasil teve um crescimento econômico real médio de 1,24% ao ano.

4 – Nos 8 anos do governo FHC, o Brasil teve um crescimento econômico real médio de 2,31% ao ano.

5 – Nos 7 anos do governo Lula, o Brasil teve um crescimento econômico real médio de 3,57% ao ano.

G8 and G20 summits: a tale of two summits

You Say G-8, I Say G-20: Let's Not Call the Whole Thing Off
Heather A. Conley and J. Stephen Morrison
CSIS Critical Questions, June 24, 2010

Q1: Why are the G-8 and G-20 leaders meeting in Canada this week, and what do they hope to accomplish?
A1: Canada will be the first country to host the G-8 and G-20 Summits back-to-back (the G-20 will be cochaired with South Korea). To its credit, Canada has worked extensively over the past year to tighten and integrate the agendas for the dual summits. The fragility of the global economy and the coordination of measures to regulate the global financial system will dominate both meetings. It is expected that the G-8 Summit (June 25) will focus on a much broader agenda that encompasses preventing global nuclear proliferation (with a strong focus on Iran and North Korea); strengthening the G-8's accountability to its past commitments; advancing the G-8's development agenda, especially maternal and child health, food security, and Africa; reaffirming a commitment to combat climate change; and tackling the global drug trade and its links to terrorism financing. As seen during the last G-20 meeting nine months ago, the G-20 (June 26-27) will continue to focus on reforming the global financial sector, spurring economic growth, and coordinating policies to end stimulus spending. Debate will also center on the need to rebalance global trade (the Chinese decision to allow the renminbi to gradually appreciate is seen as an early victory) and whether to introduce a global bank levy to finance future financial sector rescues (the Europeans support, most other nations do not). As more ominous economic and political clouds appear on the G-8/G-20 horizon-the ongoing European debt crisis, tensions over Iran's nuclear program, and the ongoing Gulf oil spill-global leaders will be pressed to demonstrate that these summits have the ability to develop shared solutions to complex challenges. In view of the diminishing dynamism within the G-8 itself and the still-to-be-formed mandate, ground rules, and long-term priorities for the G-20, the results are likely to be mixed.

Q2: Why does the G-8 focus on development assistance?
A2: At the 2005 Gleneagles G-8 Summit chaired by the United Kingdom, then Prime Minister Tony Blair won a commitment from the G-8 countries to add $50 billion in new overseas development assistance (ODA) in the next five years ($25 billion to Africa) to accelerate achievement of the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In anticipation of the September 2010 UN Summit on the MDGs, Canada prepared the Muskoka Accountability Report, a five-year report card on G-8 member country performance. The aggregate numbers show some significant gains, as well as the corrosive impact of a three-year global recession: G-8 ODA rose substantially but nonetheless fell $18 billion short (in current dollars) of the $50-billion commitment. Aid to Africa increased by $10 billion versus $25 billion. In retrospect, the G-8 hubris of 2005 seems stale. The United States and United Kingdom have been high performers; Italy and Japan stand at the back. The report details major gains in health and support of peacekeeping but low or weak progress in stemming debt levels, mitigating climate change, and promoting trade and regional integration.
At Muskoka, Canada will spearhead a maternal and child health initiative, to which Canada has pledged $1 billion over five years and to which the Obama administration's Global Health Initiative will add another $0.5 billion per year, when fully funded by Congress. Indeed, 2010 is proving to be the year of maternal and child health, and Muskoka will be part of that surge. Just prior to the G-8/G-20, Melinda Gates announced a Gates Foundation commitment of $1.5 billion. Canada's success in leveraging substantial new commitments for maternal and child health from within the G-8, other than from the United States and United Kingdom, remains to be proven. Ottawa has been busy soliciting pledges from non-G* countries Norway, the Netherlands, and New Zealand in hopes of filling out the picture.

Q3: Is the G-8 really that important anymore? Hasn't the G-20 simply overtaken the G-8 as the institutional framework of choice?
A3: We are in the midst of an ambiguous, fluid transition involving both the G-8 and G-20. This transition will unfold in fits and starts over the next several years.

The G-8 is in a far different place today than the global economic optimism of 2005: there are daunting long-term economic challenges ahead; and debt/deficit and budget woes will dampen enthusiasm for most, but not all, new initiatives. The G-8's focus has now turned to meeting existing commitments, measuring results, and finding important new development options that have high value and potentially lower cost. Despite this reduction in overall ambition, the G-8 will remain relevant in its role as a driver for international development and global health for the foreseeable future.

The G-20 agenda may migrate inevitably to development and health, security, and climate change if or when its leaders see incentives to widen the agenda beyond technical deliberations and economic crisis management. But this will not happen overnight: it will require converting the G-20 into a more coherent, deliberative body with clearer internal norms and accountability mechanisms; and, it will require that the key emerging economic powers-Brazil, China, India, Korea, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey-reach a consensus that the G-20 is indeed the proper forum to pursue a broader global agenda. Neither requirement has been met thus far. While this transition's ultimate outcome is neither preordained nor conclusive in direction, it will be a dynamic process to observe.

Heather A. Conley is senior fellow and director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. J. Stephen Morrison is senior vice president and director of the Global Health Policy Center at CSIS