Paranoia dos celulares: uma enfermidade infantil da era movel...

Ja tem gente fazendo campanha contra a Apple e os iPhones por causa do sistema de tracking embutido no sistema desse celular.
Já imaginam um Big Brother, lá na California, vigiando os passos de cada um dos zilhões de usuários dos iPhones para tramar sabe-se lá qual complô consumista contra seus interesses individuais.
Acho que não sou paranóico a este ponto. Sei que muitos seguem os meus passos, amigos e inimigos, sobretudo neste blog, onde atuo sobretudo por divertimento, mas não acredito que eu venha a fazer loucuras por indução capitalista de quem segue meus passos pelo meu iPhone (aliás, muito útil).
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Mobile tracking
The Difference Engine: The spy in your pocket
The Economist, April 29th 2011, 9:00 by N.V.

LOS ANGELES - FOR those who managed to miss the “Locationgate” brouhaha last week, a brief recap. The story broke in the Wall Street Journal, which reported on how two British researchers had discovered a database file called “consolidated.db” that contained unencrypted details of the owners’ travels over the past year. The file, found in computers that had synched with Apple’s iPhones and iPads, contained a date-stamped log of the longitude and latitude coordinates of the various locations visited. Right or wrong, the conclusion was that Apple was tracking every move its customers made. An uproar erupted as a result, with demands by lawmakers that the company explain its actions forthwith.

On April 27th, Apple broke its week-long silence with a denial that its mobile devices were tracking customers, but then promised to fix the privacy issue that did not exist anyway. Coming out of medical leave to help squelch the imbroglio, Steve Jobs, Apple’s charismatic chief executive, admitted that the company had made a mistake in how it handled the location data on its iPhones and iPads. But in no way did the devices log users’ locations multiple times a day. The data found in the phones referred to the location of various cell towers, not the users, which could be as far as 100 miles away, said Apple. Even so, independent researchers were quick to point out that the data could still allow phones to be tracked to within 100 feet.

According to Apple, it was all a misunderstanding on the part of the two British researchers. The file they had stumbled upon, the company claimed, contained simply the locations of known WiFi hotspots and cell towers that had been downloaded from Apple. The location database on the company’s servers has been built up over the past year using “anonymous, crowd-sourced information” as millions of iPhone and iPad users unknowingly synched (via iTunes) the location details of cell towers and WiFi hotspots they had come in contact with. The local data were updated and cached on the mobile devices simply to help them figure out their own location.

Mobile devices need to know where they are to make calls and receive them—as well as to do clever tricks like display maps of the immediate surroundings, pinpointing stores, restaurants and entertainment of potential interest. The phone finds where it is by listening for the whispers from cell towers and WiFi hotspots in the neighbourhood, as well as from GPS satellites in orbit.

Like a web browser that caches data on a personal computer about websites visited so the pages can be pulled up promptly the next time the user returns to them, having the coordinates of local towers or hotspots already in the cache makes it easier for the phone to triangulate its own location. That way, the device responds quicker than it would if it had to download the data for triangulation each time from Apple, or wait a minute or so for the faint signal from a passing GPS satellite. By reducing the amount of computation done on board the device, caching speeds things up and saves battery life in the process.

Once explained, most users accept that as reasonable. What upsets them, though, is the way Apple has been secretly caching up to a year’s worth of comings and goings on owners' devices—and reporting the information back to its location database at head office whenever users synch with iTunes. More damning still is the way the company keeps collecting such data when users deliberately turn the location services off.

That is not what Apple informed members of Congress last July when first quizzed on the matter. Representative Joe Barton of Texas told the Wall Street Journal this week that Apple “lied” to him and another lawmaker when it said its phones do not collect and transmit location-based data such as mapping when location services are switched off.

Mr Jobs blames “bugs” in the software for the misunderstanding. Apple has now promised to upgrade the software in coming weeks to reduce the amount of location data cached in the devices from a year’s worth to no more than a week’s supply. The new software will also delete the location data stored in the phone’s cache when the user turns its location services off. In addition, the next version of iOS, Apple’s operating system for mobile devices, will ensure that all location data cached and reported back to Apple are fully encrypted.

So much for Apple's damage control. But why collect such voluminous amounts of location data anyway? Clearly, Apple is racing to catch up with Google and others who have already carved out large chunks of the fast-growing market for location-based services. According to Gartner, a research firm based in Stamford, Connecticut, sales of location-based services are currently running at $2.9 billion a year. But the market is expected to grow to $8.3 billion by 2014. In particular, Apple wants to offer iPhone users information on traffic-congestion, as Google already does using data fed back from the millions of Android phones travelling the roads of the world. A great deal of revenue from location-based advertising is at stake here.

All of which begs the question: How is Google acquiring all this information on its customers’ whereabouts? The short answer is that its Android phones and tablets are doing much the same as Apple’s iPhones and iPads—only more so. They survey the user’s location every few seconds and report the information back to the company several times an hour. According to Samy Kamkar, a security analyst interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, an Android phone can also transmit a unique identifier tied to the individual device—and thus the customer’s home address. As far as we are aware, Apple does not do that.

Readers may recall that Google got into hot water last year when its fleet of StreetView cars, which map and photograph streets around the world, inadvertently collected e-mail addresses, passwords and other personal details while scanning for WiFi hotspots. Several European governments were up in arms, and ordered the company to cease such wholesale invasion of their citizens’ privacy. Google says it has now stopped collecting personal information this way.

No question that Apple and Google—as well as the wireless carriers themselves—still have much to explain. Lawmakers will have a chance to question both Google and Apple when they testify before Congress on May 10th. What is clear, though, is that rather than abate, the wholesale tracking and collection of information about people’s behaviour while on the move is set to increase dramatically. As mobile phones and tablets take over from desk-bound computers, marketers are no longer content to classify consumers merely by their postal codes or telephone area codes. They want to know where precisely they are at every moment while out and about—so they can send text messages with instant inducements (coupons, discounts, special offers, you name it) to enter one particular store or restaurant they are passing rather than another.

We should be both cheered and cautious about such developments. Above all, let us hope that lawmakers at least insist that sufficient transparency be provided so people can choose how much or little of their personal details to make available. For that and more, Locationgate has been a useful wake-up call.

Diploma de Harvard? Esqueca! Melhor ser guarda penitenciario na California...

A California, ou melhor, o tipo especial de organização social e estatal em vigor naquele estado ensolarado -- cujo PIB é muito superior ao do Brasil inteiro, é bom que se diga -- foi objeto de uma matéria de capa e de special survey na Economist de duas semanas atrás.
Recomendo vocês lerem -- deve estar livremente disponível no site da revista -- se quiserem saber como fazer, uma receita muito simples, para afundar um país, uma sociedade, para jogar na decadência tudo de bom que foi construído pelas gerações precedentes, aquelas que trabalharam duro para fazer dos EUA e da Califórnia o lugar mais afluente -- não o mais rico, mas o mais inovador e criativo -- do mundo, sem questionamentos.
Pois bem, os californianos, ou pelo menos alguns californianos, estão destruindo tudo isto, por políticas como a expressa nesta matéria de opinião do Wall Street Journal deste sábado.
Claro, sempre existem caminhos mais rápidos para a decadência, e o Brasil é pródigo nelas, mas a California já tinha ficado rica, quando decidiu voltar a ser pobre outra vez.
O Brasil, para nossa tristeza, nem conseguiu ficar rico, e decidiu continuar pobre para sempre..
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

OPINION
California Prison Academy: Better Than a Harvard Degree
By ALLYSIA FINLEY
The Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2011

Prison guards can retire at the age of 55 and earn 85% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives. They also continue to receive medical benefits

Roughly 2,000 students have to decide by Sunday whether to accept a spot at Harvard. Here's some advice: Forget Harvard. If you want to earn big bucks and retire young, you're better off becoming a California prison guard.

The job might not sound glamorous, but a brochure from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations boasts that it "has been called 'the greatest entry-level job in California'—and for good reason. Our officers earn a great salary, and a retirement package you just can't find in private industry. We even pay you to attend our academy." That's right—instead of paying more than $200,000 to attend Harvard, you could earn $3,050 a month at cadet academy.

It gets better.
Training only takes four months, and upon graduating you can look forward to a job with great health, dental and vision benefits and a starting base salary between $45,288 and $65,364. By comparison, Harvard grads can expect to earn $49,897 fresh out of college and $124,759 after 20 years.

As a California prison guard, you can make six figures in overtime and bonuses alone. While Harvard-educated lawyers and consultants often have to work long hours with little recompense besides Chinese take-out, prison guards receive time-and-a-half whenever they work more than 40 hours a week. One sergeant with a base salary of $81,683 collected $114,334 in overtime and $8,648 in bonuses last year, and he's not even the highest paid.

Sure, Harvard grads working in the private sector get bonuses, too, but only if they're good at what they do. Prison guards receive a $1,560 "fitness" bonus just for getting an annual check-up.

Most Harvard grads only get three weeks of vacation each year, even after working for 20 years—and they're often too busy to take a long trip. Prison guards, on the other hand, get seven weeks of vacation, five of them paid. If they're too busy racking up overtime to use their vacation days, they can cash the days in when they retire. There's no cap on how many vacation days they can cash in! Eighty officers last year cashed in over $100,000 at retirement.

The cherry on top is the defined-benefit pension. Unlike most Harvard grads working in the private sector, prison guards don't have to delay retirement if their 401(k)s take a hit. Prison guards can retire at the age of 55 and earn 85% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives. They also continue to receive medical benefits.

So you may be wondering what it takes to become a prison guard. For one, you have to be a U.S. citizen with a high-school diploma or equivalent. Unfortunately, you can't have any felony convictions, but don't worry, possession of marijuana is only an infraction in California.

There's also a vision test, background investigation, psychological evaluation, physical exam, tuberculosis screening, and a fitness test that measures your grip strength. The hardest part, however, is the written test, which includes word problems like this sample test question: "Building D currently has 189 inmates, with 92 beds unfilled. Building D is currently at what capacity?" If you've somehow forgotten how to add and divide, you can bone up on your basic math with Barron's "Correction Officer Exam" prep book.

The application process may seem like a piece of cake compared to Harvard's, but the correctional officer academy is actually more selective than Harvard. Over 120,000 people apply every year, according to the state Legislative Analyst's Office, but the academy only enrolls about 900. That's an acceptance rate of less than 1%. Harvard's is 6.2%. The job also has a better retention rate than Harvard. Only 1.7% dropped out of the service last year, compared to 2% who left Harvard.

If your parents aren't thrilled about you turning down Harvard to become a prison guard in California, just show them the job brochure. Then explain that in another few years instead of paying off thousands of dollars in college loans you'll be taking cruises together. They'll be speechless.

Ms. Finley is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com.

Inflacao e descontrole economico: ja sabemos de quem é a culpa..

...da imprensa!
De quem mais poderia ser?

“Estarei sempre à disposição do partido para vir aqui dar esclarecimentos e explicar melhor o que estamos fazendo no governo para estarmos mais sintonizados. Para explicar a política econômica porque, às vezes, ela acaba sendo distorcida pela imprensa”.

Ministro da Fazenda, Guido Mantega, em reunião do Diretório Nacional do PT.

A diva blogueira e a corrupcao do sistema: desmoralizando Betania...

Apenas transcrevendo...

[Acréscimo em 30 de abril: um comentário de um leitor, na sequência desta postagem, e meus próprios comentários in fine...PRA]

O escandaloso blog de poesia de Maria Bethânia
Digestivo Cultural n. 478, 27/04/2011

Na música, todo mundo louvava Maria Bethânia, por ela não haver se rendido à acomodação dos outros Doces Bárbaros. Não havia se perdido em rock como Caetano, não havia se desencaminhado na política como Gil e não havia se aposentado precocemente como Gal Costa. Maria Bethânia parecia incansável: gravando compositores novos, fazendo pesquisa de ritmos, lançando selo próprio e, claro, fazendo shows - admiráveis desde a concepção até a performance (de tirar o fôlego das cantoras mais jovens). Acontece que a mesma Bethânia - que musicalmente admirávamos tanto - protagonizou um (ou se deixou envolver num) dos maiores escândalos de captação de recursos, via Lei Rouanet, via Ministério da Cultura, via Governo Dilma, via Era Lula...
O projeto "O Mundo Precisa de Poesia" se apresentou ao MinC como um "blog", onde Maria Bethânia recitaria um poema por dia, e, para isso, solicitava quase 1,8 milhão de reais, sendo que 600 mil apenas para a sua remuneração. Tudo bem que o MinC aprovou "apenas" 1,35 milhão de reais para captação, mas conhecendo os blogs - como a blogosfera conhece - a grita foi geral. Primeiro porque qualquer pessoa que já tenha aberto uma conta de e-mail na Web, sabe qual é o custo de montar um blog: 5 minutos. Evidente que o custo de manter um blog é outro. Mas para fazer vídeos, e distribui-los via YouTube, não demora muito mais, não. Depois, porque o projeto literalmente caiu na rede e seu conteúdo era uma piada de mal gosto. A "síntese", os "objetivos" e a "justificativa" eram de uma redação quase infantil. E a equipe era a dos usual suspects: Conspiração Filmes, Andrucha Waddington e Hermano Vianna.
Para completar: dos quase 2 milhões solicitados, o webdesigner receberia 6 mil, no total, e a manutenção/atualização do site custaria, simples e apenasmente, 8,4 mil reais (durante um ano). Em defesa de Bethânia - ou do projeto em que ela foi usada de "laranja" - vieram dizer que estava tudo dentro da lei. Podia até estar, mas, como d izia Boris Casoy nos bons tempos, não deixava de ser "uma vergonha". Outros projetos, de outros Doces Bárbaros, vieram à tona, para engrossar o caldo, mas a nova Ministra da Cultura nem ficou vermelha. Desta vez, o governo não poderia jogar na conta da "herança maldita" de FHC (e do PSDB), porque o projeto remontava ao ano passado (2010)...
Ao fim e ao cabo, esse projeto é, na realidade, uma das contas que a sociedade está pagando pela terceira eleição, na sequência, do mesmo governo. Porque no Ministério da Cultura também existe malversação de recursos, e quem se aprochegou dos cofres públicos nos últimos 8 anos, quer continuar se beneficiando nestes próximos 4 anos...

>>> Blog da Bethânia, o projeto

=========

Um leitor, conhecedor dos meandros das políticas culturais neste país que é nosso (embora seja mais de alguns do que de todos), me escreve o que segue:

Professor, este texto é de uma sequência de equívocos:

1. O mecanismo de incentivo fiscal não é uma marca da Era Lula. É Lei (de 91), que está tentando ser modificada já que deixa o incentivo à cultura via renúncia fiscal (ou seja, $ público) nas mãos da capacidade de captação dos proponentes - ou seja, muito mais no depto marketing do que no de cultura. Os mal informados acusam, inclusive, a tentativa de reforma da lei de "dirigismo estatal" dos investimentos culturais. Muitos projetos INCRIVEIS foram realizados via Lei Rouanet, mas muitos piores do que o da Betânia também. Esse "escândalo" poderia ter se dado em qualquer momento já há muito tempo. Não posso compreender porque acham o caso da Betânia mais escandaloso do que o do famoso banco que trouxe o famoso circo via lei de incentivo, fez um monte de propaganda e ainda cobrou ingresso caríssimo. (veja em http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ilustrada/ult90u59903.shtml). Ou seja, vamos perceber que a situação é MUITO MAIS complexa do que a narrada nesse texto...

2. Gil não se "desencaminhou" na política. Foi de importância decisiva no Ministério da Cultura, deixou um incrível legado. Inclusive foi o responsável por criar outras abordagens para a política pública cultural brasileira que não a do incentivo fiscal, formulando Programas que hoje são referência para diversos países. Ou seja, o texto mistura alhos com bugalhos da forma que é conveniente ao argumento. Diz que o personagem é "desencaminhado", justamente ele que foi quem mais fez contra o que o autor diz achar um absurdo...

3. Quem pode julgar o processo artístico de Caetano ou Gal??!!! "Aposentadoria precoce de Gal" é uma das expressões mais preconceituosas que já vi. Só porque ela não se esforça para estar toda hora na mídia com uma novidade? Mas não é essa a acusação que o autor do texto faz a Caetano Rock'n'roll? Perceba a contradição e a petulância desses comentários...

Entenda, não é o caso de defender um governo ou outro, mas de ver a Cultura como um campo complexo de ação pública, tão imbricado nos processos de transformação do Estado como qualquer outro. Um governo não pode, por voluntarismo, modificar a aplicação da Lei. Ela tem que ser reformada pelos complexos mecanismos da nossa democracia, e é justamente isso que está sendo feito, de forma não imune a acusações de pessoas como o autor desse texto.

Se for publicar a resposta, por favor preserve meu nome, porque gente como o autor desse texto contra a Betânia não hesita em pegar o que vc escreve, tirar de contexto e circular por aí.
[Leitor anônimo]

===============

Permito-me agregar o que segue (PRA):

Não vou comentar o post principal, que coloquei apenas por instinto de provocação, que sempre é o meu, independentemente da correção e objetividade dos argumentos, mas que NÃO subscrevo, esclareço. Apenas era o tema do momento, suficientemente escandoloso para chamar a atenção da "mídia", como chamou, e despertar sentimentos de animosidade ou de defesa, entre os interessados por esta área da vida nacional. Apenas por isto postei aqui, mas concedo que o tom é rancoroso e não traduz a racionalidade que se espera de um blog como este, que se pauta, como indicado, por respeito a ideias inteligentes. Não era o caso do post e do tema, e eu deveria ter abandonado a intenção. Agora já está postado e despertou reações do distinto público que aqui comparece.
Tampouco vou comentar o que está transcrito acima, de um leitor inteligente e cognoscenti.
Vou apenas dizer o que penso do sistema e do caso.

É evidente que num país invadido, dominado, subjugado por políticas públicas, especialmente as setoriais, que interessam a grupos de interesse, como o Brasil, não poderiam faltar políticas de "favorecimento" disto e daquilo, para todos e cada um.
Um Estado esquartejado por grupos de interesse, geralmente poderosos, como o Brasil, no qual o dinheiro do contribuinte, do empresário, do cidadão comum, e especialmente dos pobres -- que jamais pagam imposto de renda, mas que deixam 50% do que ganham para o Estado sob a forma de impostos -- é evidente que num país assim sempre haverá espertos, e mais espertos que os espertos, que conceberão, aplicarão e se beneficiarão de políticas ditas "incentivadoras" para estimular esta ou aquele setor que não recebe os "sinais corretos" do mercado.
Cultura é obviamente um deles. Muitos, talvez a maioria concordam com a afirmação de que iniciativas e empreendimentos culturais não podem e não conseguem se pautar pelas "regras de mercado" -- vocês sabem, aquelas coisas perversas geralmente ligadas ao lucro e à acumulação de capital -- e que por isso mesmo devem se beneficiar de incentivos públicos (ou seja, o dinheiro de todo mundo -- para que as magníficas produções culturais de artistas "fora do mercado" possam alcançar o público, geralmente o público mais vasto de cidadãos comuns que não podem pagar uma ópera na Metropolitan House, e que depende mesmo de TV aberta e de "espetáculos populares".
O caso da Bethânia talvez nem seja o mais escandaloso no caudal de "projetos culturais" que recolhem -- é bom que se diga -- não o dinheiro do MinC, mas o imposto devido por capitalistas, que assim podem posar de amigo das artes e de mecenas culturais. Provavelmente, assessores mais espertos, inclusive com a ignorância da cantora, aproveitaram esse mecanismo perverso de redistribuição de renda -- no Brasil é sempre dos pobres em favor dos ricos -- para carrear alguns milhões para seus apartamentos da Vieira Souto.
Seja lá o que for, minha posição é muito clara e a expresso aqui.

Sou contra todas essas políticas setoriais do Estado em favor de quaisquer grupos de interesses que existam, QUAISQUER: usineiros, industriais da FIESP, cantores populares, garimpeiros, pescadores, enfim, vocês escolhem o que quiserem.
Para mim só existe um grupo de interesse que não é especial, mas que é básico: as crianças, de qualquer cor, de qualquer renda, de qualquer origem geográfica e de qualquer formação cultural ou background social.
A única política que o Estado deveria ter seria esta: escolas de qualidade, em tempo integral, para todas as crianças, apenas isto. Dos 4 ou 5 anos, até os 17 anos, a sociedade nacional "suportaria" -- no sentido de apoiar -- escolas de qualidade.
Depois, bye, bye, até logo. Cada um que se vire no mercado.
Apenas isto, e nada mais do que isto.
Acredito que o Brasil e os brasileiros sejam suficientemente inteligentes para julgar o que penso do resto das políticas públicas.
Ponto.
Assunto encerrado.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 30 de abril de 2011

Armas de procriacao em massa: qual seria a dissuasao contra o Viagra?

Bem, seria preciso ver se a Libia está pagando os royalties direitinho, pois creio que o Viagra ainda está protegido por patentes.
Aqui no Brasil tivemos um caso, alguns anos atrás: juízes certamente malucos, do Rio de Janeiro, obrigaram o SUS a fornecer Viagra gratuitamente para alguns velhinhos depravados. Nao tenho noticias de que, em consequência, tenha aumentado a incidência de estupros por aquelas bandas, mas seria preciso investigar melhor, inclusive sobre eram remédios protegidos ou genéricos...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

EUA acusam Líbia de dar Viagra a tropas e estimular estupros
Terra Notícias, 29/04/2011

A embaixadora dos Estados Unidos na ONU disse na quinta-feira ao Conselho de Segurança que as tropas leais ao líder líbio Muammar Kadafi estão cada vez mais recorrendo à violência sexual, e que alguns soldados têm recebido doses de Viagra, medicamento contra a impotência, segundo diplomatas.
Vários diplomatas da ONU que participaram de uma sessão a portas fechadas do Conselho relataram que a embaixadora Susan Rice citou a questão do Viagra no contexto do agravamento dos casos de violência sexual por parte dos soldados do regime líbio. "Rice abordou isso na reunião, mas ninguém respondeu", disse um diplomata, sob anonimato. A acusação havia surgido inicialmente em um jornal britânico.
O medicamento Viagra, do laboratório Pfizer, é usado contra a impotência sexual masculina. Se for verdade que os soldados de Kadafi estão recebendo Viagra, disseram diplomatas, isso indicaria que eles estão sendo estimulados por seus comandantes a estuprar mulheres para aterrorizar a população em áreas que apoiam os rebeldes.
O uso do estupro como arma de guerra tem recebido crescente atenção da ONU. No ano passado, o secretário-geral da ONU, Ban Ki-moon, nomeou uma relatora especial para questões de violência sexual durante conflitos armados, Margot Wallstrom. Neste mês, Wallstrom criticou o Conselho de Segurança por não ter mencionado a violência sexual durante duas recentes resoluções relacionadas à Líbia, apesar de o Conselho ter prometido priorizar esse assunto.
Wallstrom disse na ocasião que relatos sobre estudos na Líbia não haviam sido confirmados, mas citou o caso amplamente divulgado de Eman al Obaidi, uma mulher que no mês passado foi a um hotel frequentado por jornalistas em Trípoli e disse que havia sido estuprada por milicianos leais ao governo.
O Tribunal Penal Internacional já está investigando se o regime de Kadafi cometeu crimes de guerra na sua violenta repressão a manifestantes que exigiam mais liberdade. A delegação dos EUA junto à ONU não quis comentar o assunto.

Livre-mercadistas: nao mantenham ilusoes... - livro sobre os grandes mitos

Bem, no plano racional, livres mercados, livre comércio, competição total, regulação mínima, e Estados eficientes são sempre melhores que o contrário de tudo isso, claro...
O problema é que, na prática, não conseguimos ter tudo isso e temos de aguentar um Estado ineficiente, intervencionista (ladrão seria o termo exato) e todas as outras deformações que os economistas chamam de "falhas de mercado". (Poucos falam das "falhas do governo".)
Abaixo um livro que seria o equivalente do realismo em RI.
Eu confesso ser um idealista, ou partidário da ideal-Economik, mas confesso que não teremos isto antes de muito tempo (if ever...).


------ EH.NET BOOK REVIEW ------
Title: The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order

Published by EH.NET (April 2011)

Bernard E. Harcourt, /The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order/. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. 328 pp. $30 (hardcover), ISBN: 978-0-674-05726-5.

Reviewed for EH.Net by Daniel J. D'Amico, Department of Economics, Loyola University (New Orleans).

/The Illusion of Free Markets/ is a fascinating attempt to understand public policy. There are both effective and ineffective responses to social problems. Human welfare requires interpreting complex social phenomena and affecting social change. To be fooled by an illusion is to be guided by a bad map.

Neoclassical models of political economy distinguish between markets and governments. Markets are presumed efficient when producing and allocating resources, but in some institutional environments, where property rights are poorly defined and information asymmetric, said to fail. Governments are presumed necessary and sufficient to solve market failures. Society suffers when either problem is misdiagnosed and/or either solution incorrectly prescribed. Bernard Harcourt thinks markets have been overrated. Histories of penology and economic thought help correct this.

The market versus government dichotomy dates to the classical school, when economists thought in terms of natural law. Markets were called natural because the price system is self-adjusting and socially coordinative. Neither shortages nor surpluses persist because prices change on the margin. Self-interest guides social welfare "as if by an invisible hand." While economists favor markets because they produce and distribute tangible wealth, Harcourt is concerned that they under account social costs. In particular, natural law has supposedly borne complex consequences upon American criminal justice.

Markets were heavily regulated during the time of the classical school. Detailed codes of conduct governed all manner of commercial trade. Harcourt observes that Adam Smith and other classicals used the term “policing” to refer to both commercial and criminal regulations. Harcourt prefers Foucault's focus upon discipline over economists' hard dichotomy. Historically, both markets and governments regulated behavior. Both were backed by physical punishments. The market was as disciplinarian as the state.

Harcourt is concerned, and rightly so, with features of American criminal justice. It appears racially biased, excessively severe and uniquely modern. He argues that these are the theoretical consequences of applied natural law. His historical narrative suggests that as the commercial realm was deregulated, disciplinary resources were directed into the penal sphere.
Markets were presumed to be self-regulating, which drove a conceptual schism between lawful market behaviors and unnatural criminal actions. Theorists underrecognize the costs of social change invoked by deregulation because they presume the market natural. Today's penal excesses are the presumed result of a growing network of anonymous contracts. Harcourt's message: the notion that markets are free from coercion is an illusion, both yesterday and today. Privatization and deregulation are insufficient policy solutions to mass incarceration.

Harcourt's comments are a welcome update to neoclassical orthodoxy, which has failed to give an explanation or policy reaction to mass incarceration. If one looks -- as Foucault would suggest -- at different enforcement techniques (physical punishment versus torts and fines) used within the different legal spheres (criminal versus civil); or if one looks at the historical specialization of those techniques across those legal spheres, one notices the world is a very different place than it used to be.

Today the market versus government distinction parallels the civil and criminal law. Contract enforcements are maintained by the civil law. Criminal laws are enforced by incarceration. These separate legal spheres were not always distinct, nor were their enforcement resources specialized. Originally there was no criminal law. Physical punishments, such as arrest and jailing, facilitated market exchanges and resolved civil disputes; afterwards a separate criminal law developed. Then physical punishments became more reserved to enforce against crime.

Harcourt argues the doctrine of natural law ushered this process, and led to problematic criminal justice outcomes. Alternatively, Foucault's historical perspective compliments an Austrian and Public Choice framework of political economy. Neither markets nor governments should be presumed to resolve each other's failures. The efficient-market hypothesis and traditional public goods theory both risk misguidance by illusion. Enforcement technology is an
important focus in so far as it affects the production and distribution of knowledge and incentives.

Austrian political economy emphasizes the distribution of economic knowledge throughout society. Governments differ from markets in how they produce and distribute economic knowledge -- who, what, how, when and where to make and distribute goods. Public Choice political economy emphasizes the incentives that affect rational choice. Bureaucracies produce systematically different incentives than do for-profit markets.

An Austro-Public Choice political economy insists upon the behavioral assumptions applied to governments and markets being symmetrical. Neither market nor government decision-makers are perfectly informed nor perfectly incentivized to accomplish goals. The subsidy and administration of criminal punishments yesterday and today appear not to be an exception.

Harcourt interprets history as a slight against the characterization of commerce as non-coercive. Foucault says markets are disciplinary. Though not emphasized by Harcourt, the inverse also seems true. The history of physical punishments within the market sphere weakens the characterization of governments as particularly necessary for optimal criminal punishment.
Presuming criminal punishment a public good may be just as illusionary.
When markets wielded physical punishments they appeared constrained from excess by the self-interests of disputants. Conflicts among traders were self-sorted for profit seekers. Punitive threats made compliance with financial and service court rulings more appealing. Contract violators were inclined to settle and civil plaintiffs sought tangible compensation for loss.

Contemporary criminal justice problems coincide with expanded market economies and decentralized government in the market sphere. An Austro-Public Choice perspective must reference how changes in knowledge and incentives yield such outcomes. On net federal government has grown, as has its role within the criminal justice system in conjunction with mass incarceration's disconcerting results.

Physical punishment has become relegated to the enforcement of criminal law. Though contrary to Harcourt's narrative, driven by the segregationist logic of natural law, this can be seen as driven by the self-interests of market and government actors. While market traders sought low cost and quantitatively predictable methods to resolve conflict, government capitalized as the monopoly provider of physical enforcements.

Today's greater quantities of physical enforcement are not deployed to enforce civil contracts or tort compliance. Drug and immigration violators occupy most new prison space, unlikely prohibited by contract law. Rather than necessary and sufficient, democracy has proven ineffective to correct the racial, generational, gender, and substance-abuse disproportionality of criminal sentencing. Policy makers have little incentive to change such policies and ordinary citizens lack the necessary knowledge to implement institutional reform.

Daniel J. D'Amico is the author of "The Prison in Economics: Private and Public Incarceration in Ancient Greece," in /Public Choice/. He is currently engaged in a long-term research project focused upon the political economy of mass incarceration.

Copyright (c) 2011 by EH.Net.
Published by EH.Net (April 2011). All EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.

Geographic Location: General, International, or Comparative Subject: Government, Law and Regulation, Public Finance, History of Economic Thought; Methodology, Markets and Institutions
Time: General or Comparative

David Ricardo redivivo: uma aula sobre o livre comercio

Um livro fascinante (do site da Amazon):

The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection
Russell Roberts
Paperback: 144 pages
Publisher: Prentice Hall; 3 edition (October 8, 2006)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0131433547
ISBN-13: 978-0131433540

Editorial Reviews
Written as a novel, the book makes the complex concepts, issues and terminology of international trade understandable for students. Professors complain that their students cannot grasp the nature of how some economic tools are used or how they work in life. This novel bridges the gap of concepts with applications by use of a fictional story.

David Ricardo comes to life to discuss international trade theory and policy with Ed Johnson, a fictional American television manufacturer seeking trade protection from television manufacturers. Their dialogue is a sophisticated, rigorous discussion of virtually every major issue in trade theory and policy. To illustrate the positive and normative effects of international trade and trade policy, Ricardo takes the reader and Ed Johnson into the future to see an America of free trade and an America of complete self-sufficiency. The fictional element brings these topics to life so that students gain the intuition and understanding of how trade changes the lives of people and the industries they work in. The fundamental intuition of how international markets function including general equilibrium effects and policy analysis is provided.

Wish "It's a Wonderful Life" were more like this
By Ryan Alger (U.S.A)
August 24, 2007

This review is from: The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition) (Paperback)
I don't really consider this a work of fiction, and neither does the author. It is in a fiction format, but its primary purpose is to make the case against protectionism, and for free markets. Roberts does this beautifully, raising and dismissing almost every argument for protectionism, and doing this with charm, wit, and almost a complete lack of venom.

The story follows the time-traveling journey and conversation of Ed Johnson (a businessman looking for protection form Japanese competition) and his guardian angle David Ricardo (modeled after the little-known economist.) Together they travel to the future, back to the past, and through alternate timelines to demonstrate Robert's point.

Through this journey, Ricardo corrects some critical mistakes in economic theory; such as the `zero-sum theory', misconceptions on the nature of supply and demand, the role and meaning of wages and `real' wages, the mythical "dangers" of a trade deficit, what imports and exports really are, and most of all, dismisses the myth that trade with other countries hurts the American worker overall (which he admits, in a smaller sense, it sometimes does.)

The book takes some leaps of logic, which the author fully admits in the back of the book; such as the town of Star (Ed's hometown) being unchanged in the `protectionist' universe. These little plot devices are not meant to represent reality, but demonstrate more abstract points, in that sense, it is more like a metaphor.

Overall, the book makes one of the strongest cases ageists the practicality of protectionism that I have ever heard. He also fits some talk as to the moral case against it, that it is really an issue of freedom, and no one person has the right to force another in to a certain kind of behavior (A.K.A., buying American products) and that "America" is all about dreams and growth, something not very possible in the protectionist world

My only complaint would be that I wanted more elaboration on some sections of the `conversation'; such as the `dumping' segment. Robert's makes a good case that dumping is not really practical for anybody, that the `dumper' would have to make up for lost profits from lowering their prices. What I don't understand is....what if a company could cover their lost profits in profits from another product, or section of their company (Such as a department store lowering prices on televisions and allowing the produce-department to cover the loss.) I wish Robert's would have gone in to slightly more detail.

There are several section of the book like this; but I want to make clear is that Robert's never claims that this is the ultimate source for `anti-protectionist' arguments, he even suggests further reading in the back of the book, something all reasonable people should do if they are truly interested in understanding the complexities of economics.

I love Robert's style of writing, his books are not just informative, but entertaining, something very hard to achieve for this subject matter. The book was good enough that I ordered His other book, The Invisible Heart, form Amazon. After seeing what he did to It's a Wonderful life, I can't wait to see what he does for a romance novel.

How free trade benefits us all
By Janet K. Marta (Platte City, MO USA)
November 28, 2006

This review is from: The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition) (Paperback)
This is the third edition of Roberts' novel about the benefits of free trade, using "It's a Wonderful Life" as his template. David Ricardo "touches down" from heaven to earth (like Clarence), to help convince Ed (George Bailey) that he should not support protectionism. The previous versions focused more on threats that were perceived from Japan and Nafta. Here, Roberts uses India and China as his examples.

To me, one of the most appealing things about Roberts' work is his honesty. He doesn't pretend that economic change doesn't hurt, but he also focuses on the benefits in the longer term. He writes in such a pleasant style that economics becomes accessible to people who are "math phobic."
His other book, The Invisible Heart, is at least as good as this one.

Free Trade made easy
By Zachary Palen (Minneapolis, MN, USA)
February 26, 2009

This review is from: The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition) (Paperback)
A great narrative of Free Trade. Lays the argument in support for free trade out in one of the simplest ways it's hard not to understand this topic that so many have trouble understanding. The examples and story surrounding the benefits of free trade and the detriments of protectionism are kept simple, so one can understand the logic behind Free Trade. Sticks to the basics and stays away from the advanced theories behind International Trade and Economics, but still provides significant empirical evidence. Easy read and a great book.