segunda-feira, 28 de maio de 2012

Comercio do Brasil: expandindo fronteiras

Não é verdade que o Brasil, ou o Mercosul, são incapazes de fazer acordos comerciais significativos.
Agora mesmo tivemos um exemplo do dinamismo do comércio internacional do Brasil, conforme matéria abaixo:

May 22, 2012
St. Kitts and Nevis – Brazil Sign Trade Agreement
St. Kitts and Nevis’ Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas has declared the twin-island Federation “now the only Caribbean country with almost zero-tariff access to the Brazilian market.”
The Prime Minister made this observation during the signing ceremony of the Partial Scope Agreement between St Kitts & Nevis and Brazil on Friday 11 May 2012 in Basseterre, ST Kitts & Nevis.
He added that “Manufacturers currently based in St. Kitts and Nevis, therefore, or those who move here will now, by definition, have an advantage vis-à-vis their competitors where access to the Brazilian market is concerned. This enhanced attractiveness of St.  Kitts and Nevis as a manufacturing base will, in turn, mean additional employment, additional entrepreneurial opportunities, and increased revenue inflows for our Federation,”
Under the Partial Scope Agreement, St Kitts and Nevis will benefit through preferential access to the Brazilian market for its electronics products manufactured by the enclave sector which is located in Basseterre and Sandy Point. Similar access is being requested for beverages, specific agricultural and other light manufactured products.
from left to right - Hon. Minister of International Trade, Industry, Commerce and Consumer Affairs - Dr. Hon. Timothy Harris; next to him is the Permanent Secretary of that Ministry - Mr. Charleton Edwards. Next to Mr. Edwards is Brazil’s Special Envoy, His Excellency Ruy Pereira; next to him is the CFTC Technical Expert -Andrew Satney, Trade Policy Adviser to the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis © Erasmus Williams
Photo: from left to right - Hon. Minister of International Trade, Industry, Commerce and Consumer Affairs - Dr. Hon. Timothy Harris; next to him is the Permanent Secretary of that Ministry - Mr. Charleton Edwards. Next to Mr. Edwards is Brazil’s Special Envoy, His Excellency Ruy Pereira; next to him is the CFTC Technical Expert -Andrew Satney, Trade Policy Adviser to the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis © Erasmus Williams
The Commonwealth Secretariat under the auspices of the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation (CFTC) is providing technical assistance in the form of  long term Trade  Technical Adviser, Mr. Andrew Satney, who is embedded in the Ministry of International Trade Industry and Consumer Affairs, St Kitts & Nevis. Over the past two years he has provided technical support towards the accession process. Mr. Satney will continue to provide technical support through ratification and implementation process for another year.
At the signing ceremony, addresses were also delivered by St. Kitts and Nevis’ Minister of International Trade, Senior Minister, Dr. the Hon. Timothy Harris, Brazil’s Resident Ambassador, His Excellency Miguel Magalhaes and Ambassador Pereira. Several government officials and private sector representatives were also in attendance.

Desinvestimento: Banco Santander deixa o Brasil

Uma possibilidade, quase uma certeza...



¿El Banco de Santander deja Brasil?
Espanha – El País (Blog Vientos de Brasil), 28/05/2012

Las noticias de prensa de que el Banco de Santander podría dejar Brasil han desencadenado una serie de hipótesis e interpretaciones. Según dichas informaciones, no confirmadas por la institución bancaria española, sería el Banco Bradesco, el que se haría cargo del activo del Banco de Santander en Brasil convirtiéndose así en el primer banco del país y en uno de los diez mayores del mundo.

La hipótesis más señalada de una salida del Santander de Brasil, donde el banco de Emilio Botín goza de un enorme prestigio y eficiencia, ha sido la crisis bancaria que vive España .El Santanderde  en Brasil, tuvo en el primer trimestre de este año un lucro líquido de 1,760 mil millones de reales y  posee un patrimonio líquido de 50.440 mil millones de reales y unos activos de 415.630 mil millones .

El Santander con su venta en Brasil “se forraría” , lo que le serviría para enjugar sus activos de la casa matriz.. Al parecer el Banco de Brasil, un banco del Estado, estuvo interesado en la compra de El Santander, pero habrían existido dos razones para que el banco español se inclinara por el Bradesco. Primero, un no acuerdo sobre el precio ofrecido por el BB y segundo una cierta oposición de la Presidenta Dilma Rousseff, según han informado los diarios O Globo y O Estado de São Paulo.

Existe sin embargo otra posible hipótesis, barajada por algunos especialistas económicos oídos por este bloguero para que El Santander haya podido pensar en dejar Brasil. Sería la cruzada que Dilma ha emprendido con los bancos, tanto públicos como privados para que bajen sus índices de interés, cosa que ella ha de alguna manera ha  forzado a hacer al Banco Central con los intereses oficiales que ya han bajado a una cifra (9%) tras haber sido los más altos del mundo con dos cifras.

Ayer mismo el Ministro de Economía Guido Mantega, ha anunciado que ha dado a los bancos un mes de tiempo para “que bajen sus intereses en un 40%” y ha añadido que el gobierno
vigilará para que los bancos no se resarzan de esas pérdidas aumentando el precio de sus servicios a los clientes.

Al revés del expresidente Lula da Silva, gran amigo personal de Emilio Botín que ha realizado a través del Santander una loable acción cultural en el ambiento universitario brasileño, la Presidenta Dilma ha dicho sin ambages que los bancos no pueden seguir ganando de forma tan exhorbitante y que los brasileños no pueden seguir pagando uno de los intereses bancarios mayores del mundo.
Lula, al revés, bromeaba con los banqueros a los que les recordaba que “nunca habían ganado tanto como con él”.

Difícil saber los verdaderos motivos que puedan llevar a Botín- si confirmada la noticia- a dejar Brasil, donde se hallaba felicísimo y súper apoyado por Lula. Recuerdo que durante una conferencia recordó que para sentirse verdadero brasileño un español tenía que conseguir pronunciar correctamente las palabras pâo ( pan) y coração (corazón) y que él “casi lo estaba consiguiendo", sintiéndose casi brasileño.

In praise of stupidity... (ainda bem...)

Já postei aqui um pequeno resumo das teses principais do historiador econômico Carlo Maria Cipolla, retiradas de seu livro sobre as leis fundamentais da estupidez humana:
http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.fr/2012/05/as-lei-fundamentais-da-estupidez-humana.html
Nele Cipolla acredita que o indivíduo estúpido é o ser mais perigo que existe, ainda mais que o bandido, que pode, eventualmente, contribuir para uma melhor distribuição de renda na sociedade. O estúpido, ao contrário, pode causar danos a outrém, sem causar nenhum benefício a si próprio, e ele ainda pode contribuir para a decadência nacional, a diminuição do PIB e outros desastres de magnitude não mensurada.
Bem, peço licença para discordar, por uma vez, de Cipolla, ao considerar a estupidez ao lado do banditismo, que pode ser de algum benefício para os seres inteligentes que somos, desde que mantenhamos nossa atenção.
Com efeito, verifiquemos a mensagem abaixo, com todos os logotipos, símbolos e outros apanágios da boa publicidade, inclusive com o remetente impecável.
Salvo que o bandido, neste caso, pertence à categoria dos estúpidos e assim ficamos a salvo de perder milhas, dinheiro, quem sabe a vida?
Uma redação estúpida com esta nos mantém vigilantes e convencidos de que, por vezes, a estupidez, a ignorância, o analfabetismo funcional podem fazer bem à nossa saúde financeira.


Atualizacao Multiplus Fidelidade 2012
Atualizacao Obrigatoria TAM Fidelidade, para sua Seguranca Digite Abaixo os Dados de Sua Conta Multiplus!
Preencha Com Atencao, Caso Preencha com Dados invalidos, Podera ser Cancelado seu Cadastro e Assim Perdendo os Pontos ja Obtidos na Tam.

domingo, 27 de maio de 2012

Eurobonds: free beer for all, in Europe (who pays?)

Parece que alguns europeus, a crer em Jacques Delpla (ver abaixo), querem manter um bar aberto, a qualquer hora do dia e da noite, para que gregos, espanhois, portugueses e italianos, venham divertir-se à vontade, durante a noite (ou qualquer hora do dia), desde que se possa mandar a conta para que ela seja paga pelos alemães (que estão dormindo cedo, pois têm de trabalhar as 8hs do dia seguinte).
Gostaram da ideia? Quem não gostaria do free lunch, ou free sex, desde que alguém, outro, assuma a responsabilidade pelos custos do empreendimento? Pois é, os alemães disseram: não com os meus tostões.
Divirtam-se, enquanto os europeus ficam de cabelos brancos...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 



As Euro Bond Wins Supporters, Details Remain Vague
By JACK EWING and PAUL GEITNER
The New York Times, May 27, 2012

FRANKFURT — To euro zone countries in need, euro bonds would be a noble expression of European solidarity and a crucial instrument for preserving the common currency.
To Germans and quite a few others, though, euro bonds would be a lot like co-signing a loan for a deadbeat brother-in-law.
Those caricatures have dominated a debate that has left Europeans deeply divided on a central question: Should euro zone countries create common bonds to reduce borrowing costs for members that cannot get affordable credit on their own?
But despite the intensity of the debate, even as political upheaval in Greece and bad bank loans in Spain mushroom into existential threats to the currency union, the euro bond remains only the vaguest of concepts.
About the only thing clear is that Germany and some other creditworthy northern countries oppose adopting such bonds anytime soon. Meanwhile, François Hollande, the new French president, seems keen on speeding things up — even if he has not quite articulated how his idea would work.
“You don’t know what François Hollande is talking about when he talks about euro bonds,” said Jacques Delpla, a member of the French Council of Economic Analysis, a panel that advises the government. “An open bar with German money for Greece and Spain? That doesn’t work.”
At their meeting in Brussels last week, European Union leaders agreed only that euro bonds deserved further study.
Mr. Delpla is the co-author, along with a German economist, Jakob von Weizsäcker, of one of the few detailed proposals so far. They outlined how euro bonds might be used to ease financial pressure on countries like Greece, Spain or Italy while addressing German concerns by encouraging more prudent government spending.
The basic idea of euro bonds does enjoy wide support among economists. Proponents also include Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund . And last week the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris called for some variation of euro bonds.
The various models share a basic idea: In addition to each country’s raising money by issuing its own bonds, as is now the practice, they would put at least some of the debt into a common pool. These pooled bonds would be issued by some kind of joint European debt agency, with all members assuming shared responsibility for repayment.
There is no agreement yet on whether that pool would be used to replace existing debt or to finance new borrowing. Nor is it clear how countries would have access to the money raised by the sale of the bonds.
Surprising as it may seem, the euro zone’s total government debt actually is lower as a proportion of annual gross domestic product — 87 percent — than that of the U.S. government, which is more than 100 percent of G.D.P.
A reason euro zone debt has reached crisis proportions is that a few countries in Southern Europe owe too much money and have lost the faith of investors.
The United States so far is able to stay a half-step ahead of its debt because it can keep selling Treasury bonds. Investors worldwide are so certain of being repaid that they accept interest rates of less than 1.75 percent for a 10-year Treasury bond.
Right now, though, the weakest euro zone members have no such credibility with creditors. So Spain must pay more than 6 percent on its 10-year bonds, while investors last week were demanding 5.6 percent for Italian bonds. And about the only ones willing to lend to Greece these days are Europe’s bailout institutions and a few roll-the-dice hedge funds.
But if euro zone countries threw their bonds into the same pot, the argument goes, they could create a debt market rivaling that for U.S. Treasury securities — and greatly improve the chances that Spain and Italy could continue to make interest payments and avoid default or a Greek-style debt overhaul.
That is why, as Greece edges toward an exit from the euro zone, and Spain wrestles with its expanding bank crisis, many analysts see euro bonds as unavoidable.
“If we don’t have common bonds very soon, in the next year or so, southern European countries will go bankrupt,” Mr. Delpla said.
The problem is that talk of euro bonds inevitably raises fundamental questions about the nature of the European Union. Such bonds would require European countries to watch one another’s spending much more closely, and each country would have to cede some control over its own budget.
For euro bonds to work the way U.S. Treasury securities do, investors would need assurances that they are backed by a central treasury, or at least an agency with direct access to tax revenue from each member state.
“This needs a very strong institutional setup,” said Guntram B. Wolff, deputy director at Bruegel, a research organization in Brussels. “If you are going to sell them to a Singaporean investor, the Singaporean investor needs to know who is going to pay that bond.”
Once European governments began financing one another on a large scale, they would certainly also want more say over one another’s budgets and big-ticket items like military spending or pension systems. For those who advocate a more powerful “United States of Europe,” these changes would be good. But they would represent a huge transformation of the decentralized Europe that exists today.
“Immediately behind the euro bond proposal lurks political union,” said Uri Dadush, a director at the International Economics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
“The moment you start saying, ‘Give me half your tax receipts,’ we are talking serious stuff,” Mr. Dadush said. “We are talking about giving up major sovereignty.”
The European Central Bank probably has the credibility to play the role of a euro bond debt-issuing agency. But the bank would almost certainly refuse to do so, seeing it as a threat to its political independence — and a violation of the prohibition on using the bank to finance governments.
But even if the E.C.B. did not issue the debt itself, euro bonds would need at least the central bank’s tacit support, Mr. Dadush said.
A big reason U.S. Treasury securities have retained credibility with investors, for example, is that despite official denials of complicity, there is an assumption that the Federal Reserve would not let the U.S. government go bankrupt. The E.C.B. would probably be much less likely to accede to such an implicit guarantee.
The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, made an argument similar to Mr. Dadush’s at last week’s meeting in Brussels, saying Europe must become more economically and politically integrated before it could issue common debt. But the federal Europe she seems to have in mind could take years to build, by which time the euro could lay in ruins.
Germany also fears that lower interest rates would simply reinforce irresponsible spending habits by countries like Italy. To German eyes, Italy, Greece and others did not take advantage of the low interest rates available in past years to make their economies function better.
In a short statement to the news media after the Brussels meeting, Ms. Merkel said “several participants noted that the common interest rates with the introduction of the euro really didn’t lead to improvements in the economic competitiveness of all the euro countries.”
Economists have proposed several ways around that problem. The model by Mr. Delpla and Mr. von Weizsäcker , for instance, would let countries put some of their debt — equal to no more than 60 percent of gross domestic product — into so-called blue bonds issued by all members. These would presumably carry a very low interest rate.
The rest — the red bonds — would remain the responsibility of individual countries and would probably carry much higher interest rates.
Countries would need approval from a central committee to issue blue bonds, and could do it only if they followed responsible economic and budgetary policies. Germany would effectively have veto power.
“If you behave well, you have access to blue debt,” Mr. Delpla said. “If you start to behave like Berlusconi, you will not have access to blue debt, and the price of red debt will go up.” He was referring to the former Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, whose policies were blamed for much of Italy’s current economic and debt woes.
Thus Spain and Italy would still feel acute pressure to improve the way their economies function and to get better control of public spending. One big advantage of the proposal, Mr. Delpla said, is that it could be put into action quickly without a major restructuring of the European Union.
European leaders are certainly aware of the blue bond/red bond proposal. Mario Monti, Italy’s current prime minister, is a former head of Bruegel, the research group that originally published it. But top European policy makers are still far away from approving any euro bond model.
Another of the most influential proposals actually came from the heartland of euro bond opposition. The German Council of Economic Experts, a group of independent economists who advise the government, late last year proposed pooling all of Europe’s debt overhang , defined as the amount above 60 percent of G.D.P.
Under this plan, countries would get rid of their excess debt — about €2.3 trillion worth, or $2.9 trillion — which would be paid off over 25 years. But after that, governments would have to keep debt below 60 percent of G.D.P. That is the limit they agreed to — but have not observed — when they formed the currency union.
So far, Ms. Merkel has expressed support only for so-called project bonds — joint debt used to finance roads or other infrastructure that might benefit all Europeans. Economists agree, however, that project bonds would not do much to stimulate growth across Europe, much less solve Spain’s banking crisis or reduce Italy’s borrowing costs.
Although leaders agreed in Brussels to study euro bonds more closely, the process is moving slowly. Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, plans to come back to the leaders at the end of June with a first look at the “building blocks” for moving toward projects like euro bonds. He plans first to consult with the E.C.B., the European Commission and the president of the Eurogroup of euro zone finance ministers.
One European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said even a step toward euro bonds could reassure investors who have been watching Greece teeter and fear a bank run in Spain — and wondering what happens next. “The fundamental issue,” he said, “is who or what stands behind the euro.”
Paul Geitner reported from Brussels.




Eurobonds, ou: como fazer os alemaes pagar a gastanca alheia - Wall Street Journal


Europeans are taking Alexander Hamilton's name in vain.




Editorial The Wall Street Journal, May, 25, 2012
European stock markets have been tumbling all week over fears of the damage a Greek exit from the euro zone could do to the single currency and even the European Union. Yet through it all, Germany's borrowing costs keep going down—so much so that on Wednesday Berlin sold two-year bonds that pay no interest. That's compared to Italy's two-years yielding 3.5%, Spain's 4% and Portugal's a whopping 9%.
So it's little wonder that the idea of issuing eurobonds is back. Some are even calling it an idea worthy of Alexander Hamilton, if you can believe it.
The argument is this: While some euro-zone countries have huge fiscal problems that have strained their borrowing costs, the picture for the euro zone in aggregate is much better. The euro zone's total budget deficit was 4.1% of GDP in 2011, while total government debt equaled 87.2% of GDP. If the euro zone were a country, those numbers would compare favorably to the U.S., where the deficit was 8.7% of GDP last year and total debt has already hit 100% of GDP.
Yet the U.S. can still borrow at rates much closer to Germany's than Italy's. So the idea is to pool the borrowing, lower the rates, and everyone comes out a winner.
Here's where Hamilton comes in. In 1790, the first Treasury Secretary proposed, as part of his First Report on the Public Credit, that the nascent federal government assume the war debts of the original 13 colonies. Congress narrowly approved the idea, thereby saving the states from almost certain insolvency and securing America's good name in international credit markets.
The eurocracy wants Europe to do the same and make all of its fiscal troubles go away. But there are some basic differences between the U.S. in the Age of Hamilton and the EU in the Age of Hollande.
For starters, George Washington's administration did not assume states'future debts—only those that were a legacy of funding the war for America's independence. Hamilton realized that the states had to be responsible for their own future fiscal policies. Some U.S. states went on to overborrow—and fall into bankruptcy—in the 19th century, and on current trajectory insolvency is possible for some of them again. The French and Italians want eurobonds precisely to put Germany on the hook for their future spending.
A second difference is that Hamilton's assumption plan was based on the conviction that America's war of independence was a burden for the entire country, one whose costs deserved to be shared equally. By contrast, the debts of Greece, Spain and Italy were incurred domestically to support domestic spending, not as a sacrifice in the name of ever-closer union.
That difference may be as much moral as economic, but it also helps explain why Germany's Angela Merkel remains adamant in her opposition to the proposal. How many times can the Chancellor, already politically weakened by recent state elections, ask Germans to pay for the indulgence of others?
But perhaps the most decisive difference is that the U.S. has a strong central fiscal authority with the capacity to levy taxes directly and print its own currency. This is what underpins investor confidence that they will be paid back what they lend. Europe has no equivalent fiscal authority. Until everyone in the euro zone turns taxing and spending powers over to Brussels (which is to say not in our lifetimes), none is in prospect.
This makes eurobonds much like the euro itself—a bond without a country, or a single treasury, to back it; a bond subject to the willingness and ability of the nations involved to meet their commitments to support that debt. Worst of all, turning the currency union into a debt union would ease the bond-market pressure that is the main force driving Europe's spendthrift nations toward fiscal and labor-market reform.
In other words, it's at least as likely that a debt union would drag Germany's borrowing costs up as it would bring Italy's down—a possibility of which the Germans are acutely aware. Investors lend to governments because that's where the money is, to borrow a phrase. A debt union without a central fisc is another euro-mirage.
A version of this article appeared May 25, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Deus ex Eurobonds.



Comissão da (Meia) "Verdade": fracasso previsto - Marco Antonio Villa

Subscrevo, quase que inteiramente, o artigo do historiador Marco Antonio Villa, do qual tomei conhecimento apenas hoje, 28/05, a despeito de ter sido publicado há quase uma semana.
Na verdade, concordo com ele em prever o fracasso dos trabalhos da tal de Comissão, mas distancio-me dele por fazer um julgamento ainda mais severo sobre a composição da Comissão. Acredito que vários membros não exibem nem requisitos intelectuais, nem equilíbrio político, ou sequer condições morais para integrar uma comissão desse tipo, comprometidos que estão com uma postura enviesada sobre o período e os eventos que o rechearam.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 



‘Verdade? Que verdade?’Marco Antonio Villa

GLOBO, 22/05/2012
MARCO ANTONIO VILLA
Foi saudada como um momento histórico a designação dos membros da Comissão da Verdade. Como tudo se movimenta lentamente na presidência de Dilma Rousseff, o fato ocorreu seis meses após a aprovação da lei 12.528. Não há qualquer justificativa para tanta demora. Durante o trâmite da lei o governo poderia ter desenhando, ao menos, o perfil dos membros, o que facilitaria a escolha.
Houve, na verdade, um desencontro com a história. O momento para a criação da comissão deveria ter sido outro: em 1985, quando do restabelecimento da democracia. Naquela oportunidade não somente seria mais fácil a obtenção das informações, como muitos dos personagens envolvidos estavam vivos. Mas ─ por uma armadilha do destino ─ quem assumiu o governo foi José Sarney, sem autoridade moral para julgar o passado, pois tinha sido participante ativo e beneficiário das ações do regime militar.
O tempo foi passando, arquivos foram destruídos e importantes personagens do período morreram. E para contentar um setor do Partido dos Trabalhadores ─ aquele originário do que ficou conhecido como luta armada ─ a presidente resolveu retirar o tema do esquecimento. Buscou o caminho mais fácil ─ o de criar uma comissão ─ do que realizar o que significaria um enorme avanço democrático: a abertura de todos os arquivos oficiais que tratam daqueles anos.
É inexplicável o período de 42 anos para que a comissão investigue as violações dos direitos humanos. Retroagir a 1946 é um enorme equívoco, assim como deveria interromper as investigações em 1985, quando, apesar da vigência formal da legislação autoritária, na prática o país já vivia na democracia ─ basta recordar a legalização dos partidos comunistas. Se a extensão temporal é incompreensível, menos ainda é o prazo de trabalho: dois anos. Como os membros não têm dedicação exclusiva e, até agora, a estrutura disponibilizada para os trabalhos é ínfima, tudo indica que os resultados serão pífios. E, ainda no terreno das estranhezas e sem nenhum corporativismo, é, no mínimo, extravagante que tenha até uma psiquiatra na comissão e não haja lugar para um historiador.
A comissão foi criada para “efetivar o direito à memória e a verdade histórica”. O que é “verdade histórica”? Pior são os sete objetivos da comissão (conforme artigo 3º), ora indefinidos, ora extremamente amplos. Alguns exemplos: como a comissão agirá para que seja prestada assistência às vítimas das violações dos direitos humanos? E como fará para “recomendar a adoção de medidas e políticas públicas para prevenir violação de direitos humanos, assegurar sua não repetição e promover a efetiva reconciliação nacional”? De que forma é possível “assegurar sua não repetição”?
O encaminhamento dado ao tema pelo governo foi desastroso. Reabriu a discussão sobre a lei de anistia, questão que já foi resolvida pelo STF em 2010. A anistia foi fundamental para o processo de transição para a democracia. Com a sua aprovação, em 1979, milhares de brasileiros retornaram ao país, muitos dos quais estavam exilados há 15 anos. Luís Carlos Prestes, Gregório Bezerra, Miguel Arraes, Leonel Brizola, entre os mais conhecidos, voltaram a ter ativa participação política. Foi muito difícil convencer os setores ultraconservadores do regime militar que não admitiam o retorno dos exilados, especialmente de Leonel Brizola, o adversário mais temido ─ o PT era considerado inofensivo e Lula tinha bom relacionamento com o general Golbery do Couto e Silva.
Não é tarefa fácil mexer nas feridas. Há o envolvimento pessoal, famílias que tiveram suas vidas destruídas, viúvas, como disse o deputado Alencar Furtado, em 1977, do “quem sabe ou do talvez”, torturas, desaparecimentos e mortes de dezenas de brasileiros. Mas ─ e não pode ser deixado de lado ─ ocorreram ações por parte dos grupos de luta armada que vitimaram dezenas de brasileiros. Evidentemente que são atos distintos. A repressão governamental ocorreu sob a proteção e a responsabilidade do Estado. Contudo, é possível enquadrar diversos atos daqueles grupos como violação dos direitos humanos e, portanto, incurso na lei 12.528.
O melhor caminho seria romper com a dicotomia ─ recolocada pela criação da comissão ─ repressão versus guerrilheiros ou ação das forças de segurança versus terroristas, dependendo do ponto de vista. É óbvio que a ditadura ─ e por ser justamente uma ditadura ─ se opunha à democracia; mas também é evidente que todos os grupos de luta armada almejavam a ditadura do proletariado (sem que isto justifique a bárbara repressão estatal). Nesta guerra, onde a política foi colocada de lado, o grande derrotado foi o povo brasileiro, que teve de suportar durante anos o regime ditatorial.
A presidente poderia ter agido como uma estadista, seguindo o exemplo do sul-africano Nelson Mandela, que criou a Comissão da Verdade e Reconciliação. Lá, o objetivo foi apresentar publicamente ─ várias sessões foram transmitidas pela televisão ─ os dois campos, os guerrilheiros e as forças do apartheid. Tudo sob a presidência do bispo Desmond Tutu, Prêmio Nobel da Paz. E o país pôde virar democraticamente esta triste página da história. Mas no Brasil não temos um Mandela ou um Tutu.
Pelas primeiras declarações dos membros da comissão, continuaremos prisioneiros do extremismo político, congelados no tempo, como se a roda da história tivesse parado em 1970. Não avançaremos nenhum centímetro no processo de construção da democracia brasileira. E a comissão será um rotundo fracasso.

Pausa para besteirol: o lado broxante da crise (na Grecia)

Não sabemos se em outros lugares igualmente afetados pela crise econômica, ocorreram essas manifestações, digamos, heterodoxas que afetam a libido dos cidadãos (e cidadãs). Esse é o lado escondido da crise sistêmica do capitalismo, que as pessoas não falam, e nem dispõem de dinheiro para uma farra inocente ou sequer pensar em ir ao psicanalista.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 



GREECE'S once-thriving sex industry has become the latest victim of the country's debt crisis as Greeks spend less on erotic toys, pornography and titillating underwear.
About 50 people, almost all young men, lined up on Friday as the Athens Erotic Dream - Greece's biggest sex fair - opened its gates in a nondescript building squeezed against a highway on the outskirts of the capital.
The annual show attracted big crowds when it opened in 2008, at the height of Greece's debt-fuelled economic bubble. But interest has wilted alongside the Greek economy, mired in its fifth consecutive year of recession.
The austerity measures Greece adopted as part of the country's international bailout deal have led to record unemployment, while wage cuts and tax hikes have throttled consumer spending.
The sex industry is feeling the hit. The number of exhibitors has fallen by half since 2008 to about a dozen, said the fair's organiser George Chrysospathis - a grey-bearded, corpulent man whose jovial manner changes quickly if he spots anyone who has failed to pay the 15-euro (US$19) entry fee.
"We used to get 20,000-30,000 visitors, but this year I don't know, we'll just have to see," Chrysospathis said.
Only a quarter of the 300 to 400 sex shops that once existed in Athens have survived the crisis, and business looked bleak for those who brought their wares to the sex fair.
"Things look really bad, buddy," said stall holder Donatos Passaris, 38, standing in front of a long bench of vibrators, lotions and other sexual items.
Shoppers at the stands were few and Passaris brushed off questions quickly for fear of losing a rare customer.
"We're making just 20 euros a day, if at all," said Marianna Lemnarou, another retailer. "Some customers just don't feel like having sex - others can't afford to buy our stuff in the crisis."
An inconclusive general election on May 6, which plunged Greece into fresh political turmoil and fanned fears that the country might leave the euro, has worsened matters. "Since the vote, business has completely tanked," Lemnarou moaned.

Postagem em destaque

Livro Marxismo e Socialismo finalmente disponível - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Meu mais recente livro – que não tem nada a ver com o governo atual ou com sua diplomacia esquizofrênica, já vou logo avisando – ficou final...