4 de Julho: liberdade, o outro nome dos EUA

Minha homenagem pelo 4 de Julho: 

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The Unanimous Declaration of the 13 United States of America.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.

iPads: economicos em energia, e na fatura da eletricidade (talvez nao no Brasil)

Pelo menos nos EUA, os iPads custam pouco e gastam muito pouca energia.
No Brasil, a fatura é sempre mais cara...

It costs just $1.36 to charge an iPad for a year

By JONATHAN FAHEY, AP Energy Writer – Jun 21, 2012  

NEW YORK (AP) — That coffee you're drinking while gazing at your iPad? It cost more than all the electricity needed to run those games, emails, videos and news stories for a year.

The annual cost to charge an iPad is just $1.36, according to the Electric Power Research Institute, a non-profit research and development group funded by electric utilities.

By comparison, a 60-watt compact fluorescent bulb costs $1.61, a desktop PC adds up to $28.21 and a refrigerator runs you $65.72.

The group, known as EPRI, studied the power consumption of Apple Inc.'s iPad to determine the effect that the newly-popular devices might have on the nation's electricity use.

The answer: not much.

If the number of iPads triples from the current 67 million, they would need the electricity from one small power plant operating at full strength.

But if people are using iPads instead of televisions to play video games, or ditching their desktop computers for iPads, the shift to tablets could mean lower overall power consumption. A desktop computer uses 20 times more power than an iPad.

Baskar Vairmohan, the EPRI researcher who conducted the iPad test, said the group is now studying usage to understand whether the explosion of tablets is adding to power consumption, or reducing it.

Residential power demand is on track to fall for the third straight year, according to the government. A weak economy is keeping people in smaller houses and shacked up with others. At the same time, efficiency programs are pushing more efficient light bulbs, air conditioners and other devices into homes. Refrigerators use a quarter of the power they used a generation ago, according to EPRI.

For the iPad test, Vairmohan measured the amount of power used to charge up an iPad with a drained battery. He assumed that users would charge up every other day. Over a year, the latest version of the iPad consumed 11.86 kilowatt-hours of electricity. (Older versions consume somewhat less power.)

The juice would cost $1.36 at the U.S. average residential price of 11.49 cents per kilowatt-hour.

But there's an even cheaper way to go than the iPad. EPRI calculated the cost of power needed to fuel an iPhone 4 for year: just 38 cents.

Follow Jonathan Fahey at http://twitter.com/JonathanFahey .

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

Livros que moldaram os EUA - Library of Congress

STEFAN KANFER

List-o-mania

The Library of Congress’s arguable roster of “Books That Shaped America”

The City Journal, 3 July 2012

In 1987, David Letterman inaugurated his famous Top Ten lists, which included Elf Pickup Lines (Sample: “I’m down here”); Ways to Reduce the Federal Deficit (“Sell ad space on president’s forehead during State of the Union speeches”); Unsuccessful Mall Shops (“Jiffy-Spay”); and many others. American media had already been infected; magazines and newspapers promptly took List-o-mania to the next level. Today Esquire publishes a roster of the Top 100 Women, Time offers mini-biographies of the Most Influential People, Forbes identifies the Most Powerful Celebrities, the New York Times informs its readers of the Top Ten Must-Have Apps, and theWashington Post reveals the Top 15 Happiest Countries.

One might think the august Library of Congress would be immune to pop trends, but one would be wrong. A group of anonymous librarians have just revealed their own list: 88 “Books That Shaped America.” The fiction list is mainly a catalogue of obvious choices: Huckleberry Finn, Moby-Dick, The Red Badge of Courage, The Catcher in the Rye, The Scarlet Letter, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Little Women, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. Among them, however, are some questionable items. Why Ernest Hemingway’s For Whomthe Bell Tolls, and not his Collected Stories, which completely reshaped American prose? Why Gone with the Wind? Did it really change America, or just the budgets of American cinema? Similarly, Edgar Rice Burroughs’sTarzan is hardly a nation-shaping novel; its sway—if any—was to give employment to a parade of Hollywood actors, white and black, as well to a series of chimpanzees who played Cheetah.

Seven works of poetry made the cut: Emily Dickinson’s Poems, Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, Gwendolyn Brooks’s A Street in Bronzeville, Robert Frost’s New Hampshire, Langston Hughes’s Weary Blues, William Carlos Williams’s Spring and All, and Allen Ginsberg’s Howl. If all these are deserving, why not influential works by such masters as Wallace Stevens? Marianne Moore? ee cummings? Robert Lowell? John Berryman? Sylvia Plath? In the field of nonfiction, the librarians perform a balancing act worthy of a circus aerialist. The muckraker Upton Sinclair is represented byThe Jungle (an exposé of the meatpacking industry), and Ira Tarbell by herHistory of Standard Oil. The list must have seemed a bit too anti-business, for the librarians shoehorned in Atlas Shrugged, by the libertarian icon Ayn Rand.

The librarians seem a bit pathetic in their yearning for political correctness. Obviously they felt that gays had to be represented, so here is Randy Shilts’sAnd The Band Played On, about the AIDS epidemic. African-American writers are omnipresent, from Frederick Douglass and W. E. B. Du Bois to Ralph Ellison and James Baldwin. Hispanics are represented by Cesar Chavez, feminism by Betty Friedan, Native Americans by non-Indian Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. But where are Asians? How about Maxine Hong Kingston? Amy Tan? David Hwang? Evidently, after the librarians fit in Zane Gray’s Riders of the Purple Sage and Margaret Wise Brown’s Goodnight Moon, there just wasn’t any room.

The number seems arbitrary as well. Maybe the librarians were thinking of the Steinway keyboard. Or of Mandy Patinkin, who played a character called 88 Keys in the movie Dick Tracy. Or of the number of constellations in the sky. Or of the atomic number of radium. It’s hard to know what they had in mind—other than joining the ranks of list makers like Letterman. The big difference is, audiences laugh with David.

Stefan Kanfer, a City Journal contributing editor, is the author of Tough Without a Gun, a Humphrey Bogart biography.

Governo brasileiro nao liga para suas baleias - Santuario deixa de ser aprovado

Projeto que cria santuário de baleias é derrubado

O Estado de São Paulo, 3/07/2012

Defendida pelo Brasil, proposta é vetada na reunião anual da Comissão Internacional Baleeira. Organizações criticam falta de esforço diplomático.

Os 38 votos a favor da criação do Santuário Atlântico Sul foram insuficientes e o projeto para proteger as baleias na região entre a América do Sul e a África, que há 12 anos é apresentado pelo País, foi vetado ontem (2) na reunião anual da Comissão Internacional Baleeira (CIB), que ocorre nesta semana na Cidade do Panamá.

A aprovação da área de proteção dependia de 75% de votos favoráveis - com 21 países contrários e 2 abstenções, o índice ficou em 65%. Representantes de organizações ambientais criticam uma suposta falta de esforço diplomático frente ao lobby de países caçadores de baleias, liderado pelo Japão.

Para Leandra Gonçalves, do SOS Mata Atlântica, o santuário não sairá do papel enquanto não houver transparência na votação. "Foram 21 votos contra, mas apenas 3 países (Japão, Islândia e Noruega) realmente têm essa posição. O restante é de países menores, que têm seus votos comprados", acusa a ambientalista, coordenadora do Programa Costa Atlântica.

Segundo ela, o maior avanço para este ano havia sido jogar a votação para o início da discussão. Sem uma campanha forte da diplomacia brasileira antes da reunião, no entanto, não houve a adesão esperada. "Todos os anos, a maioria simples vota a favor. Mas, neste ano, se olharmos para o governo brasileiro, houve retrocesso. O País sempre mandou muitos representantes, mas durante as prévias faltou esforço para reforçar a campanha", afirmou Leandra.

A opinião é compartilhada por Truda Palazzo, diretor do escritório brasileiro do Centro de Conservação Cetácea, que acompanha a discussão no Panamá. "Está claro que o governo do Brasil não está fazendo a sua parte para conseguir esses votos faltantes. Muitos países do Caribe e África têm relações bilaterais fortes com o Brasil, mas não se consegue que o Itamaraty ou mesmo a Presidência eleve o nível das gestões para se conseguir esses votos", afirma Palazzo. "Como um dos idealizadores da proposta, em 1998, estou indignado com esse desleixo do País com o tema. Dá a impressão de que o compromisso do Brasil com o tema é meramente "diplomacia ornamental"."

O governo brasileiro nega ter diminuído os esforços para a criação do santuário e alega "questões burocráticas" para a baixa representatividade do País no evento - segundo o Ministério do Meio Ambiente, há apenas um técnico do órgão acompanhando as discussões na Cidade do Panamá.

Nova discussão - Nos próximos dias, outra resolução bastante aguardada deve entrar na pauta. Ela se refere à participação da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) na questão da caça científica promovida no Santuário de Baleias do Oceano Antártico. "Não acredito em novas votações para os próximos dias, mas essa é uma questão importante", afirma Leandra Gonçalves. "É preciso barrar a matança promovida pelo Japão, pois não é preciso matar para se fazer experiências científicas."

"Brasil perde 9 posições em ranking de inovação"

Isso porque não quiseram classificar os países que mais inovaram em matéria de desvios de dinheiro público, dólares na cueca, concorrências dirigidas, aumento do salário de marajás do serviço público, e outras magníficas contribuições do Brasil para o estoque de "expertezas" da humanidade. Nisso o Brasil estaria, com alguns companheiros dos Brics, nos primeiros lugares...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 
=========

Brasil perde 9 posições em ranking de inovação

O Estado de São Paulo, 3/07/2012

País é 58º da lista de países mais inovadores, atrás de Portugal, Chile e África do Sul. Crédito, ambiente de negócios e educação são entraves.

O Brasil desabou no ranking dos países mais inovadores do mundo. Uma classificação publicada hoje (3) pela Organização Mundial de Propriedade Intelectual e pelo instituto Insead, considerada como a mais completa temperatura do grau de inovação no mundo, aponta que o Brasil ocupa apenas a 58ª posição no ranking, uma queda de nove posições em relação a 2011.

Países como Portugal, Sérvia, Romênia, África do Sul e Bulgária estão melhores colocados que o Brasil. Os principais obstáculos no País: a qualidade do ensino superior e as condições para investir em ciência. O ranking é liderado pela Suíça, seguido pela Suécia, Cingapura e Finlândia. Os Estados Unidos estão na décima colocação.

O levantamento revela que o Brasil foi o país que mais caiu no ranking entre os Brics, sigla que agrupa China, Índia, Rússia e Brasil. Para os especialistas, o bloco todo precisa corrigir obstáculos institucionais para fomentar a inovação. China e Índia são citados como exemplos de países que conseguiram transformar bolsões de tecnologia em ganhos mais generalizados para a economia.

Mas, quanto ao Brasil, o levantamento revela que o País não é líder em inovação nem mesmo na América Latina. O Chile está na 39.ª posição. Já o restante da região está bem abaixo. Na 58ª posição, a situação do Brasil não é cômoda. "Particularmente preocupante é a posição do Brasil no que se refere ao ambiente para negócios (127ª posição de 141 países analisados), a educação superior (115º lugar), condições de crédito e comércio (108º lugar)", alertou o estudo.

O levantamento ainda indica que o peso das importações no PIB brasileiro é o menor do mundo. Em 2010, as importações representavam apenas 12% do PIB, o menor índice entre 141 países avaliados. O Brasil também tem uma baixa taxa de pesquisas publicadas em revistas científicas em comparação a seu PIB. O Brasil tem uma produção menor que Fiji, Irã ou Zimbábue, levando em conta o tamanho das economias.

Exportação - Com apenas 14% de suas exportações com valor agregado de alta tecnologia, o Brasil ocupa a 49.ª posição entre os países com uma pauta de exportação mais avançada. Tunísia, Indonésia e Cazaquistão estão em melhor posição. Outra constatação é de que empresas raramente contribuem com a inovação no Brasil, com menos de 5% das patentes registradas. Hoje, 24% das patentes são registradas por universidades.

=========
PRA: E depois dizem que sou pessimista...
Mas tenho certeza de uma coisa: em matéria de malandragens políticas e de assalto organizado ao Estado por parte de certos partidos das causas justas ficamos entre os melhores do mundo...
Gostaria de ver as autoridades da área, a Agência Brasil (de notícias suspeitas) comentar esses resultados brilhantes...

Historia do pensamento economico - livro Sylvia Nasar

EH.NET BOOK REVIEW ------

Title: Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius

Published by EH.Net (July 2012)

Sylvia Nasar, Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011. xv + 559 pp. $35 (hardcover), ISBN: 978-0-684-87298-8.

Reviewed for EH.Net by Robert E. Prasch, Department of Economics, Middlebury College.

Sylvia Nasar, the author of A Beautiful Mind, has undertaken another ambitious project, this time a larger survey of economic thought. The result is a colorful and fast-moving narrative, brimming with fascinating characters and lively anecdotes. In a word, this book is a pleasure to read. Nasar’s experiences as a successful writer and professor of journalism enable her to bring a distinct talent for story-telling along with an outsider’s perspective to a field too often overlooked within and without the citadels of academe.

Though this book is a history of economic thought, it is far from comprehensive. Why certain figures or subjects are included and others neglected is, it must be said, something of a mystery. As far as I can tell, the answer seems to be how well they fit the larger project, which is to present an unabashedly Whig history of economics. However, that said, I was pleased that she elected to devote several pages to figures such as Henry Mayhew (pp. 18-22 and 28-32) and a full chapter to Beatrice Webb (Chapter 3). As Nasar correctly points out, each of them made substantial contributions to popular and elite discussions of poverty and what might be done to alleviate it. Unmentioned, but as important, was that they set an example of engaged empirical work that would lead to improved methods of data collection and analysis. Over time, these efforts would greatly improve our understanding of what we know, or think we know, about the actual economic condition of our fellow citizens. Again, Nasar is to be commended for this inclusion because, as readers of EH.Net are probably aware, books on the history of economic thought generally stress the development of economic theory to the neglect of other pursuits.

Now, that said, historians of economic thought will find much to criticize. As mentioned, this history is far from comprehensive. With its whiggish perspective providing a powerful filter, some important movements and writers are treated at length, others mentioned only briefly (and too-often inaccurately), and others neglected altogether. For example, the German Historicists are summarized and then dismissed as if they all merely echoed Gustav Schmoller on matters of economic theory and policy. Elsewhere, Nasar makes a passing reference to “so-called institutionalists” without suggesting why she wishes to downplay their role, although in another place Wesley C. Mitchell is referred to as a leader in business cycle research. John Commons makes no appearance whatsoever despite the prominence of the Wisconsin School in policy discussions throughout the Progressive Era. Another peculiar omission, since she so clearly appreciates the empirical studies conducted by Mayhew and Webb, is that the several prominent figures of the English Historical School fail to appear at all.

With regard to the subjects covered, the weakest link is her treatment of Karl Marx. She clearly dislikes him, which in itself is not objectionable, except insofar as it constitutes a barrier to her analysis. For example, the Labor Theory of Value is dismissed in a cavalier manner before any serious effort is made to present or understand it. She then suggests that things might have gone better if Marx had “engaged brilliant contemporaries such as John Stuart Mill” (p. 89). She appears not to notice that John Stuart Mill dutifully followed his mentor David Ricardo in adhering to the Labor Theory of Value. If Marx was confused on the theory of value, he was in excellent company.

The treatment of the post-World War II scene is also idiosyncratic. She begins with an extended and highly compelling treatment of Paul Samuelson. Few would doubt rationale for this emphasis. However, the discussion then moves on to a lengthy discussion of Joan Robinson followed by a similarly in-depth review of the life and work of Amartya Sen. Now, I have read and learned from the work of both of these prominent scholars. However, economists and historians of economic thought would likely agree that even a passing discussion of the past fifty years of economic analysis must include more than a brief reference to the work of John Hicks, Kenneth Arrow, the Chicago School, the rise and decline of Monetarism, and the Rational Expectations “revolution” of the 1970s and 1980s. Finally, the most mysterious lacuna of all, in light of Nasar’s wonderfully successful book on John Nash, may be the absence of any discussion of how Game Theory evolved from a fringe subject to its now-central place in contemporary microeconomics, Organizational Theory, and Industrial Organization.

But let us set these objections aside so that we may emphasize the most important aspect of this book. For too long the history of economic thought has not had an accessible, fun, and potentially popular book that we can recommend to our friends, colleagues, and students who are not members of our “guild.” While Nasar’s political commitments are very different, her entertaining style and captivating narrative suggests that her book has the potential to occupy the several niches once dominated by Robert Heilbroner’s The Worldly Philosophers. Should this occur, and her work contribute to a revival of interest in the history of economic thought, we will all be in debt to Professor Nasar.

Robert Prasch is the co-editor of Thorstein Veblen and the Revival of Free Market Capitalism (2007).

Copyright (c) 2012 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator (administrator@eh.net). Published by EH.Net (July 2012). All EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.

Yo te mato, tu me matas -- FIESP vs Argentina (Mercosul?: esquece...)

En Brasil acusan a Argentina de matar al Mercosur

La Federación de Industrias del Estado de Sao Paulo considera que Argentina puede llegar a ser el responsable del “fin del Mercosur”.

ABC Color, 03 DE JULIO DE 2012

/ ABC Color

A través de una entrevista otorgada a una radio en Buenos Aires y publicada igualmente en una de las principales revista de economía del vecino país, el presidente de la Federación de Industrias del Estado de Sao Paulo, Rubens Barbosa - considerado el gremio más poderoso de Brasil -, acusó al gobierno de Argentina “de herir a muerte el Mercosur”, alegando a la vez que en el bloque se busca más que nada un enfoque de política regional que comercial.

"En los últimos meses se adoptaron medidas que mataron al Mercosur. Argentina será responsable de la desaparición del Mercosur", dijo Rubens Barbosa a Radio Mitre de Buenos Aires.

Asimismo, el empresario insistió en que el Mercosur es un instrumento de política en donde el comercio no vale nada. “Lo que vimos el viernes fue el juicio del Paraguay y el ingreso de Venezuela, sin la negociación o el compromiso”, indicó a la revista brasileña Exame.com.

Igualmente, Barbosa denunció "la Argentina ha tomado medidas que van en contra del Mercosur, y Venezuela ahora acepta sin ningún tipo de negociaciones concretas", dijo.

La Federación de Industrias de São Paulo (Fiesp) es la asociación profesional más grande de la industria brasileña. Representa cerca de 130.000 industrias de diversos sectores de todos los tamaños y de diferentes cadenas de producción, distribuidos en más de 130 sindicatos.