BRASA: ajuda de pesquisa a jovens estudantes

The Brazilian Studies Association (BRASA) announces the 2013 Brazilian Initiation Scholarship Competition

The Brazilian Initiation Scholarship (BIS) is a key component of BRASA’s agenda to expand Brazilian Studies in the United States.  BRASA invites applications from graduate and undergraduate students for a one-time $1,500 travel scholarship to do exploratory research or language study in Brazil.  This scholarship targets aspiring Brazilianists with relatively little or no experience in Brazil.  It seeks to contribute to the student’s initial trip (for a period from six weeks to three months), to heighten the student’s interest in Brazil, and deepen his/her commitment to Brazilian studies in the United States.  Students are encouraged to combine this scholarship with other grants or awards. 

Eligibility:  Proposals for the BIS will be reviewed according to the following criteria:
Highest priority will be given to applicants who are outstanding college seniors, recent college graduates applying to graduate programs in Brazilian studies or in Latin American studies with the intent of focusing on Brazil, or new graduate students already focusing on Brazil.
 Students from all disciplines in the humanities and social sciences are eligible.  In exceptional cases, applications from the natural sciences will be given consideration (for example, someone in environmental sciences who is writing a dissertation on the Amazon or pollution in São Paulo and who plans to continue research on Brazil).
Preference will be given to those applicants who have little or no in-country experience in Brazil.  A student requesting funding to undertake an exploratory research trip should present evidence at the time of the application that he/she has achieved at least an intermediate level of competence in the Portuguese language sufficient to carry out the proposed research.
 An applicant seeking support to undertake language studies should present evidence that after returning to the US, he/she intends to continue studying Portuguese and plans to engage in research on Brazil.
Successful applicants may combine BIS with other grants, scholarships, or awards, as long as he/she specifies clearly how the funds are going to be spent (for example, the BRASA scholarship might be used to cover travel costs, while a grant from another source could be used for living expenses, etc.).

Application Process:  A complete application (partial applications will not be considered) will include the following documents: (NOTE THAT ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS EXCEPT FOR THE TRANSCRIPTS AND LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION MUST BE SUBMITTED AS ONE PDF OR MSWORD DOCUMENT).
The application cover page (download form);
(1) A two-page prospectus (double spaced, 12-point font);
(2) A two-page résumé or CV;
(3) A budget specifying how the $1500 will be spent;
(4) In the case of undergraduates or recent college graduates, a letter of intent to study Brazil in graduate school;
(5) If applying for exploratory research, include a two-page bibliography on the subject of study, and present evidence that the applicant has achieved at least an intermediate level of competence in Portuguese (competence can be demonstrated by a transcript or a letter from a university instructor of Portuguese);
(6) If applying for Portuguese language study, the name of the school should be specified;
(7) Proof of membership in BRASA;
(8) Two letters of recommendation from professors; and
(9) Copies of undergraduate and graduate transcripts.

The letters of recommendation and transcripts may be mailed directly to BRASA at the address below.  All other materials should be submitted together either as PDF or MSWord files in a single email to brasa-illinois@illinois.edu.

Evaluation Criteria and Selection Process:
In order to be considered for the scholarship, the two-page prospectus should:
(1) Clearly and coherently outline the project’s engagement with Brazil;
(2) Demonstrate as precisely as possible the feasibility of the proposed project (exploratory research or language study) and how it will contribute to the student’s academic development;
(3) Briefly discuss the role the work undertaken in Brazil will play in shaping the applicant’s future course of academic study (for instance, it could be the seed project for a larger grant application, provide the basis of a paper prepared for presentation at a BRASA conference, or serve as the foundation for future research on Brazil).

Report: Upon completion of the research experience in Brazil, recipients are required to file a two-page, double-spaced report with the BRASA Executive Director summarizing their activities and identifying relevant academic outcomes. In addition, a statement accounting for the expenditure of funds must be sent to the BRASA Executive Director. If the scholarship was used to study Portuguese, recipients should attach a certificate from the school where language studies were conducted. Following completion of studies in Brazil, BRASA strongly encourages recipients to participate in a subsequent BRASA congress in order to report on their activities. 

Deadline for application: November 15, 2012.

Awards will be announced by February 1, 2013

To submit a proposal and for all other correspondence regarding this award, contact:

BRASA
223 International Studies Building
910 South Fifth Street
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Champaign
Illinois 61820
217-333-8248 (tel)217-244-7333 (fax)
Email: brasa-illinois@illinois.edu

Cooperacao Sul-Sul = autoservidao voluntaria?

Abaixo uma información sobre o seminário "Cooperação Sul-Sul, Cooperação Triangular e Cooperação Descentralizada", organizado pelo Instituto de Estudos Políticos e Sociais da Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro e pelo Observatório de Política Sul-americana (OPSA), que será realizado no Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, no dia 9 de novembro de 2012.

Antes porém uma informação sobre o que eu penso desse tipo de auto-castração voluntária que praticam certos governos em nome de não se sabe bem qual causa, qual excelência, qual aproveitamento máximo das possibilidades de cooperação existentes no mundo.
Suponho que ninguém tenha nada contra a cooperação triangular, a quadrangular, a pentagonal, a sexagonal, a octogonal, a plurilateral e a multilateral, todas são possíveis e bem vindas. Suponho, igualmente, que a descentralizada pode ser útil em alguns casos, em outros se recomendaria algo mais centralizado, e quem sabe até unilateral e unidirecional. Ou seja, tudo é possível em matéria de cooperação, inclusive porque, como diz o velho ditado, a cavalo dado não se olham os dentes. Quem recebe, se não fica preguiçoso com os donativos generosos, pode aprender algo e ficar até agradecido, supondo-se que aquilo não vicie o cidadão.
Agora, francamente, cooperação sul-sul em nome do que, exatamente? O Sul é melhor do que o Norte, tem mais tecnologia, mais recursos, superou o Norte, tem soluções geniais para os nossos problemas? Se esse for o caso, não tenho nada contra, mas tenho uma pequena desconfiança que não seja bem o caso, e que uma cooperação com viseiras geográficas seja, além de canhestra, redutora e simplista, basicamente estúpida, se for considerada como a forma ideal de cooperação.
Dito isto, eis o que escrevi a respeito: 

2425. “A política externa das relações Sul-Sul: um novo determinismo geográfico?”, Brasília, 21 setembro 2012, 15 p. Texto guia para palestra de encerramento na Semana RI de Florianópolis, em 5/10/2012. Disponível no site pessoal (link: http://www.pralmeida.org/05DocsPRA/2425RelacoesSulSul.pdf). Informado no blog Diplomatizzando (link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com.br/2012/10/trabalhos-pra-relacoes-sul-sul-e.html).

E agora, o tal do seminário Sul-Sul e outras geringonças. Tem gente que gosta muito desse tipo de coisa. Eu só acho estranho...

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Uma Brasa intelectual: congressos dos estudiosos do Brasil

 Chamada para propostas de sede para os próximos Congressos da BRASA: BRASA XIII (2016) e BRASA XIV (2018)

O Comitê Executivo da BRASA está recebendo propostas de instituições para sediarem o XIII Congresso da BRASA em 2016 e pré-propostas para o XIV Congresso da BRASA em 2018. O prazo final para o envio de ambas as propostas é 15 de novembro de 2012. 

As propostas para 2016 e pré-propostas para 2018 devem conter os elementos descritos abaixo. No entanto, as propostas para sediar a BRASA XIII em 2016 deverão ser mais detalhadas do que as pré-propostas para BRASA XIV em 2018. Serão aceitas candidaturas para apenas um dos eventos ou para ambos. Salvo manifestação em contrário, as propostas não selecionadas para sediarem o BRASA XIII em 2016 serão automaticamente consideradas para o BRASA XIV em 2018. 

As propostas completas deverão incluir:

1 Introdução:

Na introdução, deverá constar um breve perfil da Instituição proponente e sua capacidade para sediar um Congresso de grande porte. No caso de instituições não brasileiras, deverá conter uma visão geral sobre a sua tradição de estudos sobre o Brasil (incluindo uma lista de professores, programas e cursos relevantes no tema).

2 Instalações

Indicar o local onde se realizarão as conferências e demais reuniões do Evento (ser o mais específico possível, indicando a quantidade de salas de reuniões, a capacidade de amplas salas de reuniões e salões de eventos, bem como a disponibilidade potencial desses espaços e o acesso aos meios de transportes).

3 Acomodações

Indicar as opções de alojamentos (hotéis, pousadas etc.) para os participantes da Conferência.

4 Os recursos da Instituição

Indicar os recursos disponíveis para o evento. Cartas de apoio de universidade ou faculdades, administradores indicando interesse da instituição e compromisso com a conferência serão particularmente úteis. Por favor, seja o mais específico possível ao nomear as pessoas da instituição que irão comprometer-se a planejar e executar a conferência, em parceria com os representantes da Brasa.

5 Datas propostas

Geralmente o Congresso da Brasa é realizado entre o final de julho e meados de setembro dos anos pares. BRASA irá trabalhar com a instituição selecionada para determinar as datas ideais. Indique o mais especificamente possível as datas pretendidas e da disponibilidade de salas de reuniões, acomodações e transporte durante essas datas. (Nota: não há necessidade de especificar as datas para Congresso de 2018; a Comissão estará em contato com as candidaturas a respeito).

6 Pessoa de Contato

A proposta deve conter com um breve perfil acadêmico e profissional do responsável da Instituição para o planejamento e execução do Congresso (experiência em planejamento e execução de grandes eventos acadêmicos será particularmente considerada).

Por favor, envie propostas concluídas em docx ou pdf para:

Bryan McCann: bm85@georgetown.edu 

Sonia Ranincheski: Ranincheski.s@gmail.com 

Desde já o Comitê Executivo agradece a todos os anfitriões potenciais. Entendemos que a realização de um grande Congresso é uma iniciativa importante e agradecemos o interesse em sediar o Congresso da BRASA.

Em caso de dúvidas, entrar em contato com Bryan McCann ou Sonia Ranincheski, via e-mail acima ou pelo telefone +1 (202) 687 3552.

Anuario nao-neoliberal da integracao alternativa na América Latina

Bem, o título já revela um pouco do conteúdo deste verdadeiro manual alternativo da suposta integração latino-americana, na qual o que menos importa parece ser o comércio, e sim os atos políticos anti-imperialistas (quando não antiamericanos) e declaradamente não neoliberais.
Os autores, típicos acadêmicos armados bem mais de conceitos do que de estudos empíricos, se preocupam em saber, e hesitam em encontrar o termo exato, se a nova integração deve ser chamada de pós-neoliberal, pós-hegemônica, ou pós-liberal.
Quando os acadêmicos se enredam nos conceitos, em lugar de se ocupar de uma análise objetiva dos dados da realidade, já se pode desconfiar que não haverá nada de muito útil, ou simplesmente realista, nesse alinhamento de grandes palavras -- hegemonia, dominação, capitalismo, concertação política e quejandos -- para, finalmente, desvendar muito pouco dos experimentos em curso, aliás considerados bem vindos, pelos autores, mesmo se eles distanciam o continente da integração produtiva, da rede de investimentos diretos estrangeiros, da liberalização dos fluxos financeiros, que constituem as marcas desse processo na Ásia-Pacífico, em contraste com os nítidos retrocessos observados no continente.
Enfim, pode ser que entre os leitores deste blog se encontrem true believers na maravilha da integração bolivariana, obviamente alternativa ao comercialismo neoliberal, por isso vai a recomendação recebida por email. 
Aproveito para informar que acabo de concluir a redação de um livro sobre a integração regional, que deve ser publicado até março de 2013, pela Editora Saraiva. Depois falarei mais sobre ele.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Estimad@, Tenemos el agrado de hacerles llegar el Anuario de la Integración Regional de América Latina y el Gran Caribe 2012 - El regionalismo “post–liberal” en América Latina y el Caribe: Nuevos actores, nuevos temas, nuevos desafíos, coordinado por Andrés Serbin, Laneydi Martínez y Haroldo Ramanzini Júnior. Prezados colegas, Temos o prazer de enviar o Anuario de la Integración Regional de América Latina y el Gran Caribe 2012 - O regionalismo pós - liberal na América Latina e no Caribe: novos atores, novos temas e novos desafios - organizado por Andrés Serbin, Laneydi Martinez e Haroldo Ramanzini Júnior. El mismo esta disponible en versión digital accediendo al siguiente link:  O mesmo está disponível em versão digital no seguinte link: http://www.cries.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/anuario2012-2.pdf

A Batalha de Stalingrado (1942) - J. Bradford DeLong

Conheço a obra deste professor, brilhante economista, mas não sabia que ele também era propenso a tratar de temas paralelos à economia.

Bela homenagem aos que morreram em Stalingrado, uma batalha entre dois totalitarismos.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Our Debt to Stalingrad

J. Bradford DeLong

25 October 2012

BERKELEY – We are not newly created, innocent, rational, and reasonable beings. We are not created fresh in an unmarked Eden under a new sun. We are, instead, the products of hundreds of millions of years of myopic evolution, and thousands of years of unwritten and then recorded history. Our past has built up layer upon layer of instincts, propensities, habits of thought, patterns of interaction, and material resources.

On top of this historical foundation, we build our civilization. Were it not for our history, our labor would not just be in vain; it would be impossible.

And there are the crimes of human history. The horrible crimes. The unbelievable crimes. Our history grips us like a nightmare, for the crimes of the past scar the present and induce yet more crimes in the future.

And there are also the efforts to stop and undo the effects of past crimes.

So it is appropriate this month to write not about economics, but about something else. Seventy-nine years ago, Germany went mad. There was delinquency. There was also history and bad luck. The criminals are almost all dead now. Their descendants and successors in Germany have done – and are doing – better than anyone could have expected at grappling with and mastering the nation’s unmasterable past.

Seventy years ago, 200,000 Soviet soldiers – overwhelmingly male and predominantly Russian – crossed the Volga River to the city of Stalingrad. As members of Vasily Chuikov’s 62nd Army, they grabbed hold of the nose of the Nazi army and did not let go. For five months, they fought. And perhaps 80% of them died in the ruins of the city. On October 15 – a typical day – Chuikov’s battle diary records that a radio message was received from the 416th Regiment at 12:20 PM: “Have been encircled, ammunition and water available, death before surrender!” At 4:35 PM, Lieutenant Colonel Ustinov called down the artillery on his own encircled command post.

But they held on.

And so, 70 years ago this November – on November 19 to be precise – the million-soldier reserve of the Red Army was transferred to General Nikolai Vatutin’s Southwestern Front, Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky’s Don Front, and Marshal Andrei Yeremenko’s Stalingrad Front. They went on to spring the trap of Operation Uranus, the code name for the planned encirclement and annihilation of the German Sixth Army and Fourth Panzer Army. They would fight, die, win, and thus destroy the Nazi hope of dominating Eurasia for even one more year – let alone of establishing Hitler’s 1,000-year Reich.

Together, these 1.2 million Red Army soldiers, the workers who armed them, and the peasants who fed them turned the Battle of Stalingrad into the fight that, of any battle in human history, has made the greatest positive difference for humanity.

The Allies probably would have eventually won World War II even had the Nazis conquered Stalingrad, redistributed their spearhead forces as mobile reserves, repelled the Red Army’s subsequent winter 1942 offensive, and seized the Caucasus oil fields, thus depriving the Red Army of 90% of its motor fuel. But any Allied victory would have required the large-scale use of nuclear weapons, and a death toll in Europe that would most likely have been twice the actual World War II death toll of perhaps 40 million.

May there never be another such battle. May we never need another one.

The soldiers of the Red Army, and the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union who armed and fed them, allowed their dictatorial masters to commit crimes – and committed crimes themselves. But these crimes fall short by an order of magnitude of the great service to humanity – and especially to western European humanity – that they gave in the rubble along the Volga River 70 years ago this fall.

We are the heirs to their accomplishments. We are their debtors. And we cannot repay what we owe to them. We can only remember it.

But how many NATO leaders or European Union presidents and prime ministers have ever taken the time to visit the battle site, and perhaps lay a wreath to those whose sacrifice saved their civilization?

J. Bradford DeLong is Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau for Economic Research. He was Deputy Assistant US Treasury Secretary during the Clinton Administration, where he was heavily involved in budget and trade negotiations. His role in designing the bailout of Mexico during the 1994 peso crisis placed him at the forefront of Latin America’s transformation into a region of open economies, and cemented his stature as a leading voice in economic-policy debates.

29 de Outubro de 1929: a quinta-feira mais negra da historia (pelo menos para quem tinha ações em Wall Street...)

ON THIS DAY

On This Day: October 29

The New York Times, October 29, 2012

On Oct. 29, 1929, stock prices collapsed on the New York Stock Exchange amid panic selling. Thousands of investors were wiped out.

Stocks Collapse In 16,410,030-share Day, But Rally At Close Cheers Brokers; Bankers Optimistic, To Continue Aid

---

---

CLOSING RALLY VIGOROUS

---

Leading Issues Regain From 4 to 14 Points in 15 Minutes

---

INVESTMENT TRUSTS BUY

---

Large Blocks Thrown on Market at Opening Start Third Break of Week.

---

BIG TRADERS HARDEST HIT

---

Bankers Believe Liquidation Now Has Run Its Course and Advise Purchases

---

RELATED HEADLINESLeaders See Fear Waning: Points to "Lifting Spells" in Trading as Sign of Buying ActivityOTHER HEADLINESGrundy For Curbing "Backward States" On The Tariff Bill:Veteran Republican Lobbyist Tells Senate Inquiry the West Needs "Silencing." Coalition Fighting Move To Kill Tariff:Will Try to Force Through Bill, While Reed Favors Ending Session Nov. 15. Kahn Refuses Post In Senate Campaign: Calls Choice Unwise:He Writes to Moses to Withhold His Name for Treasurer Due to "Divided Reception." Missing Airliner Brought in Safely U.S. Steel To Pay $1 Extra Dividend:American Can Votes the Same and Raises Annual Rate From $3 to $4 Reserve Board Finds Action Unnecessary:Six-Hour Session Brings No Change in the New York Rediscount Rate.

Stock prices virtually collapsed yesterday, swept downward with gigantic losses in the most disastrous trading day in the stock market's history. Billions of dollars in open market values were wiped out as prices crumbled under the pressure of liquidation of securities which had to be sold at any price.

There was an impressive rally just at the close, which brought many leading stocks back from 4 to 14 points from their lowest points of the day.

From every point of view, in the extent of losses sustained, in total turnover, in the number of speculators wiped out, the day was the most disastrous in Wall Street's history. Hysteria swept the country and stocks went overboard for just what they would bring at forced sale.

Efforts to estimate yesterday's market losses in dollars are futile because of the vast number of securities quoted over the counter and on out-of-town exchanges on which no calculations are possible. However, it was estimated that 880 issues, on the New York Stock Exchange, lost between $8,000,000,000 and $9,000,000,000 yesterday. Added to that loss is to be reckoned the depreciation on issues on the Curb Market, in the over the counter market and on other exchanges.

Two Extra Dividends Declared

There were two cheerful notes, however, which sounded through the pall of gloom which overhung the financial centres of the country. One was the brisk rally of stocks at the close, on tremendous buying by those who believe that prices have sunk too low. The other was that the liquidation has been so violent, as well as widespread, that many bankers, brokers and industrial leaders expressed the belief last night that it now has run its course.

A further note of optimism in the soundness of fundamentals was sounded by the directors of the United States Steel Corporation and the American Can Company, each of which declared an extra dividend of $1 a share at their late afternoon meetings.

Banking support, which would have been impressive and successful under ordinary circumstances, was swept violently aside, as block after block of stock, tremendous in proportions, deluged the market. Bid prices placed by bankers, industrial leaders and brokers trying to halt the decline were crashed through violently, their orders were filled, and quotations plunged downward in a day of disorganization, confusion and financial impotence.

Change Is Expected Today

That there will be a change today seemed likely from statements made last night by financial and business leaders. Organized support will be accorded to the market from the start, it is believed, but those who are staking their all on the country's leading securities are placing a great deal of confidence, too, in the expectation that there will be an overnight change in sentiment; that the counsel of cool heads will prevail and that the mob psychology which has been so largely responsible for the market's debacle will be broken.

The fact that the leading stocks were able to rally in the final fifteen minutes of trading yesterday was considered a good omen, especially as the weakest period of the day had developed just prior to that time and the minimum prices for the day had then been established. It was a quick run-up which followed the announcement that the American Can directors had declared an extra dividend of $1. The advances in leading stocks in this last fifteen minutes represented a measurable snapback from the lows. American Can gained 10; United States Steel common, 7 /2, General Electric, 12; New York Central, 14 1/2, Anaconda Copper, 9 1/2; Chrysler Motors 5 1/4; Montgomery Ward, 4 1/4 and Johns Manville, 8. Even with these recoveries the losses of these particular stocks, and practically all others, were staggering.

Yesterday's market crash was one which largely affected rich men, institutions, investment trusts and others who participate in the stock market on a broad and intelligent scale. It was not the margin traders who were caught in the rush to sell, but the rich men of the country who are able to swing blocks of 5,000, 10,000 up to 100,000 shares of high-priced stocks. They went overboard with no more consideration than the little trader who was swept out on the first day of the market's upheaval, whose prices, even at their lowest of last Thursday, now look high in comparison.

The market on the rampage is no respecter of persons. It washed fortune after fortune away yesterday and financially crippled thousands of individuals in all parts of the world. It was not until after the market had closed that the financial district began to realize that a good-sized rally had taken place and that there was a stopping place on the downgrade for good stocks.

Third Day of Collapse

The market has now passed through three days of collapse, and so violent has it been that most authorities believe that the end is not far away. It started last Thursday, when 12,800,000 shares were dealt in on the Exchange, and holders of stocks commenced to learn just what a decline in the market means. This was followed by a moderate rally on Friday and entirely normal conditions on Saturday, with fluctuations on a comparatively narrow scale and with the efforts of the leading bankers to stabilize the market evidently successful. But the storm broke anew on Monday, with prices slaughtered in every direction, to be followed by yesterday's tremendous trading of 16,410,030 shares.

Sentiment had been generally unsettled since the first of September. Market prices had then reached peak levels, and, try as they would, pool operators and other friends of the market could not get them higher. It was a gradual downward sag, gaining momentum as it went on, then to break out into an open market smash in which the good, the bad, and indifferent stocks went down alike. Thousands of traders were able to weather the first storm and answered their margin calls; thousands fell by the wayside Monday and again yesterday, unable to meet the demands of their brokers that their accounts be protected.

There was no quibbling at all between customer and broker yesterday. In any case where margin became thin a peremptory call went out. If there was no immediate answer the stock was sold out "at the market" for just what it would bring. Thousands, sold out on the decline and amid the confusion, found themselves in debt to their brokers last night.

Three Factors in Market

Three factors stood out most prominently last night after the market's close. They were: Wall Street has been able to weather the storm with but a single Curb failure, small in size, and no member of the New York Stock Exchange has announced himself unable to meet commitments.

The smashing decline has brought stocks down to a level where, in the opinion of leading bankers and industrialists, they are a buy on their merits and prospects, and brokers have so advised their customers.

The very violence of the liquidation, which has cleaned up many hundreds of sore spots which honeycombed the market, and the expected ability of the market to right itself, since millions of shares of stock have passed to strong hands from weak ones.

Bids Provided Where Needed

One of the factors which Wall Street failed to take into consideration throughout the entire debacle was that the banking consortium has no idea of putting stocks up or to save any individuals from loss, but that its sole purpose was to alleviate the wave of financial hysteria sweeping the country and provide bids, at some price, where needed. It was pointed out in many quarters that no broad liquidating movement in the stock market has ever been stopped by so-called good buying. This is helpful, of course, but it never stops an avalanche of liquidation, as was this one.

There is only one factor, it was pointed out, which can and always does stop a down swing--that is, the actual cessation of forced liquidation. It is usually the case, too, that when the last of the forced selling has been completed the stock market always faces a wide-open gap in which there are practically no offerings of securities at all. When that point is reached, buying springs up from everywhere and always accounts for a sharp, almost perpendicular recovery in the best stocks. The opinion was widely expressed in Wall Street last night that that point has been reached, or at least very nearly reached.

Huge Blocks Offered at Opening

The opening bell on the Stock Exchange released such a flood of selling as has never before been witnessed in this country. The failure of the market to rally consistently on the previous day, the tremendous shrinkage of open market values and the wave of hysteria which appeared to sweep the country brought an avalanche of stock to the market to be sold at whatever price it would bring.

From the very first quotation until thirty minutes after 10 o'clock it was evident that the day's market would be an unprecedented one. In that first thirty-minutes of trading stocks were poured out in 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 and 50,000 share blocks at tremendous sacrifices as compared with the previous closing. The declines ranged from a point or so to as much sa 29 1/2 points, and the reports of opening prices brought selling into the market in confused volume that has never before been equaled.

In this first half hour of trading on the Stock Exchange a total of 3,250,800 shares were dealt in. The volume of the first twenty-six blocks of stock dealt in at the opening totaled more than 630,000 shares.

There was simply no near-by demand for even the country's leading industrial and railroad shares, and many millions of dollars in values were lost in the first quotations tapped out. All considerations other than to get rid of the stock at any price were brushed aside.

Brokerage Offices Crowded

Wall Street was a street of vanished hopes, of curiously silent apprehension and of a sort of paralyzed hypnosis yesterday. Men and women crowded the brokerage offices, even those who have been long since wiped out, and followed the figures on the tape. Little groups gathered here and there to discuss the fall in prices in hushed and awed tones. They were participating in the making of financial history. It was the consensus of bankers and brokers alike that no such scenes ever again will be witnessed by this generation. To most of those who have been in the market it is all the more awe-inspiring because their financial history is limited to bull markets.

The machinery of the New York Stock Exchange and the Curb market were unable to handle the tremendous volume of trading which went over them. Early in the day they kept up well, because most of the trading was in big blocks, but as the day progressed the tickers fell further and further behind, and as on the previous big days of this week and last it was only by printing late quotations of stocks on the bond tickers and by the 10-minute flashes on stock prices put out by Dow, Jones & Co. and the Wall Street News Bureau that the financial district could get any idea of what was happening in the wild mob of brokers on the Exchange and the Curb.

Peaks Reached in September

The bull market, the most extensive in the history of the country, started in the Coolidge Administration and reached its height with a tremendous burst of speculation in the public utility issues, the flames of speculation being fed by mergers, new groupings, combinations and good earnings.

The highest prices were reached in early September. At that time the market had a quick break and an equally rapid recovery. Then started a slow sag. Two developments, not considered important at the time, served to start the ball rolling downhill. The first of these was the refusal of the Massachusetts Public Service Commission to permit the Boston Edison Company to split its shares; the second was the collapse of a pool in International Combustion Engineering shares on the Stock Exchange, an over-exploited industrial which had been pushed across 100 by a pool and which crashed when the corporation passed its dividend.

In the meanwhile, the Hatry failure abroad had diverted a tremendous volume of selling to the United States, and under these influences the market continued to sag until it literally crumpled of its own weight.

Protecionismo: o debate equivocado - Sandra Rios, Jose Tavares

Protecionismo - o debate equivocado

Sandra Polonio Rios, José Tavares de Araujo
O Estado de S.Paulo, 29 de outubro de 2012

Nas últimas semanas a questão sobre o aumento do protecionismo no Brasil tem ocupado espaço importante no debate nacional. Às acusações de que o País está recorrendo crescentemente a medidas de proteção, ultrapassando em alguns casos a linha da ilegalidade em relação a suas obrigações na Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC), o governo brasileiro reage argumentando que age no limite das normas multilaterais de comércio e que nada mais faz do que defender a indústria nacional das medidas protecionistas dos demais.
Em entrevista ao jornal Folha de S.Paulo do dia 23/10, o secretário executivo do Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio, Alessandro Teixeira, classificou de "ultrapassadas" as regras de defesa comercial da OMC e reagiu às acusações de protecionismo: "Jogamos dentro das regras do jogo. E, dentro das regras, jogamos para ganhar. Ponto". Um mês antes, o ministro Guido Mantega havia recorrido ao ranking de países mais protecionistas elaborado pelo Global Trade Alert (http://www.globaltradealert.org) para refutar a visão de que o Brasil é protecionista. O ranking colocava o Brasil em 9.o lugar na lista, atrás de Rússia, Argentina, Índia, Estados Unidos e China, entre outros.
Esse debate parece um tanto equivocado. Em primeiro lugar, porque não faz sentido contar e comparar medidas de caráter completamente diferentes implementadas por países com graus variados de abertura ao comércio. O Brasil já é a economia mais fechada do mundo. Em segundo lugar, mais importante que discutir se "jogamos dentro das regras do jogo" é avaliar se essas medidas são adequadas aos objetivos de crescimento e desenvolvimento da indústria nacional.
O Brasil vem recorrendo de forma mais intensa a medidas de proteção desde meados de 2010. O arsenal de instrumentos que vêm sendo utilizados é variado e inclui, entre outros, a elevação de tarifas de importação, medidas antidumping, medidas não tarifárias e o amplo recurso à exigência de conteúdo nacional para acesso preferencial a compras governamentais ou a incentivos fiscais e creditícios. Exemplo recente de medida protecionista que pode ter efeitos deletérios sobre a competitividade da indústria brasileira foi a elevação das tarifas de importação para 100 produtos, de acordo com a Resolução Camex de 28 de setembro (implementando a Decisão 39/11 do Mercosul).
A média das tarifas aplicadas aos 100 produtos incluídos na lista antes da Decisão era de 13,7%. Essa média foi elevada para 23,6% - um aumento de cerca de 10 pontos porcentuais. A composição da lista é surpreendente para quem está preocupado com questões de competitividade: com exceção das batatas, talheres e alguns tipos de papéis, os demais produtos da lista são insumos (químicos e siderúrgicos em sua maioria), partes e peças para produtos diversos e bens de capital. Não é provável que o aumento da proteção desses produtos contribua para a competitividade da indústria brasileira, principalmente dos produtos a jusante nas cadeias produtivas que empregam esses insumos, partes e peças ou bens de capital.

A preocupação aumenta quando se comparam as tarifas cobradas no Brasil com as de outros possíveis concorrentes nos mercados internacionais com produtos manufaturados brasileiros: na África do Sul, a média das tarifas desses 100 produtos é 5%; na China, 7,5%; na Coreia do Sul, 5,1%; na Índia, 8,5%; no México, 4,5%; e na Turquia, 3,7%.
Ora, sempre se pode argumentar que os impostos de importação dos insumos e partes e peças podem ser rebatidos, por meio do uso do drawback, se os produtos que os utilizam forem exportados. Portanto, a competitividade das exportações não seria prejudicada. Mas nem todas as empresas conseguem fazer uso desse instrumento e, se as vendas forem destinadas ao mercado doméstico, os impostos pagos sobre os insumos não serão rebatidos. Resultado: as medidas implementadas pelo governo em 28 de setembro irão exacerbar as desvantagens comparativas das indústrias produtoras de bens finais em relação às suas congêneres no resto do mundo.
A política de proteção faz parte de um estilo de política industrial que foi usado com relativo sucesso no Brasil durante a segunda metade do século passado, mas que não mais atende aos desafios que a indústria nacional enfrenta nos dias atuais, por uma razão simples: a natureza dos problemas vividos pelo País naquela época é radicalmente distinta daquela que vigora hoje.
O principal problema da indústria brasileira hoje em dia não é o de aumentar o conteúdo doméstico da produção, mas o de ser capaz de acompanhar o ritmo do progresso técnico internacional e se inserir competitivamente nas cadeias globais de valor. Na verdade, após dez anos de apreciação cambial, o Brasil continua sendo a economia mais fechada do mundo: em 2010, a parcela do PIB relativa a importações de bens e serviços foi de apenas 12%. Nada indica que, passados dois anos de uso mais intensivo de medidas voltadas a proteger a produção doméstica, estejamos indo na direção esperada: recuperação da indústria com maior produtividade e crescente inserção internacional. Enquanto isso, a muito mais promissora agenda do "custo Brasil" continua encalhada em Brasília.

* SÃO DIRETORES DO CENTRO DE ESTUDOS DE INTEGRAÇÃO E DESENVOLVIMENTO (CINDES)