Em 1914, Henry Ford decidiu pagar pelo menos 5 dolares por dia para cada trabalhador de suas usinas.
Das paginas do New York Times (5/01/1914)
This Day in History
[Ford] Gives $10,000,000 To 26,000 Employees
Ford to Run Automobile Plant 24 Hours Daily in Profit-Sharing Plan
MINIMUM WAGE $5 A DAY
No Employee to be Discharged Except for Unfaithfulness or Hopeless Inefficiency
Special to The New York Times
Detroit, Mich., Jan. 5. -- Henry Ford, head of the Ford Motor Company, announced today one of the most remarkable business moves of his entire remarkable career. In brief it is:
To give to the employees of the company $10,000,000 of the profits of the 1914 business, the payments to be made semi-monthly and added to the pay checks.
To run the factory continuously instead of only eighteen hours a day, giving employment to several thousand more men by employing three shifts of eight hours each, instead of only two nine-hour shifts, as at present.
To establish a minimum wage scale of $5 per day. Even the boy who sweeps up the floors will get that much.
Before any man in any department of the company who does not seem to be doing good work shall be discharged, an opportunity will be given to him to try to make good in every other department. No man shall be discharged except for proved unfaithfulness or irremediable inefficiency.
The Ford Company's financial statement of Sept. 20, 1912, showed assets of $20,815,785.63, and surplus of $14,745,095.57. One year later it showed assets of $35,033,919.86 and surplus of $28,124,173.68. Dividends paid out during the year, it is understood, aggregated $10,000,000. The indicated profits for the year, therefore, were about $37,597,312. The company's capital stock authorized and outstanding, is $2,000,000. There is no bond issue.
About 10 per cent of the employees, boys and women, will not be affected by the profit sharing, but all will have the benefit of the $5 minimum wage. Those among them who are supporting families, however, will have a share similar to the men of more than 22 years of age.
In all, about 26,000 employees will be affected. Fifteen thousand now are at work in the Detroit factories. Four thousand more will be added by the institution of the eight-hour shift. The other seven thousand employees are scattered all over the world, in the Ford branches. They will share the same as the Detroit employees.
Personal statements were made by Henry Ford and James Couzens, Treasurer of the company, regarding the move.
"It is our belief," said Mr. Couzens, "that social justice begins at home. We want those who have helped us to produce this great institution and are helping to maintain it to share our prosperity. We want them to have present profits and future prospects. Thrift and good service and sobriety, all will be enforced and recognized.
"Believing as we do, that a division of our earnings between capital and labor is unequal, we have sought a plan of relief suitable for our business. We do not feel sure that it is the best, but we have felt impelled to make a start, and make it now. We do not agree with those employers who declare, as did a recent writer in a magazine in excusing himself for not practicing what he preached, that 'movement toward the bettering of society must be universal.' We think that one concern can make a start and create an example for other employers. That is our chief object."
"If we are obliged," said Mr. Ford, "to lay men off for want of sufficient work at any season we purpose to so plan our year's work that the lay-off shall be in the harvest time, July, August, and September, not in the Winter. We hope in such case to induce our men to respond to the calls of the farmers for harvest hands, and not to lie idle and dissipate their savings. We shall make it our business to get in touch with the farmers and to induce our employees to answer calls for harvest help.
"No man will be discharged if we can help it, except for unfaithfulness or inefficiency. No foreman in the Ford Company has the power to discharge a man. He may send him out of his department if he does not make good. The man is then sent to our 'clearing house,' covering all the departments, and is tried repeatedly in other work, until we find the job he is suited for, provided he is honestly trying to render good service."
sábado, 5 de janeiro de 2013
The last Jared Diamond: aprender com sociedades Tradicionais?
Let Your Kids Play With Matches
Modern society is safe and supporting, but we could learn a thing or two from traditional cultures
Book Review Article
By STEPHEN BUDIANSKY
The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2013
The World Until Yesterday
By Jared Diamond
Viking, 498 pages, $36
It must say something about the deep human longing for big ideas that explain everything that books like Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (1997) or Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat" (2005) do so well. Nobody could possibly read them for literary pleasure: Books of this sort are invariably ponderous, plodding, even deathly dull, their authors attempting to leaven the proceedings with gimmicks (lists, cutesy acronyms) and hand-holding authorial intrusions ("let me explain . . .") as a substitute for good writing. They sell like hot cakes.
"Guns, Germs, and Steel" transformed Mr. Diamond from an obscure ornithologist and physiologist (his original specialty was the gall bladder) into a star among "public intellectuals." That book's basic premise—which earned Mr. Diamond the enmity of academics in both the humanities and social sciences and from both ends of the political spectrum—was that the global domination of Western societies was mostly geographic and environmental happenstance. Favorable climates and soils and the availability of animal and plant species suitable for domestication largely determined everything that has occurred in the 11,000 years since the rise of agriculture: Food surpluses due to more efficient cultivation led to higher population densities, political centralization and advanced technology.
Mr. Diamond's theory had the virtue of offering a neat explanation for cultural differences that did not rely upon any suggestion of inherent racial superiority of one group over another. It had the vice of embracing an environmentally deterministic idea of cultural evolution that most anthropologists view as naïve or ridiculous, and of ignoring altogether the role of human agency. Leftist social historians pointed out that Mr. Diamond completely swept out of the picture moral choices such as colonialism and enslavement that kept many parts of the world in subjugation for centuries. Conservatives complained that the author discounted the importance of Western moral and political philosophy, particularly the concepts of individual liberty, property rights and free markets, in making scientific and material progress possible.
In "Collapse" (2005), Mr. Diamond extended the idea of environment as a cultural driving force to explain the sudden demise of civilizations, such as the Anasazi of the American Southwest and the Easter Islanders, and sweepingly argued that their fate will be ours unless we reduce human population and resource consumption. In "The World Until Yesterday," however, Mr. Diamond backs away some from the search for pat, all-encompassing answers. The book is a much more personal and anecdotal account that draws heavily on his own experiences among the primitive tribes of New Guinea with whom he has lived for extended periods since 1964 while carrying out field work on the ecology and evolution of birds.
Although his stated purpose, as the book's subtitle declares, is to find out "what can we learn from traditional societies?," Mr. Diamond is appropriately cautious about romanticizing the primitive world or suggesting that traditional customs always reflect innate environmental, medicinal or spiritual wisdom. One of the most admirable qualities of this book is, in fact, a refreshing skepticism toward simple explanations. Mr. Diamond notes early on that, while some traditional beliefs and practices may reflect effective adaptations to environmental conditions and social needs, others are more about maintaining internal power hierarchies, while still others have no sane reason for existing at all: They are just unique products of the infinite vagaries of human imagination and the quirks of history.
To take one particularly bizarre and grisly example, up until 1957 the Kaulong people—one of a dozen similar tribes living in identical environmental circumstances on the island of New Britain, just east of New Guinea—practiced the ritual strangulation of widows. None of the adjacent tribes did, and, as Mr. Diamond observes, there is no evidence that "Kaulong widow strangling was in any way beneficial to Kaulong society or to the long-term (posthumous) genetic interests of the strangled widow or her relatives." It was just one of those things, yet it was so firmly ingrained as a custom that the widows themselves perpetuated it, insisting that a male relative strangle them when their husbands died, even taunting or mocking his manhood if he quailed at the task.
Mr. Diamond offers some intriguing evidence to suggest that traditional societies may have a thing or two to teach us about raising children, however. He notes that in most hunter-gatherer cultures children are nursed on demand until age 3 or 4, sleep with their parents, are comforted instantly when they cry, and play together in multi-age play groups. They also are rarely punished and allowed far more freedom than we are generally comfortable with. Among the !Kung and Aka pygmies of Africa, children are never physically disciplined, on the grounds that they "have no wits and are not responsible for their actions," Mr. Diamond writes. "Instead, !Kung and Aka children are permitted to slap and insult their parents." In one tribe in the New Guinea Highlands, Mr. Diamond noticed that most of the adults had serious burn scars. It turned out these were mostly acquired in infancy: The adults made it a practice never to interfere with a baby, to the point of not preventing them playing around or touching a fire. (Other groups let small children play with sharp knives.)
Westerners who have lived with these small-scale societies are "struck by the precocious development of social skills in their children"; they are responsible, articulate and competent, and the "adolescent identity crises that plague American teenagers aren't an issue." But Mr. Diamond admits that all these impressions "are just impressions," hard to measure and prove, and his ultimate verdict is nuanced: "At a minimum . . . one can say that hunter-gatherer rearing practices that seem so foreign to us aren't disastrous, and they don't produce societies of obvious sociopaths."
One advantage of Mr. Diamond's anecdotal approach in "The World Until Yesterday" is that the details can be interesting even when they do not offer any larger lessons. This is especially the case when it comes to the many bizarre and varied superstitious traditions he describes, such as elaborate food taboos (eating kangaroo tail, according to one Aborigine tribe, causes premature baldness), and to some of the more hair-raising practices that apparently were the norm in the primitive world. Infanticide, he notes, is a not uncommon practice in traditional societies, a way of disposing of deformed, sickly or simply excess children that would be an unsupportable burden on their parents and the group. In hunter-gatherer societies, the overriding fact of life is a limited food supply, and a woman who is still nursing an older child may abandon or deliberately neglect a newborn so that the older will live; likewise she may abandon one of two twins. Other primitive tribes similarly do away with the old and sick; this is sometimes done by leaving them behind when shifting camp, sometimes by more active means—like encouraging them to jump off cliffs.
The problem with combining a sort-of-anecdotal memoir with a sort-of-big-idea book, however, is that Mr. Diamond insists on trying to milk significance out of everything that happens to him, with considerably varying degrees of success. Although the book has been nominally organized around a series of topics (war, religion, children, danger and accidents, health, language), it really is at heart a ramble. That could be fine, too, except that Mr. Diamond suffers from an all-too-familiar syndrome, albeit one that normally afflicts academic scientists only after they have won a Nobel Prize; he is convinced that everything he has done and every thought that has occurred to him not only is interesting but contains a valuable insight worth sharing with the world. (This includes Mr. Diamond's experience of having recurrent diarrhea in the jungle, from which he draws a considerably less-than-profound conclusion regarding the importance of personal hygiene.)
It also results in much unevenness of coverage. He expends dozens of pages belaboring the utterly obvious—the Western diet has too many calories and leads to high rates of diabetes—while inexplicably devoting little more than a sentence to the entire subject of sex, courtship, love and marriage, offering the single observation that, in most traditional societies, "willing sex partners are almost constantly available." I am sure I am not the only reader who might have been interested in hearing a little more about that.
People who write in order to write a good book, as opposed to those who write to impart their great wisdom, know that the first rule is that most of one's thoughts are not even worth writing down, and a good many that do get written down deserve to be ditched before anyone else sees them. Mr. Diamond's prose, which shows little evidence of ever having been subjected to such discipline, is at times almost comically inept. He frequently sounds like a caricature of a particularly tedious professor, pausing every few paragraphs to interject, "Now, let's consider," "Let's begin by," "Before answering this question," "In the preceding section we discussed," "Having thus addressed the question . . . ." In other places he sounds like a tedious professor lecturing to morons: "There are differences among people of the same age."
The sense of having stumbled into a middle-school textbook is reinforced by the gratuitous inclusion of numerous clunky color photos depicting the obvious, such as a fat American eating a box of fried chicken to illustrate our unhealthy modern diet. He spends pages on didactic definitions of terms: "war," "religion," "tribe." He describes, in mind-numbingly unnecessary detail, the physical appearance and technological amenities of a modern airport in New Guinea (ATM, baggage conveyor belt, X-ray scanners) to make the point that a modern airport in New Guinea now looks the same as a modern airport in the rest of the world. I think we get it.
Some of the "lessons" Mr. Diamond draws, moreover, border on the fatuous, or at least strained. Raise our children bilingually; respect the elderly; have stimulating dinnertime conversation instead of watching TV or playing videogames. "Diet and eating habits are an area in which there is a lot that we can do as individuals to help ourselves," he informs us. No, really? Do we need to read 500 pages about primitive societies to reach such cookie-cutter self-help prescriptions?
But when Mr. Diamond gets done trying to distill everything into a few talking points suitable for a publicity release, he ends with more interesting and subtle observations. I was particularly struck by what the New Guineans themselves had to say about the benefits of having entered the modern world in the decades since their first contact with Westerners in 1931. While they valued much of the technological convenience of the Western lifestyle—matches, clothes, soft beds and especially not having to worry constantly about having enough to eat—it was the non-material benefits that loomed even larger, above all the end of tribal warfare.
"Life was better since the government had come," one Western anthropologist was told by members of the Auyuna tribe, since a man "could leave his house in the morning to urinate without fear of being shot" by an arrow from a hostile neighboring tribesman. In 1931, Mr. Diamond notes, a New Guinea highlander living a few dozen miles from the coast would never have seen the ocean in his lifetime: The idea of traveling even 10 miles from his village "without being killed by an unknown stranger . . . would have been unthinkable."
And one New Guinean woman told Mr. Diamond that what she valued most of all about life in the U.S. was its "anonymity," the freedom to be alone, to have privacy, "and not to have one's every action scrutinized and discussed." As Mr. Diamond insightfully notes, this is simultaneously one of the greatest disadvantages of the modern world, the loneliness, alienation and tension of constantly being among strangers. One wishes that the author's willingness to confront complexity and avoid simple answers had informed more of this disappointingly uneven book.
—Mr. Budiansky's latest book is "Blackett's War: The Men Who Defeated the Nazi U-boats and
Brought Science to the Art of Warfare," forthcoming from Knopf.
A version of this article appeared January 5, 2013, on page C5 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Let Your Kids Play With Matches.
Modern society is safe and supporting, but we could learn a thing or two from traditional cultures
Book Review Article
By STEPHEN BUDIANSKY
The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2013
The World Until Yesterday
By Jared Diamond
Viking, 498 pages, $36
It must say something about the deep human longing for big ideas that explain everything that books like Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (1997) or Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat" (2005) do so well. Nobody could possibly read them for literary pleasure: Books of this sort are invariably ponderous, plodding, even deathly dull, their authors attempting to leaven the proceedings with gimmicks (lists, cutesy acronyms) and hand-holding authorial intrusions ("let me explain . . .") as a substitute for good writing. They sell like hot cakes.
"Guns, Germs, and Steel" transformed Mr. Diamond from an obscure ornithologist and physiologist (his original specialty was the gall bladder) into a star among "public intellectuals." That book's basic premise—which earned Mr. Diamond the enmity of academics in both the humanities and social sciences and from both ends of the political spectrum—was that the global domination of Western societies was mostly geographic and environmental happenstance. Favorable climates and soils and the availability of animal and plant species suitable for domestication largely determined everything that has occurred in the 11,000 years since the rise of agriculture: Food surpluses due to more efficient cultivation led to higher population densities, political centralization and advanced technology.
Mr. Diamond's theory had the virtue of offering a neat explanation for cultural differences that did not rely upon any suggestion of inherent racial superiority of one group over another. It had the vice of embracing an environmentally deterministic idea of cultural evolution that most anthropologists view as naïve or ridiculous, and of ignoring altogether the role of human agency. Leftist social historians pointed out that Mr. Diamond completely swept out of the picture moral choices such as colonialism and enslavement that kept many parts of the world in subjugation for centuries. Conservatives complained that the author discounted the importance of Western moral and political philosophy, particularly the concepts of individual liberty, property rights and free markets, in making scientific and material progress possible.
In "Collapse" (2005), Mr. Diamond extended the idea of environment as a cultural driving force to explain the sudden demise of civilizations, such as the Anasazi of the American Southwest and the Easter Islanders, and sweepingly argued that their fate will be ours unless we reduce human population and resource consumption. In "The World Until Yesterday," however, Mr. Diamond backs away some from the search for pat, all-encompassing answers. The book is a much more personal and anecdotal account that draws heavily on his own experiences among the primitive tribes of New Guinea with whom he has lived for extended periods since 1964 while carrying out field work on the ecology and evolution of birds.
Although his stated purpose, as the book's subtitle declares, is to find out "what can we learn from traditional societies?," Mr. Diamond is appropriately cautious about romanticizing the primitive world or suggesting that traditional customs always reflect innate environmental, medicinal or spiritual wisdom. One of the most admirable qualities of this book is, in fact, a refreshing skepticism toward simple explanations. Mr. Diamond notes early on that, while some traditional beliefs and practices may reflect effective adaptations to environmental conditions and social needs, others are more about maintaining internal power hierarchies, while still others have no sane reason for existing at all: They are just unique products of the infinite vagaries of human imagination and the quirks of history.
To take one particularly bizarre and grisly example, up until 1957 the Kaulong people—one of a dozen similar tribes living in identical environmental circumstances on the island of New Britain, just east of New Guinea—practiced the ritual strangulation of widows. None of the adjacent tribes did, and, as Mr. Diamond observes, there is no evidence that "Kaulong widow strangling was in any way beneficial to Kaulong society or to the long-term (posthumous) genetic interests of the strangled widow or her relatives." It was just one of those things, yet it was so firmly ingrained as a custom that the widows themselves perpetuated it, insisting that a male relative strangle them when their husbands died, even taunting or mocking his manhood if he quailed at the task.
Mr. Diamond offers some intriguing evidence to suggest that traditional societies may have a thing or two to teach us about raising children, however. He notes that in most hunter-gatherer cultures children are nursed on demand until age 3 or 4, sleep with their parents, are comforted instantly when they cry, and play together in multi-age play groups. They also are rarely punished and allowed far more freedom than we are generally comfortable with. Among the !Kung and Aka pygmies of Africa, children are never physically disciplined, on the grounds that they "have no wits and are not responsible for their actions," Mr. Diamond writes. "Instead, !Kung and Aka children are permitted to slap and insult their parents." In one tribe in the New Guinea Highlands, Mr. Diamond noticed that most of the adults had serious burn scars. It turned out these were mostly acquired in infancy: The adults made it a practice never to interfere with a baby, to the point of not preventing them playing around or touching a fire. (Other groups let small children play with sharp knives.)
Westerners who have lived with these small-scale societies are "struck by the precocious development of social skills in their children"; they are responsible, articulate and competent, and the "adolescent identity crises that plague American teenagers aren't an issue." But Mr. Diamond admits that all these impressions "are just impressions," hard to measure and prove, and his ultimate verdict is nuanced: "At a minimum . . . one can say that hunter-gatherer rearing practices that seem so foreign to us aren't disastrous, and they don't produce societies of obvious sociopaths."
One advantage of Mr. Diamond's anecdotal approach in "The World Until Yesterday" is that the details can be interesting even when they do not offer any larger lessons. This is especially the case when it comes to the many bizarre and varied superstitious traditions he describes, such as elaborate food taboos (eating kangaroo tail, according to one Aborigine tribe, causes premature baldness), and to some of the more hair-raising practices that apparently were the norm in the primitive world. Infanticide, he notes, is a not uncommon practice in traditional societies, a way of disposing of deformed, sickly or simply excess children that would be an unsupportable burden on their parents and the group. In hunter-gatherer societies, the overriding fact of life is a limited food supply, and a woman who is still nursing an older child may abandon or deliberately neglect a newborn so that the older will live; likewise she may abandon one of two twins. Other primitive tribes similarly do away with the old and sick; this is sometimes done by leaving them behind when shifting camp, sometimes by more active means—like encouraging them to jump off cliffs.
The problem with combining a sort-of-anecdotal memoir with a sort-of-big-idea book, however, is that Mr. Diamond insists on trying to milk significance out of everything that happens to him, with considerably varying degrees of success. Although the book has been nominally organized around a series of topics (war, religion, children, danger and accidents, health, language), it really is at heart a ramble. That could be fine, too, except that Mr. Diamond suffers from an all-too-familiar syndrome, albeit one that normally afflicts academic scientists only after they have won a Nobel Prize; he is convinced that everything he has done and every thought that has occurred to him not only is interesting but contains a valuable insight worth sharing with the world. (This includes Mr. Diamond's experience of having recurrent diarrhea in the jungle, from which he draws a considerably less-than-profound conclusion regarding the importance of personal hygiene.)
It also results in much unevenness of coverage. He expends dozens of pages belaboring the utterly obvious—the Western diet has too many calories and leads to high rates of diabetes—while inexplicably devoting little more than a sentence to the entire subject of sex, courtship, love and marriage, offering the single observation that, in most traditional societies, "willing sex partners are almost constantly available." I am sure I am not the only reader who might have been interested in hearing a little more about that.
People who write in order to write a good book, as opposed to those who write to impart their great wisdom, know that the first rule is that most of one's thoughts are not even worth writing down, and a good many that do get written down deserve to be ditched before anyone else sees them. Mr. Diamond's prose, which shows little evidence of ever having been subjected to such discipline, is at times almost comically inept. He frequently sounds like a caricature of a particularly tedious professor, pausing every few paragraphs to interject, "Now, let's consider," "Let's begin by," "Before answering this question," "In the preceding section we discussed," "Having thus addressed the question . . . ." In other places he sounds like a tedious professor lecturing to morons: "There are differences among people of the same age."
The sense of having stumbled into a middle-school textbook is reinforced by the gratuitous inclusion of numerous clunky color photos depicting the obvious, such as a fat American eating a box of fried chicken to illustrate our unhealthy modern diet. He spends pages on didactic definitions of terms: "war," "religion," "tribe." He describes, in mind-numbingly unnecessary detail, the physical appearance and technological amenities of a modern airport in New Guinea (ATM, baggage conveyor belt, X-ray scanners) to make the point that a modern airport in New Guinea now looks the same as a modern airport in the rest of the world. I think we get it.
Some of the "lessons" Mr. Diamond draws, moreover, border on the fatuous, or at least strained. Raise our children bilingually; respect the elderly; have stimulating dinnertime conversation instead of watching TV or playing videogames. "Diet and eating habits are an area in which there is a lot that we can do as individuals to help ourselves," he informs us. No, really? Do we need to read 500 pages about primitive societies to reach such cookie-cutter self-help prescriptions?
But when Mr. Diamond gets done trying to distill everything into a few talking points suitable for a publicity release, he ends with more interesting and subtle observations. I was particularly struck by what the New Guineans themselves had to say about the benefits of having entered the modern world in the decades since their first contact with Westerners in 1931. While they valued much of the technological convenience of the Western lifestyle—matches, clothes, soft beds and especially not having to worry constantly about having enough to eat—it was the non-material benefits that loomed even larger, above all the end of tribal warfare.
"Life was better since the government had come," one Western anthropologist was told by members of the Auyuna tribe, since a man "could leave his house in the morning to urinate without fear of being shot" by an arrow from a hostile neighboring tribesman. In 1931, Mr. Diamond notes, a New Guinea highlander living a few dozen miles from the coast would never have seen the ocean in his lifetime: The idea of traveling even 10 miles from his village "without being killed by an unknown stranger . . . would have been unthinkable."
And one New Guinean woman told Mr. Diamond that what she valued most of all about life in the U.S. was its "anonymity," the freedom to be alone, to have privacy, "and not to have one's every action scrutinized and discussed." As Mr. Diamond insightfully notes, this is simultaneously one of the greatest disadvantages of the modern world, the loneliness, alienation and tension of constantly being among strangers. One wishes that the author's willingness to confront complexity and avoid simple answers had informed more of this disappointingly uneven book.
—Mr. Budiansky's latest book is "Blackett's War: The Men Who Defeated the Nazi U-boats and
Brought Science to the Art of Warfare," forthcoming from Knopf.
A version of this article appeared January 5, 2013, on page C5 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Let Your Kids Play With Matches.
Mudanca climatica para Al Gore: 70 milhoes por quase nada... - The Wall Street Journal
Primeiro a notícia, resumida:
Al Gore stands to gain about $70 million after selling Current TV to al-Jazeera
Al Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his fight against global warming, may gross about $70 million from the sale of his Current TV network to al-Jazeera, the cable channel funded in part by oil-rich Qatar.
Agora o artigo de opinião no WSJ:
Al Gore Is Good at Rent-Seeking (and Microsoft Isn't)
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2013
Current TV may not have been a success, but the ex-vice president's style of entrepreneurship is in vogue.
As far as we can tell, Al Gore has managed to amass a Romneyesque fortune without ever satisfying a customer. The closest thing to an exception may be his board membership at Apple, where Mr. Gore earned his keep by leading the board inquest that exonerated Steve Jobs of any options-backdating peccadilloes. Doing so was unquestionably a service to Apple shareholders.
But, otherwise, his environmental investments have prospered thanks to government handouts and mandates. His Current TV, in the process of being sold to Al-Jazeera, attracted a minuscule audience in its seven-year existence. It averaged just 42,000 viewers per evening recently. Yet the payday coming to Mr. Gore will be somewhat greater than zero—$70 million to $100 million, depending on which estimate you prefer.
We never subscribed to the theory regarding success in life that "It's not what you know but who you know." We may have to rethink.
What Current had going for it was Mr. Gore, who would drop in on media moguls and explain why it was in their political interest to put Current on their networks and dun subscribers five or 10 cents a month for a channel they never watch. Saying no just wasn't worth it to companies that must run a daily gauntlet of Democratic regulators in Washington. Not to oblige Mr. Gore would be to face, at every congressional hearing, the likelihood of some legislator lambasting them for "censoring" a progressive voice.
So the industry became habituated to transferring $100 million a year in what might otherwise be its own profits to owners of a cable channel nobody watched. These carriage agreements were Current TV's sole valuable assets. And the fact that nobody watched was probably not unrelated. If you're not pleasing the viewer, you're pleasing somebody else—usually in a way that makes for dreary programming. Living on the sufferance of cable moguls certainly didn't help Current put on rollicking liberal TV in the manner of MSNBC, which justifies its existence by actually attracting viewers.
But all gravy trains must come to an end: In a world of Netflix and cord-cutting, an extra nickel or dime is no longer so easily slipped past cable subscribers. Time Warner Cable was the first to bid good riddance, dropping the channel from its lineup the moment the sale was announced. Mr. Gore is clearly getting out just in time, though not before extracting one last political rent in return for using his famous name to help Al-Jazeera expand in a skeptical U.S. media marketplace.
Don't look for us, however, to milk the irony of Mr. Gore, warrior against climate change, pocketing a fortune from Mideast petrocrats. Mr. Gore has been in cash-in mode for a while. What's more, his style of entrepreneurship is the rising thing in our world, so respect must be paid.
Which brings us to this week's other news: Microsoft still tries to make money by selling consumers products they want, though it has launched some stinkers in this regard—the "Kin" cellphone line comes to mind. But its latest stinker was more up Mr. Gore's alley: a multimillion-dollar investment in trying to foment a government antitrust crackdown on Google .
That effort went conspicuously bust Thursday when the Federal Trade Commission let Google go with token remonstrances about its business practices.
Given the elastic principles of antitrust, there was nothing terribly far-fetched about Microsoft's effort to frame Google as a public utility that must be closely regulated. Many stranger things have passed muster in the intellectual cult of trustbusting. Where Microsoft went wrong was in failing to orchestrate the multiple points of pressure to convince five commissioners of the FTC that their own interests would be served by bringing a case.
If you think these things don't matter as much as the alleged merits of a case, think again. Recall the long drum roll of societal vilification that preceded the Justice Department's cautious decision to file a case against Microsoft. As FTC chief Jon Liebowitz acknowledged this week, antitrust agencies live to bring "big cases." The FTC staff, whose revolving-door career interests would be enhanced by a Google prosecution, was an easy sell. Less so the agency's political appointees who must decide yea or nay. The media wasn't clamoring for a Google crackdown. Congress was less than enthusiastic. The Obama White House, known to be close to Google, was disturbingly mute.
Antitrust is supposed to be entirely about clinical economics but never is. FDR's antitrust chief Thurman Arnold once said that antitrust was a collective squeal of resentment against businesses that annoy us with their success. Google hasn't been sufficiently annoying.
Notice, by the way, that the astute Arnold went on to found Arnold & Porter, one of the great Beltway law firms—and as much a model in its time of Beltway influence-peddling as Al Gore is today.
A version of this article appeared January 5, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Al Gore Is Good at Rent-Seeking (and Microsoft Isn't).
Al Gore stands to gain about $70 million after selling Current TV to al-Jazeera
Al Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his fight against global warming, may gross about $70 million from the sale of his Current TV network to al-Jazeera, the cable channel funded in part by oil-rich Qatar.
Agora o artigo de opinião no WSJ:
Al Gore Is Good at Rent-Seeking (and Microsoft Isn't)
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2013
Current TV may not have been a success, but the ex-vice president's style of entrepreneurship is in vogue.
As far as we can tell, Al Gore has managed to amass a Romneyesque fortune without ever satisfying a customer. The closest thing to an exception may be his board membership at Apple, where Mr. Gore earned his keep by leading the board inquest that exonerated Steve Jobs of any options-backdating peccadilloes. Doing so was unquestionably a service to Apple shareholders.
But, otherwise, his environmental investments have prospered thanks to government handouts and mandates. His Current TV, in the process of being sold to Al-Jazeera, attracted a minuscule audience in its seven-year existence. It averaged just 42,000 viewers per evening recently. Yet the payday coming to Mr. Gore will be somewhat greater than zero—$70 million to $100 million, depending on which estimate you prefer.
We never subscribed to the theory regarding success in life that "It's not what you know but who you know." We may have to rethink.
What Current had going for it was Mr. Gore, who would drop in on media moguls and explain why it was in their political interest to put Current on their networks and dun subscribers five or 10 cents a month for a channel they never watch. Saying no just wasn't worth it to companies that must run a daily gauntlet of Democratic regulators in Washington. Not to oblige Mr. Gore would be to face, at every congressional hearing, the likelihood of some legislator lambasting them for "censoring" a progressive voice.
So the industry became habituated to transferring $100 million a year in what might otherwise be its own profits to owners of a cable channel nobody watched. These carriage agreements were Current TV's sole valuable assets. And the fact that nobody watched was probably not unrelated. If you're not pleasing the viewer, you're pleasing somebody else—usually in a way that makes for dreary programming. Living on the sufferance of cable moguls certainly didn't help Current put on rollicking liberal TV in the manner of MSNBC, which justifies its existence by actually attracting viewers.
But all gravy trains must come to an end: In a world of Netflix and cord-cutting, an extra nickel or dime is no longer so easily slipped past cable subscribers. Time Warner Cable was the first to bid good riddance, dropping the channel from its lineup the moment the sale was announced. Mr. Gore is clearly getting out just in time, though not before extracting one last political rent in return for using his famous name to help Al-Jazeera expand in a skeptical U.S. media marketplace.
Don't look for us, however, to milk the irony of Mr. Gore, warrior against climate change, pocketing a fortune from Mideast petrocrats. Mr. Gore has been in cash-in mode for a while. What's more, his style of entrepreneurship is the rising thing in our world, so respect must be paid.
Which brings us to this week's other news: Microsoft still tries to make money by selling consumers products they want, though it has launched some stinkers in this regard—the "Kin" cellphone line comes to mind. But its latest stinker was more up Mr. Gore's alley: a multimillion-dollar investment in trying to foment a government antitrust crackdown on Google .
That effort went conspicuously bust Thursday when the Federal Trade Commission let Google go with token remonstrances about its business practices.
Given the elastic principles of antitrust, there was nothing terribly far-fetched about Microsoft's effort to frame Google as a public utility that must be closely regulated. Many stranger things have passed muster in the intellectual cult of trustbusting. Where Microsoft went wrong was in failing to orchestrate the multiple points of pressure to convince five commissioners of the FTC that their own interests would be served by bringing a case.
If you think these things don't matter as much as the alleged merits of a case, think again. Recall the long drum roll of societal vilification that preceded the Justice Department's cautious decision to file a case against Microsoft. As FTC chief Jon Liebowitz acknowledged this week, antitrust agencies live to bring "big cases." The FTC staff, whose revolving-door career interests would be enhanced by a Google prosecution, was an easy sell. Less so the agency's political appointees who must decide yea or nay. The media wasn't clamoring for a Google crackdown. Congress was less than enthusiastic. The Obama White House, known to be close to Google, was disturbingly mute.
Antitrust is supposed to be entirely about clinical economics but never is. FDR's antitrust chief Thurman Arnold once said that antitrust was a collective squeal of resentment against businesses that annoy us with their success. Google hasn't been sufficiently annoying.
Notice, by the way, that the astute Arnold went on to found Arnold & Porter, one of the great Beltway law firms—and as much a model in its time of Beltway influence-peddling as Al Gore is today.
A version of this article appeared January 5, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Al Gore Is Good at Rent-Seeking (and Microsoft Isn't).
Aprendizes de feiticeiros nas contas publicas: magicas da alquimiaeconomica do governo
Manobra contábil para cumprir superávit deteriora política fiscal, dizem analistas
Reuters
Por Luciana Otoni
BRASÍLIA, 4 Jan (Reuters) - A manobra contábil feita pelo governo para cumprir a meta de superávit de 2012 deteriora a política fiscal, mina a credibilidade da política econômica e levanta suspeitas de que esses artifícios possam ser usados também em 2013, avaliam especialistas consultados pela Reuters.
Nos últimos dias, o governo publicou uma série de medidas de triangulação financeira, envolvendo o Fundo Soberano, o Fundo Fiscal de Investimento e Estabilização (FFIE), a Caixa Econômica Federal e o Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES), para engordar o caixa do Tesouro em 19,4 bilhões de reais em dezembro.
Essas operações, publicadas no Diário Oficial da União desde a semana passada e algumas com data retroativa a 31 de dezembro de 2012, são legais, mas não são legítimas, avalia o economista-chefe da SulAmérica, Newton Rosa.
Para ele, o governo deveria assumir que teve que adotar uma política fiscal expansionista no ano passado, devido a desaceleração econômica, e que por isso não deverá cumprir a meta de superávit primário de 139,8 bilhões de reais.
"O governo está usando artifícios (contábeis) para buscar um número melhor para o superávit, mais próximo da meta. Mas isso não esconde a deterioração da política fiscal", disse Rosa.
Dos 19,4 bilhões de reais em receita adicional que entrará nas conta em dezembro, 12,4 bilhões de reais saíram do FFIE e foram repassados ao Fundo Soberano, informou à Reuters uma fonte do Ministério da Fazenda. Além desse montante, o Tesouro recebeu 4,7 bilhões em dividendos pagos pela Caixa e mais 2,3 bilhões de reais em dividendos pagos pelo BNDES.
Dos 12,4 bilhões sacados do FFIE, 8,8 bilhões de reais referem-se ao resgate de títulos que o fundo recebeu do BNDES em pagamento pela venda de ações da Petrobras. O restante, 3,6 bilhões de reais, eram recursos que o FFIE possuía.
Simultaneamente a essas operações, o Tesouro repassou 5,4 bilhões de reais em ações de empresas à Caixa. E também transferiu 15 bilhões de reais em títulos federais ao BNDES, recursos esses que fazem parte do aporte de 45 bilhões de reais acertado em 2012 e que somente deveriam ser repassados em 2013.
Apesar de ajudar o governo a cumprir a meta de superávit primário, essas manobras elevam a dívida bruta do governo federal.
"A dívida líquida está em trajetória de queda, mas a dívida bruta tem crescido fortemente desde 2008 devido à política do governo de capitalizar os bancos públicos", disse Rafael Bistafa, economista da Rosenberg Associados.
"O uso de mecanismos contábeis é a pior maneira de se fazer superávit", acrescentou ele.
Para o economista-chefe do Banco Fator, José Francisco de Lima, o governo fez a escolha certa.
"O governo se defrontou com a situação de que não iria cumprir o primário cheio e entre ser criticado por não cumprir a meta e ser criticado por cumpri-la com artifício contábil preferiu essa última opção", disse. "Do ponto de vista conceitual essa solução é a melhor porque o Fundo Soberano é uma receita primária", acrescentou.
No acumulado do ano de 2012 até novembro, a economia fiscal do setor público consolidado foi de 82,7 bilhões de reais, o que significa que será necessário realizar um superávit de 31,5 bilhões de reais em dezembro para cumprir a meta, já descontados 25,6 bilhões de reais em investimentos do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC).
Por conta da economia menor do governo, o déficit nominal, que inclui o pagamento dos juros da dívida, do setor público está crescendo, apesar da queda na taxa de juros. Nos 11 primeiros meses do ano passado, o déficit nominal ficou em 112,1 bilhões de reais, ou 2,79 por cento do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB), ante 2,36 por cento do PIB em igual período de 2011.
A elevação ocorreu mesmo diante da queda de 10 por cento na despesa com juros entre janeiro e novembro de 2012 em comparação a igual período do ano anterior.
"O superávit primário menor está ofuscando o efeito da redução da despesa com juros (da dívida pública) ocorrido com a queda da taxa Selic. O resultado é que estamos com déficit nominal elevado", disse Newton Rosa. "Isso pode se repetir em 2013 se a atividade mostrar um ritmo aquém ao desejado", complementou.
Para Lima, a dificuldade do governo em cumprir a meta de superávit cheia em 2012 deve se repetir também em 2013 diante das incertezas que cercam a recuperação da economia brasileira.
Leia mais sobre esse assunto em http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/manobra-contabil-para-cumprir-superavit-deteriora-politica-fiscal-dizem-analistas-7202148#ixzz2H4fSPJdS
© 1996 - 2013. Todos direitos reservados a Infoglobo Comunicação e Participações S.A. Este material não pode ser publicado, transmitido por broadcast, reescrito ou redistribuído sem autorização.
Reuters
Por Luciana Otoni
BRASÍLIA, 4 Jan (Reuters) - A manobra contábil feita pelo governo para cumprir a meta de superávit de 2012 deteriora a política fiscal, mina a credibilidade da política econômica e levanta suspeitas de que esses artifícios possam ser usados também em 2013, avaliam especialistas consultados pela Reuters.
Nos últimos dias, o governo publicou uma série de medidas de triangulação financeira, envolvendo o Fundo Soberano, o Fundo Fiscal de Investimento e Estabilização (FFIE), a Caixa Econômica Federal e o Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES), para engordar o caixa do Tesouro em 19,4 bilhões de reais em dezembro.
Essas operações, publicadas no Diário Oficial da União desde a semana passada e algumas com data retroativa a 31 de dezembro de 2012, são legais, mas não são legítimas, avalia o economista-chefe da SulAmérica, Newton Rosa.
Para ele, o governo deveria assumir que teve que adotar uma política fiscal expansionista no ano passado, devido a desaceleração econômica, e que por isso não deverá cumprir a meta de superávit primário de 139,8 bilhões de reais.
"O governo está usando artifícios (contábeis) para buscar um número melhor para o superávit, mais próximo da meta. Mas isso não esconde a deterioração da política fiscal", disse Rosa.
Dos 19,4 bilhões de reais em receita adicional que entrará nas conta em dezembro, 12,4 bilhões de reais saíram do FFIE e foram repassados ao Fundo Soberano, informou à Reuters uma fonte do Ministério da Fazenda. Além desse montante, o Tesouro recebeu 4,7 bilhões em dividendos pagos pela Caixa e mais 2,3 bilhões de reais em dividendos pagos pelo BNDES.
Dos 12,4 bilhões sacados do FFIE, 8,8 bilhões de reais referem-se ao resgate de títulos que o fundo recebeu do BNDES em pagamento pela venda de ações da Petrobras. O restante, 3,6 bilhões de reais, eram recursos que o FFIE possuía.
Simultaneamente a essas operações, o Tesouro repassou 5,4 bilhões de reais em ações de empresas à Caixa. E também transferiu 15 bilhões de reais em títulos federais ao BNDES, recursos esses que fazem parte do aporte de 45 bilhões de reais acertado em 2012 e que somente deveriam ser repassados em 2013.
Apesar de ajudar o governo a cumprir a meta de superávit primário, essas manobras elevam a dívida bruta do governo federal.
"A dívida líquida está em trajetória de queda, mas a dívida bruta tem crescido fortemente desde 2008 devido à política do governo de capitalizar os bancos públicos", disse Rafael Bistafa, economista da Rosenberg Associados.
"O uso de mecanismos contábeis é a pior maneira de se fazer superávit", acrescentou ele.
Para o economista-chefe do Banco Fator, José Francisco de Lima, o governo fez a escolha certa.
"O governo se defrontou com a situação de que não iria cumprir o primário cheio e entre ser criticado por não cumprir a meta e ser criticado por cumpri-la com artifício contábil preferiu essa última opção", disse. "Do ponto de vista conceitual essa solução é a melhor porque o Fundo Soberano é uma receita primária", acrescentou.
No acumulado do ano de 2012 até novembro, a economia fiscal do setor público consolidado foi de 82,7 bilhões de reais, o que significa que será necessário realizar um superávit de 31,5 bilhões de reais em dezembro para cumprir a meta, já descontados 25,6 bilhões de reais em investimentos do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC).
Por conta da economia menor do governo, o déficit nominal, que inclui o pagamento dos juros da dívida, do setor público está crescendo, apesar da queda na taxa de juros. Nos 11 primeiros meses do ano passado, o déficit nominal ficou em 112,1 bilhões de reais, ou 2,79 por cento do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB), ante 2,36 por cento do PIB em igual período de 2011.
A elevação ocorreu mesmo diante da queda de 10 por cento na despesa com juros entre janeiro e novembro de 2012 em comparação a igual período do ano anterior.
"O superávit primário menor está ofuscando o efeito da redução da despesa com juros (da dívida pública) ocorrido com a queda da taxa Selic. O resultado é que estamos com déficit nominal elevado", disse Newton Rosa. "Isso pode se repetir em 2013 se a atividade mostrar um ritmo aquém ao desejado", complementou.
Para Lima, a dificuldade do governo em cumprir a meta de superávit cheia em 2012 deve se repetir também em 2013 diante das incertezas que cercam a recuperação da economia brasileira.
Leia mais sobre esse assunto em http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/manobra-contabil-para-cumprir-superavit-deteriora-politica-fiscal-dizem-analistas-7202148#ixzz2H4fSPJdS
© 1996 - 2013. Todos direitos reservados a Infoglobo Comunicação e Participações S.A. Este material não pode ser publicado, transmitido por broadcast, reescrito ou redistribuído sem autorização.
Juizes malucos podem ser as pessoas mais perigosas que existem, porqueinimputaveis...
Pois bem, com base neste post abaixo transcrito de meu duplo colega (diplomata e blogueiro) e amigo, o embaixador portugues (ex no Brasil) Francisco Seixas da Costa, posso finalmente discordar daquele historiador italiano, Carlo Maria Cipolla (procurem no meu blog), que dizia que os idiotas sao os individuos mais perigosos que existem, ja' que existem, soltinhos por ai, juizes perfeitamente malucos, que causam prejuizos enormes 'a sociedade sem nunca serem cobrados por isso. Penso, por exemplo, naquele juiz maluco do Mato Grosso que, em 2003, decretou fichamento discriminatorio dos cidadaos americanos nos aeroportos brasileiros apenas por discordar de uma medida perfeitamente legal tomada pelo Congresso dos EUA.
Existem varios outros malucos soltos por ai, um deles em Brasilia, ou varios deles em Brasilia, que incita esse tipo de prepotencia.
Volto a dizer: deveria haver uma camara para controlar preventivamente juizes malucos, e depois puni-los pelos prejuizos que causaram ilegalmente...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Juizo
Francisco Seixas da Costa
Blog Duas ou Tres Coisas..., 4/01/2013
A decisão de um juíz brasileiro de arrestar um avião da TAP, como forma de obter os recursos necessários à satisfação de uma demanda de funcionários administrativos da estruturas diplomáticas portuguesas no Brasil, pode parecer uma espécie de anedota de Ano Novo. Não é. Trata-se da junção de várias realidades, onde se misturam a má-fé profissional de uns com o ridículo uso de poder de outros, somado ao isco mediático garantido. Nada que uma "liminar" de sentido contrário, recomendada pelo bom-senso, não acabe por resolver, mas com custos acrescidos e efeitos inapagáveis na opinião coletiva.
Não cabe aqui entrar nos detalhes de uma questão que, pelas funções que exerci no Brasil, julgo conhecer, embora a ela tenha sido completamente alheio. Apenas direi que entendo que o Estado português tem toda a razão. Mas porque não tenho paciência para comentar espertezas de alguns advogados, fico-me por aqui.
Choca-me, com frequência, a ligeireza das decisões de certos juízes, muitos deles seduzidos pelas luzes da ribalta mediática, com contornos a roçar a irresponsabilidade. E mais me choca que, revertida essa decisão por uma outra instância, nenhuma responsabilidade possa ser pedida a quem tomou a primeira - pelos vistos errada, caso contrário não prevaleceria a segunda. Alcandorados na sua "independência", os tais juízes a quem a instância superior tirou o tapete profissional, aí estão prontos para outras, ficando imunes à responsabilização, civil ou outra, pelos efeitos, patrimoniais ou humanos, que a sua decisão acarretou. Não quero particularizar, mas apenas direi que foi graças a uma atitude dessa natureza que o túnel do Marão acabou por não estar concluído, já há vários anos, com muitos milhões de euros de prejuízos e incontáveis custos para toda uma região.
A absurda sacralização que paira sobre estes operadores judiciais, armados em impolutos "orgãos de soberania", impede, por exemplo, que um qualquer cidadão possa chamar incompetente a um juíz incompetente, sem o risco de cair na imediata alçada ... de outro juíz! Às vezes, trata-se de uns miudecos acabados de sair das escolas de magistratura, sem experiência da vida e do foro, produtores de decisões absurdas e irresponsáveis, que ganham logo à sua volta uma espécie de temor reverencial, que os protege da denúncia de que "o rei vai nu".
A "importância" que certos juízes se atribuem a si próprios, foi sempre ridicularizada pelos seus pares mais responsáveis, pouco satisfeitos com o impacto negativo que esse abuso do conceito de "independência do poder judicial", pode provocar sobre a classe.
Um dia dos anos 90, essa grande figura que é o magistrado José Matos Fernandes, ao tempo secretário de Estado adjunto e da Justiça, olhou do gabinete do ministro para a rua e, de repente, chamou quem estava na sala: "Olhem! Olhem! Vai ali um órgão de soberania!" Toda a gente arrancou para as vidraças que davam sobre a varanda. Lá em baixo, no terreiro do Paço, havia gente a cruzar a praça. Que queria ele dizer com o "órgão de soberania"?, perguntou alguém? Com aquele sorriso magnífico com que lhe ouvi algumas das mais deliciosas histórias da vida judicial, ele esclareceu: "Então não viram? Ia ali um juiz..." E lá apontou uma dessas figuras para quem a sala de audiências era um mero cenário que intervalava as suas aparições perante as câmaras televisivas.
http://duas-ou-tres.blogspot.com/2013/01/juizo.html
Existem varios outros malucos soltos por ai, um deles em Brasilia, ou varios deles em Brasilia, que incita esse tipo de prepotencia.
Volto a dizer: deveria haver uma camara para controlar preventivamente juizes malucos, e depois puni-los pelos prejuizos que causaram ilegalmente...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Juizo
Francisco Seixas da Costa
Blog Duas ou Tres Coisas..., 4/01/2013
A decisão de um juíz brasileiro de arrestar um avião da TAP, como forma de obter os recursos necessários à satisfação de uma demanda de funcionários administrativos da estruturas diplomáticas portuguesas no Brasil, pode parecer uma espécie de anedota de Ano Novo. Não é. Trata-se da junção de várias realidades, onde se misturam a má-fé profissional de uns com o ridículo uso de poder de outros, somado ao isco mediático garantido. Nada que uma "liminar" de sentido contrário, recomendada pelo bom-senso, não acabe por resolver, mas com custos acrescidos e efeitos inapagáveis na opinião coletiva.
Não cabe aqui entrar nos detalhes de uma questão que, pelas funções que exerci no Brasil, julgo conhecer, embora a ela tenha sido completamente alheio. Apenas direi que entendo que o Estado português tem toda a razão. Mas porque não tenho paciência para comentar espertezas de alguns advogados, fico-me por aqui.
Choca-me, com frequência, a ligeireza das decisões de certos juízes, muitos deles seduzidos pelas luzes da ribalta mediática, com contornos a roçar a irresponsabilidade. E mais me choca que, revertida essa decisão por uma outra instância, nenhuma responsabilidade possa ser pedida a quem tomou a primeira - pelos vistos errada, caso contrário não prevaleceria a segunda. Alcandorados na sua "independência", os tais juízes a quem a instância superior tirou o tapete profissional, aí estão prontos para outras, ficando imunes à responsabilização, civil ou outra, pelos efeitos, patrimoniais ou humanos, que a sua decisão acarretou. Não quero particularizar, mas apenas direi que foi graças a uma atitude dessa natureza que o túnel do Marão acabou por não estar concluído, já há vários anos, com muitos milhões de euros de prejuízos e incontáveis custos para toda uma região.
A absurda sacralização que paira sobre estes operadores judiciais, armados em impolutos "orgãos de soberania", impede, por exemplo, que um qualquer cidadão possa chamar incompetente a um juíz incompetente, sem o risco de cair na imediata alçada ... de outro juíz! Às vezes, trata-se de uns miudecos acabados de sair das escolas de magistratura, sem experiência da vida e do foro, produtores de decisões absurdas e irresponsáveis, que ganham logo à sua volta uma espécie de temor reverencial, que os protege da denúncia de que "o rei vai nu".
A "importância" que certos juízes se atribuem a si próprios, foi sempre ridicularizada pelos seus pares mais responsáveis, pouco satisfeitos com o impacto negativo que esse abuso do conceito de "independência do poder judicial", pode provocar sobre a classe.
Um dia dos anos 90, essa grande figura que é o magistrado José Matos Fernandes, ao tempo secretário de Estado adjunto e da Justiça, olhou do gabinete do ministro para a rua e, de repente, chamou quem estava na sala: "Olhem! Olhem! Vai ali um órgão de soberania!" Toda a gente arrancou para as vidraças que davam sobre a varanda. Lá em baixo, no terreiro do Paço, havia gente a cruzar a praça. Que queria ele dizer com o "órgão de soberania"?, perguntou alguém? Com aquele sorriso magnífico com que lhe ouvi algumas das mais deliciosas histórias da vida judicial, ele esclareceu: "Então não viram? Ia ali um juiz..." E lá apontou uma dessas figuras para quem a sala de audiências era um mero cenário que intervalava as suas aparições perante as câmaras televisivas.
http://duas-ou-tres.blogspot.com/2013/01/juizo.html
sexta-feira, 4 de janeiro de 2013
FMI tropeca nos multiplicadores fiscais, admite economista chefe -Washington Post
An amazing mea culpa from the IMF’s chief economist on austerity
Posted by Howard Schneider
Wonkblog of the Washington Post on January 3, 2013 at 12:17 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/03/an-amazing-mea-culpa-from-the-imfs-chief-economist-on-austerity/?tid=pm_business_pop
Consider it a mea culpa submerged in a deep pool of calculus and regression analysis: The International Monetary Fund’s top economist today acknowledged that the fund blew its forecasts for Greece and other European economies because it did not fully understand how government austerity efforts would undermine economic growth.
The new and highly technical paper looks again at the issue of fiscal multipliers – the impact that a rise or fall in government spending or tax collection has on a country’s economic output.
IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard writes that the fund misjudged the impact of austerity on European economies.
That it comes under the byline of fund economic counselor and research director Olivier Blanchard is significant. Fund research is always published with the caveat that it represents the views of the researcher, not the institution itself. But this paper comes from the top, and attempts to put to rest an issue that has been at the center of debate about how fast countries should move in their efforts to tame large debts and deficits.
If fiscal multipliers are small, countries can cut spending faster or raise more in taxes without much short-term damage. If they are large, then the process can become self-defeating, at least in the short run, with each dollar of government spending cuts, for example, costing the economy more than a dollar in lost output and thus actually increasing debt-to-GDP ratios.
That is what has been happening with a vengeance in Greece, where fund forecasters, as part of the country’s first bailout program in 2010, predicted that the nation could cut deeply into government spending and pretty quickly bounce back to economic growth and rising employment.
Two years later, the Greek economy is still shrinking and unemployment is at 25 percent.
Of course no two circumstances are alike. Shut out of international bond markets, Greece had little choice but to begin bringing its public finances into line or face a catastrophic default. Financing wasn’t available to sustain prior spending levels. For an economy that has been reeling for several years, however, a billion or two in extra government programs or investment could have kept a few small businesses open and kept a few more families employed and spending.
“Forecasters significantly underestimated the increase in unemployment and the decline in domestic demand associated with fiscal consolidation,” Blanchard and co-author Daniel Leigh, a fund economist, wrote in the paper.
That somewhat dry conclusion sums up what amounts to a tempest in econometric circles. The fund has been accused of intentionally underestimating the effects of austerity in Greece to make its programs palatable, at least on paper; fund officials have argued that it was its European partners, particularly Germany, who insisted on deeper, faster cuts. The evolving research on multipliers may have helped shift the tone of the debate in countries like Spain and Portugal, where a slower pace of deficit control has been advocated.
But the paper includes some subtle and potentially troubling insights into how the fund works. Blanchard – effectively the top dog when it comes to economic science at the fund – writes in the paper that he could not actually determine what multipliers economists at the country level were using in their forecasts. The number was implicit in their forecasting models – a background assumption rather than a variable that needed to be fine-tuned based on national circumstances or peculiarities.
Heading into a crisis that nearly tore the euro zone apart, in other words, neither Blanchard or any one of the fund’s vast army of technicians thought to reexamine whether important assumptions about the region would still hold true in times of crisis.
That, it turns out, was a big mistake. Multipliers vary over time: They may be low in a country where the economy is growing, interest rates are normal and the banking system is sound. As this research showed, they get larger if interest rates are low, output is falling and the banking system is creaky – conditions that make everyone, from households to investors, less likely to spend, and thus makes the role of government-generated demand that much more important.
Blanchard and Leigh deduced that IMF forecasters have been using a uniform multiplier of 0.5, when in fact the circumstances of the European economy made the multiplier as much as 1.5, meaning that a $1 government spending cut would cost $1.50 in lost output.
What are the implications for the future?
This paper may not be an official position of the IMF, but coming from the agency’s top economist, it is bound to change how the agency generates forecasts.
As for fiscal policy – an issue of interest as the U.S. debate turns towards austerity – Blanchard and Leigh said a better understanding of multipliers does not produce any definitive conclusions.
Many countries still need to cut their deficits – some faster, some slower, depending on a host of other factors.
“The results do not imply that fiscal consolidation is undesirable,” the two write. “Virtually all advanced economies face the challenge of fiscal adjustment in response to elevated government debt levels and future pressures on public finances from demographic change. The short-term effects of fiscal policy on economic activity are only one of the many factors that need to be considered in determining the appropriate pace of fiscal consolidation for any single country.”
TAGS
Austerity, Austerity and its discontents, IMF, Olivier Blanchard
palintropos
6:39 PM GMT-0200
This is an example of burying the message with a contradictory headline. Towards the end of the article it seems to say IMF cannot trust data from the country level. That is buck-passing, no? So, no mea culpa (my fault).
Like · Reply · Share · Flag
ticked
5:46 PM GMT-0200
It's pretty simple stop wasting $1.5+ TRILLION a year on defense, 146 security forces, 16 intel agencies/depts and 700+ foreign military bases....approx. two times all rest of world combined military spending quit spending on destruction, killing and maiming.and use the money on fixing America
Like · Reply · Share · Flag
RonScheurer
4:35 PM GMT-0200
Is it budget cuts or spending priorities that need a more serious look? If the US cut spending on all Middle Eastern civil wars, Arab and Israeli; and the quiet one in Pakistan, (and quite possibly in other places where transparency does not exist), there might be no need to raise the debt limit. Republicans would not like that because military activity does not involve positive economic, inventory accountability.
Destruction itself is seen as positive. Reducing educational options for student financial aid decreases the size of an intelligent populace while increasing cannon fodder. Reducing health benefits increases collateral body counts as does the pirating of those benefits by drug companies and insurers. Reducing Social Security to the under $30,000 a year folks guarantees an increase in their attrition rate into poverty.
"Happy Days Are Here Again" are a long way off unless both parties wake up, shed their internecine squabbling, and do for all of the voters, rich, poor, and between, what they are being paid to do - create equity for all, not equality, EQUITY. Equality is a myth.
LikeLiked by 3 readers · Reply · Share · Flag
h3lt025
4:34 PM GMT-0200
What every single economist, in the entire world, needs to do TODAY is to publicly admit that they have no idea what they are doing and what they are doing is NOT A SCIENCE. They can predict NOTHING reliably with variables like "fear", "greed" and "desire". It is 100% crap, and it is being applied in ways that MASSIVELY affect people's lives.
LikeLiked by 3 readers · Reply · Share · Flag
DavidGonzales
4:12 PM GMT-0200
An excellent, eye-opening article. May every Republican read this--read it and weep. The multipliers are connected to a country's condition and the IMF economists didn't even bother to investigate the conditions of the countries under consideration, as it says in the article--they just took it for granted that the number proposed as a multiplier was correct. Oh, brother.
LikeLiked by 1 reader · Reply · Share · Flag
DavidGonzales
4:18 PM GMT-0200
I forgot to mention that the Republicans want too much austerity for the condition of the US right now--Republican austerity will cause needless suffering and damage the growth of the economy as well.
LikeLiked by 3 readers · Flag
jdgreger@yahoo.com
2:20 PM GMT-0200
Hey Eddie14 and all Krugman clowns, Greece is suffering because their economy was a government central planned structure and debt based economy. If you stop spending, the economy suffers cause you have no private sector producing. Greece along with Europe and eventually US are all based on flawed Keynesian "economics" (it's really a pyramid scheme) of spending and borrowing instead of saving and producing. See Japan the past 20 years, all they've done was build bridges and roads and they are still in deflation mode and now their debt to GDP is 240%...lol
You can't spend your way to prosperity because the gravy train eventually ends (e.g. greece), then eventually the United States. The interest rates are only low here because the FED is buying and keeping them artificially low. They can't do that forever and our debt masters will stop lending and or ask for higher rates and that's when the crap really hits the fan.
Like · Reply · Share · Flag
JEHR
3:58 PM GMT-0200
jdgreger, do you even know what you are saying? When austerity is imposed, spending ends and so does saving. If money was spent on creating jobs (instead of propping up zombie banks), then the people would earn a salary, could spend on their needs and the economy would begin recovering. The secret is making jobs available. If the private sector can't (or won't) create jobs, then the government should. It can always afford to create jobs just as it can always afford to bail out banks to the tune of trillions of dollars.
All economies are "centrally planned" by someone!
LikeLiked by 2 readers · Flag
DavidGonzales
4:09 PM GMT-0200
Hey, jdgreger, did you read the article? Every country has its own multiplier connected to the conditions at the time under consideration--the cuts in Greece were too deep and caused a lot of needless suffering and underspending.
palintropos
1:52 PM GMT-0200
Following the logic of most commenters, the wealthiest countries should have been communist ones.
LikeLiked by 1 reader · Reply · Share · Flag
OpenMindDC
1:45 PM GMT-0200
If only the righties read this stuff.
LikeLiked by 3 readers · Reply · Share · Flag
ggant
1:36 PM GMT-0200
Can anyone get this the Idiots in the House? Do even read papers. Oh No facts, keep away , keep away. Facts are bad.
LikeLiked by 2 readers · Reply · Share · Flag
scatchy
1:33 PM GMT-0200
This is an important admission, as it shows that the Republicans plans for austerity, which basically mirror what was put in place in Greece and the rest of Europe, would have undermined our economic recovery.
LikeLiked by 5 readers · Reply · Share · Flag
Posted by Howard Schneider
Wonkblog of the Washington Post on January 3, 2013 at 12:17 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/03/an-amazing-mea-culpa-from-the-imfs-chief-economist-on-austerity/?tid=pm_business_pop
Consider it a mea culpa submerged in a deep pool of calculus and regression analysis: The International Monetary Fund’s top economist today acknowledged that the fund blew its forecasts for Greece and other European economies because it did not fully understand how government austerity efforts would undermine economic growth.
The new and highly technical paper looks again at the issue of fiscal multipliers – the impact that a rise or fall in government spending or tax collection has on a country’s economic output.
IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard writes that the fund misjudged the impact of austerity on European economies.
That it comes under the byline of fund economic counselor and research director Olivier Blanchard is significant. Fund research is always published with the caveat that it represents the views of the researcher, not the institution itself. But this paper comes from the top, and attempts to put to rest an issue that has been at the center of debate about how fast countries should move in their efforts to tame large debts and deficits.
If fiscal multipliers are small, countries can cut spending faster or raise more in taxes without much short-term damage. If they are large, then the process can become self-defeating, at least in the short run, with each dollar of government spending cuts, for example, costing the economy more than a dollar in lost output and thus actually increasing debt-to-GDP ratios.
That is what has been happening with a vengeance in Greece, where fund forecasters, as part of the country’s first bailout program in 2010, predicted that the nation could cut deeply into government spending and pretty quickly bounce back to economic growth and rising employment.
Two years later, the Greek economy is still shrinking and unemployment is at 25 percent.
Of course no two circumstances are alike. Shut out of international bond markets, Greece had little choice but to begin bringing its public finances into line or face a catastrophic default. Financing wasn’t available to sustain prior spending levels. For an economy that has been reeling for several years, however, a billion or two in extra government programs or investment could have kept a few small businesses open and kept a few more families employed and spending.
“Forecasters significantly underestimated the increase in unemployment and the decline in domestic demand associated with fiscal consolidation,” Blanchard and co-author Daniel Leigh, a fund economist, wrote in the paper.
That somewhat dry conclusion sums up what amounts to a tempest in econometric circles. The fund has been accused of intentionally underestimating the effects of austerity in Greece to make its programs palatable, at least on paper; fund officials have argued that it was its European partners, particularly Germany, who insisted on deeper, faster cuts. The evolving research on multipliers may have helped shift the tone of the debate in countries like Spain and Portugal, where a slower pace of deficit control has been advocated.
But the paper includes some subtle and potentially troubling insights into how the fund works. Blanchard – effectively the top dog when it comes to economic science at the fund – writes in the paper that he could not actually determine what multipliers economists at the country level were using in their forecasts. The number was implicit in their forecasting models – a background assumption rather than a variable that needed to be fine-tuned based on national circumstances or peculiarities.
Heading into a crisis that nearly tore the euro zone apart, in other words, neither Blanchard or any one of the fund’s vast army of technicians thought to reexamine whether important assumptions about the region would still hold true in times of crisis.
That, it turns out, was a big mistake. Multipliers vary over time: They may be low in a country where the economy is growing, interest rates are normal and the banking system is sound. As this research showed, they get larger if interest rates are low, output is falling and the banking system is creaky – conditions that make everyone, from households to investors, less likely to spend, and thus makes the role of government-generated demand that much more important.
Blanchard and Leigh deduced that IMF forecasters have been using a uniform multiplier of 0.5, when in fact the circumstances of the European economy made the multiplier as much as 1.5, meaning that a $1 government spending cut would cost $1.50 in lost output.
What are the implications for the future?
This paper may not be an official position of the IMF, but coming from the agency’s top economist, it is bound to change how the agency generates forecasts.
As for fiscal policy – an issue of interest as the U.S. debate turns towards austerity – Blanchard and Leigh said a better understanding of multipliers does not produce any definitive conclusions.
Many countries still need to cut their deficits – some faster, some slower, depending on a host of other factors.
“The results do not imply that fiscal consolidation is undesirable,” the two write. “Virtually all advanced economies face the challenge of fiscal adjustment in response to elevated government debt levels and future pressures on public finances from demographic change. The short-term effects of fiscal policy on economic activity are only one of the many factors that need to be considered in determining the appropriate pace of fiscal consolidation for any single country.”
TAGS
Austerity, Austerity and its discontents, IMF, Olivier Blanchard
palintropos
6:39 PM GMT-0200
This is an example of burying the message with a contradictory headline. Towards the end of the article it seems to say IMF cannot trust data from the country level. That is buck-passing, no? So, no mea culpa (my fault).
Like · Reply · Share · Flag
ticked
5:46 PM GMT-0200
It's pretty simple stop wasting $1.5+ TRILLION a year on defense, 146 security forces, 16 intel agencies/depts and 700+ foreign military bases....approx. two times all rest of world combined military spending quit spending on destruction, killing and maiming.and use the money on fixing America
Like · Reply · Share · Flag
RonScheurer
4:35 PM GMT-0200
Is it budget cuts or spending priorities that need a more serious look? If the US cut spending on all Middle Eastern civil wars, Arab and Israeli; and the quiet one in Pakistan, (and quite possibly in other places where transparency does not exist), there might be no need to raise the debt limit. Republicans would not like that because military activity does not involve positive economic, inventory accountability.
Destruction itself is seen as positive. Reducing educational options for student financial aid decreases the size of an intelligent populace while increasing cannon fodder. Reducing health benefits increases collateral body counts as does the pirating of those benefits by drug companies and insurers. Reducing Social Security to the under $30,000 a year folks guarantees an increase in their attrition rate into poverty.
"Happy Days Are Here Again" are a long way off unless both parties wake up, shed their internecine squabbling, and do for all of the voters, rich, poor, and between, what they are being paid to do - create equity for all, not equality, EQUITY. Equality is a myth.
LikeLiked by 3 readers · Reply · Share · Flag
h3lt025
4:34 PM GMT-0200
What every single economist, in the entire world, needs to do TODAY is to publicly admit that they have no idea what they are doing and what they are doing is NOT A SCIENCE. They can predict NOTHING reliably with variables like "fear", "greed" and "desire". It is 100% crap, and it is being applied in ways that MASSIVELY affect people's lives.
LikeLiked by 3 readers · Reply · Share · Flag
DavidGonzales
4:12 PM GMT-0200
An excellent, eye-opening article. May every Republican read this--read it and weep. The multipliers are connected to a country's condition and the IMF economists didn't even bother to investigate the conditions of the countries under consideration, as it says in the article--they just took it for granted that the number proposed as a multiplier was correct. Oh, brother.
LikeLiked by 1 reader · Reply · Share · Flag
DavidGonzales
4:18 PM GMT-0200
I forgot to mention that the Republicans want too much austerity for the condition of the US right now--Republican austerity will cause needless suffering and damage the growth of the economy as well.
LikeLiked by 3 readers · Flag
jdgreger@yahoo.com
2:20 PM GMT-0200
Hey Eddie14 and all Krugman clowns, Greece is suffering because their economy was a government central planned structure and debt based economy. If you stop spending, the economy suffers cause you have no private sector producing. Greece along with Europe and eventually US are all based on flawed Keynesian "economics" (it's really a pyramid scheme) of spending and borrowing instead of saving and producing. See Japan the past 20 years, all they've done was build bridges and roads and they are still in deflation mode and now their debt to GDP is 240%...lol
You can't spend your way to prosperity because the gravy train eventually ends (e.g. greece), then eventually the United States. The interest rates are only low here because the FED is buying and keeping them artificially low. They can't do that forever and our debt masters will stop lending and or ask for higher rates and that's when the crap really hits the fan.
Like · Reply · Share · Flag
JEHR
3:58 PM GMT-0200
jdgreger, do you even know what you are saying? When austerity is imposed, spending ends and so does saving. If money was spent on creating jobs (instead of propping up zombie banks), then the people would earn a salary, could spend on their needs and the economy would begin recovering. The secret is making jobs available. If the private sector can't (or won't) create jobs, then the government should. It can always afford to create jobs just as it can always afford to bail out banks to the tune of trillions of dollars.
All economies are "centrally planned" by someone!
LikeLiked by 2 readers · Flag
DavidGonzales
4:09 PM GMT-0200
Hey, jdgreger, did you read the article? Every country has its own multiplier connected to the conditions at the time under consideration--the cuts in Greece were too deep and caused a lot of needless suffering and underspending.
palintropos
1:52 PM GMT-0200
Following the logic of most commenters, the wealthiest countries should have been communist ones.
LikeLiked by 1 reader · Reply · Share · Flag
OpenMindDC
1:45 PM GMT-0200
If only the righties read this stuff.
LikeLiked by 3 readers · Reply · Share · Flag
ggant
1:36 PM GMT-0200
Can anyone get this the Idiots in the House? Do even read papers. Oh No facts, keep away , keep away. Facts are bad.
LikeLiked by 2 readers · Reply · Share · Flag
scatchy
1:33 PM GMT-0200
This is an important admission, as it shows that the Republicans plans for austerity, which basically mirror what was put in place in Greece and the rest of Europe, would have undermined our economic recovery.
LikeLiked by 5 readers · Reply · Share · Flag
Anacronismos trabalhistas - Editoral Estadao
Em toda sinceridade, sabem quando ocorrera' a reforma da legislacao trabalhista?
Not in your lifetime...
Alias, precisaria acabar tambem com a Justica do Trabalho, a maior criadora de conflito que existe neste pais....
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Anacronismos trabalhistas
Editorial O Estado de S.Paulo
Simplificar as relações trabalhistas, sem afetar direitos e rendimentos do empregado, é não só possível sem grandes dificuldades políticas, mas urgente, para tornar mais claras as garantias dos trabalhadores, facilitar a administração empresarial, reduzir a insegurança jurídica nessa área e, em particular, melhorar a eficiência das empresas e impulsionar a produtividade. Estas, em resumo, são as razões que levaram a Confederação Nacional da Indústria (CNI) a elaborar um conjunto de 101 medidas de modernização e de racionalização da legislação trabalhista. O documento foi apresentado durante o 7.º Encontro Nacional da Indústria, realizado em Brasília.
"O trabalho formal no Brasil tem um alto grau de conflito e de insegurança jurídica, é excessivamente onerado e configura uma barreira ao crescimento da produtividade", segundo o presidente da CNI, Robson de Andrade.
A entidade reconhece que houve avanços na formalização do trabalho nos últimos anos. Entre 2000 e 2011, o número de empregos formais passou de 25 milhões para cerca de 44 milhões e o índice de desemprego baixou para menos de 6%. Observa, no entanto, que, entre os que trabalham no País há cerca de 52 milhões que não estão registrados como empregados nem são funcionários públicos. Parte desse contingente tem atividades formalizadas, como autônomos ou proprietários de empresas de diferentes portes, e conta com a proteção da legislação trabalhista e previdenciária. A maioria, porém, está na informalidade e não dispõe desse tipo de proteção.
O objetivo da CNI é assegurar a formalização desses trabalhadores por meio de um sistema trabalhista moderno, que substitua o atual, em que quase tudo é regulado e quase nada é negociado.
Para a indústria, a rigidez da legislação inibe a geração de empregos, impõe um excesso de obrigações ao empregador, pode gerar passivos trabalhistas e previdenciários e, desse modo, atua no sentido contrário ao aumento da competitividade e da eficiência da economia.
Além de excessiva, a regulação trabalhista, criada no início da década de 1940, tornou-se anacrônica e gera situações que hoje parecem absurdas - ou "irracionais", como prefere a CNI. Por causa da legislação trabalhista em vigor, o Brasil é o único país do mundo que, além da hora convencional de 60 minutos, tem também a de 52,5 minutos para o trabalho noturno, que é remunerado com adicional de 20%. Isso cria dificuldades para adequar as jornadas de trabalho e gera confusão no cálculo do salário.
Para simplificar, sem afetar a remuneração, basta utilizar a hora normal e ao salário-hora acrescentar 37,14% (resultado cumulativo do adicional de 20% mais 14,2% correspondente a 7,5 minutos de trabalho adicional por hora).
Outro absurdo é a manutenção, até hoje, do regime de sobreaviso, a que se submetiam empregados das ferrovias na década de 1930. Eles tinham de estar sempre preparados, em sua casa, para a eventualidade de serem convocados para o trabalho fora de sua jornada regular.
Num tempo em que não havia telefone nas casas, nem muitas formas de lazer, o sobreaviso impunha sacrifícios ao empregado e, por isso, ele era remunerado com o equivalente a um terço do salário-hora. Com as novas tecnologias de comunicação, o regime tornou-se um anacronismo, mas a Justiça do Trabalho o estendeu a todos os que podem ser convocados para o trabalho fora da jornada regular. Para estes casos, deveria aplicar-se o regime de sobrejornada, remunerada de acordo com o tempo trabalhado.
São apenas alguns exemplos de uma legislação ultrapassada e que requer urgente reforma. Ao propor medidas que não implicam perdas de renda para o trabalhador, a CNI espera abrir um debate produtivo com as lideranças sindicais, parlamentares e o governo, na esperança de que o diálogo transcorra sem enfrentamentos.
A discussão não pode ser mais protelada, se o objetivo for, como é necessário para o País, criar um ambiente mais favorável à formalização do emprego, sem prejudicar os trabalhadores e sem onerar ainda mais as empresas.
Not in your lifetime...
Alias, precisaria acabar tambem com a Justica do Trabalho, a maior criadora de conflito que existe neste pais....
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Anacronismos trabalhistas
Editorial O Estado de S.Paulo
Simplificar as relações trabalhistas, sem afetar direitos e rendimentos do empregado, é não só possível sem grandes dificuldades políticas, mas urgente, para tornar mais claras as garantias dos trabalhadores, facilitar a administração empresarial, reduzir a insegurança jurídica nessa área e, em particular, melhorar a eficiência das empresas e impulsionar a produtividade. Estas, em resumo, são as razões que levaram a Confederação Nacional da Indústria (CNI) a elaborar um conjunto de 101 medidas de modernização e de racionalização da legislação trabalhista. O documento foi apresentado durante o 7.º Encontro Nacional da Indústria, realizado em Brasília.
"O trabalho formal no Brasil tem um alto grau de conflito e de insegurança jurídica, é excessivamente onerado e configura uma barreira ao crescimento da produtividade", segundo o presidente da CNI, Robson de Andrade.
A entidade reconhece que houve avanços na formalização do trabalho nos últimos anos. Entre 2000 e 2011, o número de empregos formais passou de 25 milhões para cerca de 44 milhões e o índice de desemprego baixou para menos de 6%. Observa, no entanto, que, entre os que trabalham no País há cerca de 52 milhões que não estão registrados como empregados nem são funcionários públicos. Parte desse contingente tem atividades formalizadas, como autônomos ou proprietários de empresas de diferentes portes, e conta com a proteção da legislação trabalhista e previdenciária. A maioria, porém, está na informalidade e não dispõe desse tipo de proteção.
O objetivo da CNI é assegurar a formalização desses trabalhadores por meio de um sistema trabalhista moderno, que substitua o atual, em que quase tudo é regulado e quase nada é negociado.
Para a indústria, a rigidez da legislação inibe a geração de empregos, impõe um excesso de obrigações ao empregador, pode gerar passivos trabalhistas e previdenciários e, desse modo, atua no sentido contrário ao aumento da competitividade e da eficiência da economia.
Além de excessiva, a regulação trabalhista, criada no início da década de 1940, tornou-se anacrônica e gera situações que hoje parecem absurdas - ou "irracionais", como prefere a CNI. Por causa da legislação trabalhista em vigor, o Brasil é o único país do mundo que, além da hora convencional de 60 minutos, tem também a de 52,5 minutos para o trabalho noturno, que é remunerado com adicional de 20%. Isso cria dificuldades para adequar as jornadas de trabalho e gera confusão no cálculo do salário.
Para simplificar, sem afetar a remuneração, basta utilizar a hora normal e ao salário-hora acrescentar 37,14% (resultado cumulativo do adicional de 20% mais 14,2% correspondente a 7,5 minutos de trabalho adicional por hora).
Outro absurdo é a manutenção, até hoje, do regime de sobreaviso, a que se submetiam empregados das ferrovias na década de 1930. Eles tinham de estar sempre preparados, em sua casa, para a eventualidade de serem convocados para o trabalho fora de sua jornada regular.
Num tempo em que não havia telefone nas casas, nem muitas formas de lazer, o sobreaviso impunha sacrifícios ao empregado e, por isso, ele era remunerado com o equivalente a um terço do salário-hora. Com as novas tecnologias de comunicação, o regime tornou-se um anacronismo, mas a Justiça do Trabalho o estendeu a todos os que podem ser convocados para o trabalho fora da jornada regular. Para estes casos, deveria aplicar-se o regime de sobrejornada, remunerada de acordo com o tempo trabalhado.
São apenas alguns exemplos de uma legislação ultrapassada e que requer urgente reforma. Ao propor medidas que não implicam perdas de renda para o trabalhador, a CNI espera abrir um debate produtivo com as lideranças sindicais, parlamentares e o governo, na esperança de que o diálogo transcorra sem enfrentamentos.
A discussão não pode ser mais protelada, se o objetivo for, como é necessário para o País, criar um ambiente mais favorável à formalização do emprego, sem prejudicar os trabalhadores e sem onerar ainda mais as empresas.
Assinar:
Comentários (Atom)
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...
-
Uma preparação de longo curso e uma vida nômade Paulo Roberto de Almeida A carreira diplomática tem atraído número crescente de jovens, em ...
-
FAQ do Candidato a Diplomata por Renato Domith Godinho TEMAS: Concurso do Instituto Rio Branco, Itamaraty, Carreira Diplomática, MRE, Diplom...
-
Liberando um artigo que passou um ano no limbo: Mercosul e União Europeia: a longa marcha da cooperação à associação Recebo, em 19/12/2025,...
-
Mercado Comum da Guerra? O Mercosul deveria ser, em princípio, uma zona de livre comércio e também uma zona de paz, entre seus próprios memb...
-
Homeric Epithets: Famous Titles From 'The Iliad' & 'The Odyssey' Word Genius, Tuesday, November 16, 2021 https://www.w...
-
O destino do Brasil? Uma tartarug a? Paulo Roberto de Almeida Nota sobre os desafios políticos ao desenvolvimento do Brasil Esse “destino” é...
-
ÚLTIMO ENCONTRO DO CICLO DE HUMANIDADES 2025- 🕊️ A Paz como Projeto e Potência! 🌎 Acadêmicos, pesquisadores e todos os curiosos por um ...
-
Quando a desgraça é bem-vinda… Leio, tardiamente, nas notícias do dia, que o segundo chanceler virtual do bolsolavismo diplomático (2019-202...
-
O Brics vai de vento em popa, ao que parece. Como eu nunca fui de tomar as coisas pelo seu valor de face, nunca deixei de expressar meu pen...
