Henry Kissinger sobre Ariel Sharon - The Washington Post

Ariel Sharon’s journey from soldier to statesman

By Henry A. Kissinger, Published: January 13 | Updated: Friday, January 17, 2:35 PM

Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.

Arik Sharon started as a warrior. He ended his career on the way to being a peacemaker. On that journey from fighting in every one of Israel’s wars to lying comatose for eight years in a Jerusalem hospital, he symbolized the anguish and dilemmas of Israel. A people who had come to their historic homeland had established themselves, surrounded by a culture that never acquiesced in ceding what it considered Islamic patrimony. Even before the proclamation of the Jewish state, Israel found itself in a state of war that has never ended. It has always lacked the essential prerequisite for peaceful coexistence with its neighbors: their recognition of its existence, which everywhere else is the precondition of diplomacy, not its outcome.

This state of affairs produced two aspects of the Israeli psyche: a hair-trigger response to security threats and an attitude toward the peace process both grudging and nostalgic. Israel’s margin of survival has been so narrow that its leaders felt they could not run risks about emerging military capabilities of countries that refused to accept and daily castigated the Jewish state. When threatened, preemption became its style of warfare. And it viewed the peace process both with reluctance to give up territory in an environment so rife with denunciation and with a definition of peace so sweeping as to be very difficult to achieve in a single negotiation.

When he was struck down by a stroke in 2006 , Sharon as prime minister was in the process of putting before his people a vision of coexistence with the Palestinians. Many visionaries of peace in Israel were military men: Yitzhak Rabin won the 1967 war. Shimon Peres, though not a military man, went the same route: a hawk in his early career, a passionate advocate of the peace process in recent decades.

Sharon had to undertake the longest journey to reach this insight. A daring commander, he conducted the battle that reversed the tide of the 1973 war; he was the principal advocate of the operations in Lebanon. For many years, he deplored America’s decision in 1973 to bring about a negotiated end of the war. I was secretary of state at the time, and he missed few opportunities to chide me.

The United States acted as it did then because we were convinced that, however vast the margin of victory, it would leave Israel with its historic challenge: how to translate victories over threats to its security into political coexistence with the societies it lived among. The Egyptian leader, Anwar Sadat, seemed to offer such a prospect.

In our many discussions, I always respected, then grew to admire and eventually develop affection for, this dedicated man living on a farm at the edge of the Negev desert, a kind of symbolic outpost. I looked forward to his visits while he was out of office; he would arrive at our meetings with maps under his arm that he used to explain the minimum requirements of Israel’s survival.

As prime minister, Sharon unexpectedly broadened his definition of security. He sought to bridge the gap between physical and political security with the same courage and decisiveness that had brought him victory in battle. He volunteered the largest withdrawal in Israel’s history. He ended the Israeli occupation of Gaza and returned it to Arab self-rule as a unilateral act without reciprocity, abandoning even the Jewish settlements that had been established there. These gestures were conceived as a test case for a negotiation about the future of the West Bank, which Sharon once had viewed as a permanent Israeli outpost. The man who had identified security with the acquisition of territory became willing to cede territory for an outcome to fulfill the hopes for peace.

It cannot be said that the result justified this act of faith. Israel was threatened by missile attacks from non-state actors: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza. Politically, Sharon’s vision was under attack from all sides: from those in Israel who insisted on a larger state, from Arab leaders who denied Israel the right to exist altogether, and from non-state terrorist groups. Still, Sharon’s vision reflected an essential first step; it was a sacrifice on behalf of raising prospects for a lasting peace — to which both sides must make a contribution by taking concrete steps and not by largely symbolic acts alone.

With another peace process underway, one needs to respect the courage of those who are willing to brave it in light of so many disappointments. It must be conducted both with commitment to the process and with a recollection of unfulfilled hopes. The vision of peace must be coupled with a determination not to permit the peace process to be turned into another form of warfare. An outcome must not only draw lines of territorial divisions but also bring a meaningful acceptance of the Jewish state by its negotiating partner as well as by key Arab states.

The writer was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.

Na origem do caso Dreyfus: Georges Picquart, o homem que buscou a verdade e revelou-a a Emile Zola

Op-Ed Contributor: The Whistle-Blower Who Freed Dreyfus

ROBERT HARRIS 

New York Times Opinion, January 18, 2014

How the army officer who risked everything to expose France’s travesty of justice was reviled, jailed and ultimately vindicated.

KINTBURY, England — Georges Picquart died 100 years ago this Saturday. To which the response from most quarters is likely to be “Georges who?” Even in his native France, his centenary is passing largely unremarked. Yet in the days of Queen Victoria and Theodore Roosevelt, Picquart was a figure of global controversy, revered and reviled in equal measure as the world’s most famous whistle-blower.

Unlike his 21st-century counterparts Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, Picquart was neither a disaffected nor a junior figure in the organization he was to expose. On the contrary: In October 1894 he was a brilliant, rising army officer. One of his steppingstones to advancement had been a professorship at the École Supérieure de Guerre, and one of the officer-cadets he had taught there was a Jewish artillery captain, Alfred Dreyfus.

Picquart, like many of his contemporaries, was casually anti-Semitic. It came as no surprise to him when Dreyfus — the only Jew on the general staff — was suspected of passing secret intelligence to the Germans. It was Picquart who provided a sample of Dreyfus’s handwriting to the investigators. And when expert analysis seemed to confirm Dreyfus’s guilt, it was Picquart who met his unsuspecting former pupil in the Ministry of War so he could be quietly bundled off to prison.

unch media viewer

In December, Picquart attended Dreyfus’s court-martial as an official observer. For reasons of national security it was held behind closed doors. When told that a file of intelligence evidence existed, conclusively proving Dreyfus’s guilt, Picquart supported the decision to show it in secret to the judges.

The file clinched the conviction. Dreyfus was sentenced to life imprisonment. On Jan. 5, 1895, before a crowd of 20,000 shouting, “Death to the Jew!” Dreyfus had his sword broken and the insignia of his rank torn from his uniform. Observing the spectacle, Picquart remarked laconically to a fellow officer: “He’s a Jew, don’t forget that. He’s thinking of the weight of the gold braid and how much it’s worth.” In March, Dreyfus was transported to Devil’s Island, off the coast of South America, where he was denied all human contact, including conversation with his guards.

Picquart, meanwhile, prospered. Six months later, at age 40, he was made the youngest colonel in the French Army and put in charge of the tiny intelligence unit, known as the Statistical Section, that had compiled the evidence against Dreyfus.

The section’s prize agent was a cleaner at the German Embassy, Marie Bastian, who supplied the contents of the wastepaper basket of the military attaché, Col. Maximilian von Schwartzkoppen. It was she who was the source of the “bordereau” — the note that an expert had concluded was in Dreyfus’s hand.

Nine months into Picquart’s tenure, Bastian passed on a pneumatic telegram card — a “petit bleu” — that von Schwartzkoppen had torn into 40 fragments. Glued together, the telegram revealed that the German attaché was receiving intelligence from a serving French officer, Maj. Charles Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy. Picquart immediately put Esterhazy under surveillance. He turned out to have the classic profile of a spy: a drunkard, a gambler, heavily indebted, and leading a double life with a prostitute in Montmartre. Moreover, he was dangerously active: He had recently applied for a job in the general staff.

Sitting in his office, Picquart compared Esterhazy’s letters with the bordereau. “I was terrified,” he testified later. “The two writings were not similar; they were identical.” The next day he showed them to the handwriting expert, Alphonse Bertillon, whose evidence had helped convict Dreyfus. Bertillon confirmed Esterhazy’s writing was a perfect match, but saw no reason to revise his original judgment: “It merely shows that the Jews have trained someone else to write using the Dreyfus system.”

Picquart’s next step was to inspect the intelligence that had been passed to Dreyfus’s judges. “I took possession of the secret file for the first time since my entry into the service. I confess that my amazement was profound. I was expecting overwhelming evidence. I found nothing.” Indeed, such scant evidence as there was had plainly been fabricated.

Picquart took his discoveries to the chief of the French general staff, Gen. Raoul de Boisdeffre, and to the overall head of military intelligence, Gen. Charles-Arthur Gonse. Their reaction appalled him. He was told to avoid any avenues of inquiry that might lead to a reopening of the Dreyfus case. “What does it matter to you,” demanded Gonse, “if one Jew stays on Devil’s Island?”

“Well,” replied Picquart, “because he’s innocent ...”

He pressed on with his investigation, to the irritation of his superiors. Two months later, he was relieved of his duties. By the spring of 1897, he was an exile, transferred to a native regiment in Tunisia on what amounted to a near-suicidal mission into the southern Sahara.

It was then that Picquart, after 25 years’ army service, realized he had no alternative but to break ranks. He passed his evidence against Esterhazy to a senior politician, the vice president of the senate, Auguste Scheurer-Kestner. Then, at the end of 1897, he provided Émile Zola with the information that enabled the novelist to write his celebrated exposé of the affair, “J’Accuse ...!” Picquart’s reward was to be dismissed from the army, framed as a forger and locked up in solitary confinement for more than a year.

It was not until 1906 that justice was finally done; Dreyfus’s conviction was quashed, and Picquart was restored to the army with the rank of brigadier general. That fall, when his friend and fellow Dreyfusard, Georges Clemenceau — the owner of the newspaper that published “J’Accuse ...!” became prime minister, he made Picquart minister of war, a post he held for three years.

On Jan. 18, 1914, six months before the outbreak of the First World War, while in command of the Second Army Corps at Amiens, Picquart died of edema of the face — effectively, suffocation — following a riding accident. He was 59.

He had no family to preserve his memory: A bachelor with a succession of married mistresses, he left no children. A large section of the army never forgave him for betraying his comrades. And some of Dreyfus’s supporters continued to accuse him of anti-Semitism. An awkward figure in death as well as life, he slipped through the cracks of history.

And yet the injustices against which he fought so courageously — the inherent unreliability of secret courts and secret evidence, the dangers of rogue intelligence agencies becoming laws unto themselves, the instinctive response of governments and national security organizations to cover up their mistakes, the easy flourishing of “national security” to stifle democratic scrutiny — all these continue. “Dreyfus was the victim,” Clemenceau observed, “but Picquart was the hero.” On this day, he deserves to be remembered.

Robert Harris is the author of a forthcoming novel about Georges Picquart, “An Officer and a Spy.”

A version of this op-ed appears in print on January 18, 2014, in The International New York Times. 

As duas Américas Latinas: a que funciona e a que patina... - Editorial Estadao

Eu já tinha postado o artigo original do Wall Street Journal aqui, mas sem comentários.
Este editorial serve de comentário, mas eu já vinha escrevendo sobre isso desde os últimos dez anos...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

As duas Américas Latinas

Editorial O Estado de S.Paulo, 17/01/2014

A Aliança do Pacífico, bloco comercial formado por México, Colômbia, Peru e Chile, deverá ter neste ano um crescimento médio de 4,25%, com inflação baixa e forte investimento estrangeiro, conforme estimativa do Morgan Stanley. A mesma instituição financeira calcula que Brasil, Argentina e Venezuela, as três principais economias do Mercosul, terão expansão média de apenas 2,5% - e o Brasil crescerá modesto 1,9%. Tal perspectiva evidencia o crescente contraste entre a América Latina que optou pelo livre-comércio e a América Latina estatizante, protecionista e intervencionista.

Conforme notou The Wall Street Journal, essas diferenças permitem acompanhar, no mesmo continente e sob condições relativamente semelhantes, uma espécie de certame sobre qual modelo de desenvolvimento é o mais adequado, algo como um "experimento econômico controlado".

Ao longo da última década, parecia que o grupo dos brasileiros, argentinos e venezuelanos levaria a melhor, sob o impulso da alta dos preços das commodities e das boas condições macroeconômicas para conceder estímulos fiscais. O ministro da Fazenda, Guido Mantega, chegou a sugerir, em 2009, no auge da crise internacional, que "os países avançados deveriam caminhar para o novo modelo colocado pelos países emergentes". Em 2010, a economia brasileira não só conseguiu evitar a contaminação pela crise, como cresceu 7,5%, enquanto o mundo desenvolvido patinava.

Em pouco tempo, a fantasia desse triunfo se esfumou. Confiou-se excessivamente no crescimento chinês como motor da expansão das economias latino-americanas exportadoras de petróleo, minérios e soja, sem levar em conta a possibilidade de desaceleração da China e a consequente queda nos preços dessas commodities. O "modelo de sucesso" emergente inebriou incautos e adiou reformas necessárias que tornariam a economia menos dependente dos humores chineses.

Enquanto isso, países latino-americanos menos afeitos ao populismo optaram pelo livre mercado, aproximando-se dos Estados Unidos depois que a ideia da Área de Livre-Comércio das Américas (Alca) foi torpedeada, em 2005, pela aliança entre o petismo e o kirchnerismo - que queria fazer da hostilidade aos americanos o eixo da política comercial da região. Nos anos seguintes, a Aliança do Pacífico usufruiu da vantagem de ter acesso preferencial ao mercado americano. Já o Brasil enfrentou - e ainda enfrenta, sem se queixar - o inflexível protecionismo argentino, que distorce as relações comerciais no Mercosul.

Assim, enquanto Brasil, Argentina e Venezuela se atavam a compromissos ideológicos, o bloco do Pacífico se preparava para os novos tempos. O Chile, cuja dependência do comércio de cobre é conhecida, está se esforçando para diversificar as exportações. No caso do México, as vendas externas de manufaturados hoje representam 25% do total, enquanto no Brasil essa fatia ainda é de 4%.

É a comparação com a Argentina e a Venezuela, contudo, que torna as diferenças mais claras. Os venezuelanos, donos de uma das maiores reservas de petróleo do mundo, enfrentam escassez crônica e inflação na casa dos 50% ao ano, como resultado dos delírios do "socialismo do século 21".

A Argentina, por sua vez, viu sua moeda perder 32% do valor em relação ao dólar no mercado oficial em 2013. A inflação, maquiada pelo governo, ronda os 30% anuais, mesmo com o controle de preços praticamente generalizado. O país convive com apagões diários, graças à falta de investimentos das empresas de energia, prejudicadas pelo represamento das tarifas.

Para o Journal, a atual conjuntura sugere que o Brasil está se tornando uma Argentina, a Argentina está virando uma Venezuela, e a Venezuela já é quase um Zimbábue. Pode ser um exagero, mas a comparação com a Aliança do Pacífico é, de fato, constrangedora. Como disse o ex-ministro da Fazenda peruano Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, "no fim das contas, os resultados dos dois diferentes blocos vão resolver o debate" sobre qual é o melhor modelo, "mas as más ideias levam muito tempo para morrer".

A ilha do tesouro des companheiros: uma bela conta de Pizzolato na Suica

Mensalão

Governo investiga conta secreta de Pizzolato na Suíça

Condenado pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal e foragido do país, ex-diretor do Banco do Brasil na época do mensalão teria acumulado 2 milhões de euros

Henrique Pizzolato, ex-diretor de Marketing do Banco do Brasil (Rodrigo Paiva/AE)

Autoridades brasileiras e suíças investigam uma conta secreta de Henrique Pizzolato, ex-diretor do Banco do Brasil, condenado no julgamento do mensalão. Pizzolato fugiu para a Itália após ter prisão decretada pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). A conta aberta em um banco na Suíça foi movimentada há dois meses, logo depois da fuga do mensaleiro, que deixou o Brasil em setembro. O saldo inicial seria de quase 2 milhões de euros e, atualmente, a conta não está zerada, segundo revelou o jornal O Estado de S.Paulo nesta sexta-feira.

Segundo o governo brasileiro, a conta internacional confirma como foi bem orquestrada a fuga de Pizzolato. Apesar da certeza da Polícia Federal quanto à ida do condenado à Itália, a PF afirma que não tem recebido cooperação da polícia italiana – a única com poder para apurar o paradeiro de Pizzolato, que tem dupla cidadania.

Um tratado assinado entre Brasil e Itália não permite extradição de quem tem dupla cidadania.

A recém-criada coordenação de rastreamento e captura da polícia assumiu a investigação com uma equipe de seis policiais. A Interpol, organização que reúne polícias de vários países, também auxilia no caso. O assunto ainda é mantido em sigilo pela Procuradoria-Geral da República e pela PF.

A principal linha de investigação é rastrear o percurso do dinheiro. Diplomatas do Brasil afirmaram que ocorreu uma “intensa troca” de cartas e comunicações entre Brasília e Berna, na Suíça, nas últimas semanas.

Leia também: 
Henrique Pizzolato: Petista foragido montou caixa do mensalão
Pizzolato foge para a Itália e debocha das autoridades brasileiras

Resistência - O pedido de ajuda de Brasília aos suíços enfrentou resistência inicial para ser atendido, apesar do acordo de cooperação judicial mantido entre os dois países. Isso porque o suposto crime não teria ocorrido na Suíça e não existiriam provas na Justiça local de que o dinheiro movimentado fosse fruto de corrupção.

O que permitiu a cooperação foi o fato de o nome de Pizzolato ter entrado na lista da Interpol. Com isso, as autoridades suíças também foram levadas a colaborar com um caso de alguém que já havia sido julgado e condenado em última instância. O sinal verde para a cooperação foi dado, mas com a condição de que o papel das autoridades suíças não fosse revelado inicialmente.

O pedido de ajuda do Brasil foi tratado pelo Escritório Federal da Polícia, conhecido como Fedpol. Uma vez recebido, o departamento lançou uma busca nos cantões suíços, obrigou bancos a buscar o nome de Pizzolato e conseguiu identificar a movimentação na área que seria de responsabilidade legal de Genebra.

O ex-diretor do Banco do Brasil foi condenado a 12 anos e 7 meses de prisão pelo STF pelos crimes de lavagem de dinheiro, corrupção passiva e peculato. As investigações mostraram que ele recebeu 326.000 reais de propina para favorecer uma das empresas de Marcos Valério em contratos com o Banco do Brasil. Como ex-diretor do banco, Pizzolato teria participado do desvio de aproximadamente 74 milhões de reais do Fundo Visanet para alimentar o esquema.

As pendências do mensalão que ficaram para 2014

Links Patrocinados

1-on-1 Law School Prep

Grades matter; prep for law school Individualized coaching

prep1l.com

Instituto Megalomaniaco: seria o comeco do desmantelamento do GuiaGenial dos Povos?

Promotoria entra com ação contra Prefeitura de SP e Instituto Lula por cessão de terreno

Fausto Macedo
O Estado de S.Paulo, 17/01/2014

O Ministério Público do Estado ingressou judicialmente nesta sexta feira, 17, com ação civil pública contra a Prefeitura e o Instituto Lula por causa da área cedida à entidade no centro de São Paulo. Através da lei municipal 15.573, de 31 de maio de 2012 (gestão Gilberto Kassab), o Município de São Paulo foi autorizado a ceder ao Instituto Lula, mediante concessão administrativa, independentemente de concorrência, pelo prazo de 99 anos, o uso de áreas situadas na Rua dos Protestantes, Centro, para a instalação de Memorial.
Para a Promotoria de Justiça do Patrimônio Público e Social, braço do Ministério Público, “o procedimento dos réus de facultar a divulgação de acervo de apenas um ex-presidente (Lula) sem lei municipal de incentivo a acervo presidencial constitui ferimento aos princípios da legalidade, igualdade e da democracia e aos princípios da administração pública da impessoalidade, publicidade, moralidade, eficiência previstos no artigo 37 da Constituição Federal”.
A ação civil é subscrita pelos promotores Valter Foleto Santin e Nelson Luís Sampaio de Andrade. “A situação se enquadra como verdadeira doação indevida de recursos públicos ou de imóvel público (mesmo temporariamente, mas por longos 99 anos) à entidade privada, beneficiada totalmente pelo lucro político e pessoal de espaço público para promoção pessoal do seu homenageado especial (Lula).”
“Não há interesse público devidamente justificado em cessão de imóvel para instalação de Memorial do ex-presidente Lula em momento de escassez de recursos e de terrenos públicos, longe do interesse do povo de melhoria da sua qualidade de vida e efetivação dos direitos sociais”, assinalam os promotores.

Pobreza nos Estados Unidos: numeros, apenas numeros, a partir do Censo - The Globalist

America’s 50-Year War on Poverty

Key figures on poverty in the United States, five decades after President Johnson launched his “war.”

By The Globalist, January 10, 2014

1.The poverty rate varies dramatically by race. The poverty rate for black Americans was the highest — at 27.2% — of the four major racial groups tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau.

2.That was nearly double the official poverty rate of 15% for the nation as a whole.

3.The 10.9 million blacks in poverty accounted for almost a quarter of the 46.5 million Americans living in poverty in 2012.

4.The poverty rate for white Americans, at 9.7%, was about three times lower than for black Americans.

5.However, because white Americans constitute such a large percentage of the overall population, they constitute the largest number of Americans living in poverty — 18.9 million.

6.The poverty rate for Hispanic Americans was, at 25.6%, nearly as high as for black Americans.

7.Hispanics comprise the second-largest ethnic group in the United States, and they are also the second-largest group of Americans living in poverty — at 13.6 million.

8.Asian Americans are the smallest of the four major U.S. racial groups. In 2012, the poverty rate for this group was 11.7%.

9.This means that 1.9 million Asian Americans were living in poverty last year, or about 4% of all Americans in poverty.

10.Poverty rates also vary along regional lines. The poverty rate is highest in the South, where 16.5% of people were poor in 2012. This compares to 13.3% in the Midwest, 13.6% in the Northeast, and 15.1% in the West.

11.In 2012, 21.8% of all Americans under the age of 18 were poor, compared to 13.7% of those aged 18 to 64. The poverty rate was lowest among Americans 65 and older — at 9.1%.

12.Spending by the federal government on the major means-tested programs for low-income Americans — including Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) — amounted to $588 billion in 2012.

13.That was $82.5 billion less than the $670.5 budget for defense-related expenditures.

14. While the U.S. government has invested significant sums of money to reduce poverty or to provide the resources that keep many millions from falling into poverty, it is clear that a key weapon in the War on Poverty is job creation.

15.The poverty rate for full-time workers in 2012 was just 3%, while for part-time workers it was 16% — and for those who had no job, it was 33%.

Editor’s note: With a few exceptions, the data in this feature are from the U.S. Census Bureau. They can be found here, in Table 3. People in Poverty by Selected Characteristics: 2011 and 2012.

O BC aumenta os juros para evitar aumento de juros para o Governo,entendeu?

Não tem importância, eu explico: se o BC não aumentasse a Selic, os tomadores de títulos do Governo exigiriam juros mais altos do Tesouro.

Entendeu agora? OK!

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Alta da Selic gera custo extra de ao menos R$ 14 bilhões aos cofres públicosO Globo, 17/01/2014

O combate à inflação por meio da elevação da taxa básica de juros, a Selic, vai custar pelo menos R$ 14,2 bilhões a mais aos cofres públicos neste ano. É o que mostra cálculo do economista Felipe Salto, da Tendências Consultoria. Segundo ele, as despesas com juros devem crescer de R$ 56,5 bilhões no ano passado para R$ 70,7 bilhões neste ano, efeito do ciclo de aumento da Selic, que estava em 7,25% em abril de 2013 e chegou a 10,5% nesta quarta-feira.

Salto diz que sua estimativa é conservadora, pois considera apenas as operações compromissadas – instrumento do Banco Central (BC) para enxugar excesso de liquidez na economia pela venda de títulos públicos. Não está incluso o impacto dos juros sobre os títulos pós-fixados vendidos pelo Tesouro.
- Esses R$ 70 bilhões já representam três orçamentos do Bolsa Família. E o governo não vai conseguir mudar isso por decreto. É preciso mudar a base desta política fiscal expansionista, o que abriria espaço para uma política monetária mais decente – diz.
Pelos cálculos de José Roberto Afonso, pesquisador do Instituto Brasileiro de Economia da Fundação Getulio Vargas (Ibre/FGV), o aumento de gastos com o ciclo da Selic é um pouco maior, de R$ 15,3 bilhões. O número, também considerado conservador, tem como base a estimativa informada na Lei de Diretrizes Orçamentárias (LDO) da União. Segundo o texto, o aumento de um ponto percentual da Selic provoca despesa extra com pagamento de juros de 0,09% do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB, soma de produtos e serviços produzidos no país).
- A taxa de juros é o instrumento predominante de política monetária também em outros países, mas parece que existe monopólio disso aqui no Brasil – disse Afonso, lembrando que o governo também tem adotado outros caminhos para conter preços. – O governo está intervindo diretamente nos preços dos combustíveis, da energia elétrica. Os chamados preços administrados estão sendo mais administrados do que nunca.
Segundo Margarida Gutierrez, professora da UFRJ, o crescimento do custo de pagamento de juros pode ser maior este ano por causa das incertezas em torno do corte da nota de classificação de risco do Brasil pela agência Standard & Poor’s (S&P) e do ano eleitoral. Ela explica que, neste cenário, os investidores tendem a exigir maior rendimento nos títulos do país.
- Se o BC não elevasse a Selic, aumentaria ainda mais a incerteza e cresceria ainda mais a conta de juros.
Fonte: O Globo