Please note that the deadline for abstract submission for the conference,
JAMES STEUART AND AN ECONOMY WITHOUT INVISIBLE HANDS
Seville, 26-27 October 2017
has been extended to 15 February 2017.
https://www.upo.es/econ/Steuart/
Abstract submission is now open for a conference to be held in Seville on the 26-27 October 2017, to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the publication of An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Œconomy (1767). Please send an abstract of no more than 500 words to José Manuel Menudo, at jmmenpac@upo.es no later than 15 February 2017 (extended deadline).
The decision on acceptances will be sent to authors by 15 March 2017. The deadline for submission of full papers is 15 September 2017. Papers may be written in English, in Spanish or in French. The scientific committee offers a number of grants to young scholars interested in participating at the Conference.
James Steuart (1713 -1780) published An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Œconomy in 1767, the first systematic treatise on economics as a science, nine years before Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. The conference aims at discussing different approaches to the analysis of Steuart’s oeuvre within the context of the writings of other 18th-century authors (1680 to 1830). Steuart’s economic thought will be presented as an alternative approach to many key developments in economic theory.
Authors are invited to examine various aspects of the life, works and influence of James Steuart, including his links to other authors who conceive – as Steuart did – the economic system of “natural liberty” as an artificial creation. Submissions are welcome in areas such as:
− James Steuart and the World of the Enlightenment. The bank of Amsterdam, the East India Company, the Scottish parliament or the House of Stuart.
− James Steuart and the physiocrats. Similarities and contrasts or the relationship between Steuart and the members of Quesnay's group/movement.
− The diffusion of James Steuart’s works around the world. The reception of Steuart’s ideas and the translation of his works.
− The authors opposed to Adam Smith's apologetic stance (in particular the theorists of the 18th and 19th centuries), that there is an invisible hand which coordinates needs and which underpins the unintended social benefits of individual actions.
− James Steuart and Money. Real price and money price, the anti-quantity theory of money, fiat money and payment systems.
− James Steuart's statesman. Subordination and dependence in hierarchical societies, response to social relations that are in continual flux, the duties of an active statesman, the imbalance between supply and demand, and the plan of political economy.
Scientific Committee: Manuela Albertone (Università di Torino), Christopher Berry (University of Glasgow), Jean Cartelier (Université de Paris X), Yutaka Furuya (Tohoku University), Rebeca Gomez Betancourt (Université Lyon 2), Claudia Jefferies (City, University of London), Alexandre Mendes Cunha (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais), José M. Menudo (Universidad Pablo de Olavide), Bertram Schefold (Goethe University), Claire Silvant (Université Lyon 2), André Tiran (Université Lyon 2), Keith Tribe (Independent Scholar) and Ramón Tortajada (Université Grenoble-Alpes)
quarta-feira, 1 de fevereiro de 2017
Meridiano 47: numero especial sobre pesquisa e extensao em RI - ABRI 2017
Meridiano 47 – Journal of Global Studies
Dossiê especial sobre Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão em RI no Brasil
Permanece aberta até 30/03 a chamada de contribuições para o Dossiê Especial sobre Desafios e Caminhos do Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão em Relações Internacionais no Brasil, em organização em Meridiano 47 – Journal of Global Studies.
A ampliação dos cursos de graduação e de pós-graduação, a diversidade das atividades com interface internacional, assim como os avanços teóricos e empíricos da disciplina nos últimos anos evidenciam a consolidação do campo das Relações Internacionais no Brasil. Ao mesmo tempo, as mudanças nas tecnologias da informação, as novas possibilidades de atuação profissional e os desdobramentos interdisciplinares estimulam a discussão sobre o perfil dos egressos, bem como sobre as expectativas do mercado de trabalho e do Estado em relação ao campo.
A publicação deste Dossiê pretende contribuir para o debate sobre as Relações Internacionais no Brasil, congregando avaliações sobre questões e metodologias que movem o campo nas dimensões do Ensino, da Pesquisa e da Extensão, inclusive nas suas inter-relações. Nessa perspectiva, convidamos a comunidade a submeter trabalhos que abordem, entre outros, os seguintes temas:
- a relação entre o ensino na graduação e na pós-graduação;
- desenvolvimentos recentes de temas substantivos nas agendas de pesquisa e sua inter-relação com o ensino e a extensão;
- formas de aprendizado ativo e experienciais;
- o desenvolvimento da área no Brasil e/ou comparação com a experiência de outros países, o papel das simulações; projetos pedagógicos, conteúdos programáticos e análise de currículos;
- perspectivas e expectativas do mercado de trabalho; modalidades de avaliação, inclusive da área; experiências de integração entre disciplinas; metodologias de pesquisa.
As normas de colaboração da Revista podem ser verificadas aqui e submissões se fazem aqui.
O lançamento do dossiê se fará em julho de 2017, no contexto do Encontro Nacional da Associação Brasileira de Relações Internacionais – ABRI.
terça-feira, 31 de janeiro de 2017
This Day in History: Emancipation Act, January 31, 1865 - 113 yeas, 58 nays (NYT)
On Jan. 31, 1865, the House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery.
From Washington
Passage of the Constitutional Amendment
ONE HUNDRED AND NINETEEN YEAS AGAINST FIFTY-SIX NAYS
Exciting Scene in the House
Enthusiasm Over the Result
THE PEACE MISSION IN THE SENATE
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR INFORMATION
Passage of Retaliation Resolutions in the Senate
From Washington
Abolition Of Slavery
Passage of the Constitutional Amendment
ONE HUNDRED AND NINETEEN YEAS AGAINST FIFTY-SIX NAYS
Exciting Scene in the House
Enthusiasm Over the Result
THE PEACE MISSION IN THE SENATE
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR INFORMATION
Passage of Retaliation Resolutions in the Senate
Special Dispatches to the New York Times
| OTHER HEADLINESThe Peace Question:Its Latest Aspect: Three Commissioners Coming from Richmond: They Apply for Admission to General Grant's Lines: A Flag of Truce and a Parley: General Grant In Communication With The Government: Respected Arrival of the Commissioners at Annapolis |
Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 31.
THE PASSAGE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
The great feature of the existing rebellion was the passage to-day by the House of Representatives of the resolutions submitting to the Legislatures of the several States an amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery. It was an epoch in the history of the country, and will be remembered by the members of the House and spectators present as an event in their lives. At 3 o'clock, by general consent, all discussion having ceased, the preliminary votes to reconsider and second the demand for the previous question were agreed to by a vote of 113 yeas, to 58 nays; and amid profound silence the Speaker announced that the yeas and nays would be taken directly upon the pending proposition. During the call, when prominent Democrats voted aye, there was suppressed evidence of applause and gratification exhibited in the galleries, but it was evident that the great interest centered entirely upon the final result, and when the presiding officer announced that the resolution was agreed to by yeas 119, nays 56, the enthusiasm of all present, save a few disappointed politicians, knew no bounds, and for several moments the scene was grand and impressive beyond description. No attempt was made to suppress the applause which came from all sides, every one feeling that the occasion justified the fullest expression of approbation and joy.
Grande empresa e Estado: a promiscuidade "natural" - Augusto de Franco
|
A "nova" anti-politica comercial de Trump e as oportunidades para a China - Alasdair Macleod
What Trump Means for Brexit, China, and the EU
by Alasdair Macleod
Mises Daily, January 31, 2017
The easy pattern of prolonged trade negotiations has been rudely interrupted by President Trump. Even before he had become president, his anticipated presence in the White House changed global attitudes and expectations. In Europe, EU officials are wrong-footed, while British trade officials cannot believe their luck.
EU officials were prepared to punish the UK knowing they could prevaricate for ever, because the EU should never, in its view, be challenged by a member state. The UK has been a disruptive member, and other members must be discouraged from following Britain’s exit at a time when there are increasing signs of rebellion by Europe’s "deplorables." Britain, having shocked its own establishment by voting for Brexit, faced the prospect of protracted negotiations with the EU that could, in the words of one British official who has since resigned, take a decade or more.
President Trump has dramatically changed the balance of power in Britain’s trade negotiations with the EU. It is probably no accident that the British approach was finally declared after Trump won the presidential election, and his attitude to trade with Britain was more friendly than Obama’s. The British negotiating strategy is remarkably sensible from a government that hasn’t until now believed in free markets, at least to the extent that it is prepared to back genuine free trade as a policy. Effectively, the EU has been told by Prime Minister Theresa May that Britain will propose, and they can take it or leave it, because Britain’s focus is now to trade relatively freely with the rest of the world. And if they don’t agree, Britain will cut corporation taxes to compensate British-based businesses from EU intransigence.
The threats from members of the European political establishment sound increasingly desperate, signaling they are waking up to the weakness of their position. They claim Britain will be cut out from the EU’s existing trade agreements. But when you look at them, you see there are only two of them with other G20 members — South Korea and Mexico. The rest are with small states, damning evidence of the failure of the EU to interact with the rest of the world. Big businesses in Europe are now switching sides, having unsuccessfully argued against a hard Brexit. They are now lobbying European governments instead for tariff-free trade with the UK.
Trump and Trade
Donald Trump apparently sees himself as bringing business priorities to government. He intends to run America in the manner of a nineteenth century mercantilist, where the priority is that America Inc. must become great again, with every able-bodied person regarded as potential contributors to the national enterprise. With respect to trade agreements, he will tear up the rules agreed between long-winded diplomats in favor of more effective business-driven resolutions, favoring America. Business negotiating strategies will be implemented, as we can see with the early signs of public negotiations between mercantilist Trump and China’s mercantilist Xi.
Britain’s free traders are likely to be at odds with Trump. He is signaling he is not interested in free trade. His attitude to the EU also marks a major change in American geopolitical thinking. Europe is now regarded as a leach, sucking America’s blood, not paying its way in NATO. Its socialism is alien to Trump. That’s the new world, as proposed by Trump, but the reality can be expected to turn out somewhat differently.
Trade Fallacies
All this would be fine, if President Trump based his understanding on the economics of trade imbalances. Like most people, he appears to think a trade deficit is the result of unfair foreign competition. It is not. It is the result of monetary expansion. In a sound money environment, everything is paid for out of real money. If I buy a foreign good, it must be matched by a fellow citizen’s export. If people change their preferences for real money, there will be a temporary surplus or deficit, but prices will rapidly adjust to find a new balance, the flows stop, and trade balances again.
In a sound-money environment, permanent or semi-permanent trade surpluses and deficits cannot exist. With unsound money, in other words if extra money is conjured up out of thin air and spent into the economy, excess demand is created, which either drives up prices domestically, or it is spent on imported goods. And given a country’s total production usually matches its total consumption, that extra money is certain to lead to an increase in imports.
It’s the cheat factor of fiat currency that’s responsible for trade imbalances, not unfair competition from foreigners. And because all countries cheat with their own fiat currencies, untangling the trade surpluses and deficits becomes a fruitless task.
We can conclude that however Trump’s trade policies turn out, America’s trade deficits will not go away. He will need to take a firm grasp of the budget deficit, and the Fed must take tighter control over the expansion of bank credit and money, both of which are unlikely.
Unintended Consequences
The Trump administration appears to be set to discourage imports by the introduction of a border tax, or discriminatory corporate income taxes. We know this will not achieve its objective, unless bank credit fails to grow. And if bank credit fails to grow despite the Fed’s desire for it to do so, a reduction in the trade deficit would be part and parcel of a contracting economy. America would then risk triggering a rerun of the depression of the 1930s, which was given an extra spin from the Smoot-Hawley tariff signed into law by President Hoover. In those days, both the dollar and sterling, as the two leading currencies, started the decade on the gold standard, which continued for the dollar after sterling abandoned it in 1931. This meant that commodity prices priced in both gold and dollars collapsed, impoverishing miners and agricultural producers worldwide. If the same thing happened today, the dollar would go down with commodity prices, because we know the Fed would expand money supply to avoid a slump. But measured in gold, commodity prices would still fall.
For now, this outcome is regarded by markets as a low risk, but given Trump’s contradictory statements on trade, it would be wrong to dismiss a Smoot-Hawley rerun. Trump’s rhetoric is indeed frighteningly similar.
China would be justified in taking the view that Trump’s intentions are protectionist, and therefore represent an escalation of the financial war between the two countries. That will depend on the outcome of negotiations between Presidents Trump and Xi. China could equally console herself with the knowledge that the dollar will become less important if gross American trade (as opposed to the net balance) diminishes because of protectionist measures. For the moment, the dollar is riding high, partly due to the declining use of the euro. But a higher dollar could be regarded as an opportunity for China to sell more Treasuries to invest in commodity stockpiles, before the dollar declines. And when the dollar declines, the yuan is likely to stabilize and become more attractive as a global trade settlement currency.
If, and it is an if, the Chinese take this view, they will not worry too much about Trump and his aggressive stance. He might be surprised that the Chinese give in on very little in the trade negotiations due to take place later this year. Their view could be that Trump is fighting yesterday’s trade war. Instead, China will be content with free trade agreements between the Pacific nations cut out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. South-East Asia will manufacture the cheap goods China used to make, because China is already upscaling her economy into services and technology, redeploying capital from the manufacture of cheap goods.
Where are Europe and Britain likely to end up in all this? The will for a rapid resolution of an Anglo-American trade agreement is there at both the White House and Downing Street. However, under the terms of Brexit, a deal cannot be signed before March 2019, which is a long time in politics. The threat of a US/UK agreement is more important as a lever to pull the EU into line, than its eventual reality. Additionally, Britain can easily sign agreements with Commonwealth members, comprised of 52 countries and a third of the world’s population. Importantly, these are the growing economies of the future. South Korea, Mexico, and the minor nations that have existing agreements with the EU should also be ready signatories, assuming the EU does not successfully pressure them not to enter agreements with the UK. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries and China total another two billion, again growing more rapidly than the advanced nations, taking the potential total to well over half the world’s population.
The opportunity for Britain presented by Brexit, and facilitated by Trump’s election, is truly extraordinary, but that’s not reckoning with the politics. Politicians do not define free trade in the way that free trade should be. To politicians, free trade is a complex agreement, regulating every provision of goods and services. Free trade without politicians is simple: we can all get on with buying and selling with each other what we truly desire.
The greatest threat to world trade comes not from the break-up of the EU, nor from China. It appears to be Trump’s lack of understanding of why trade imbalances exist, and his wrongheaded policy of American protectionism.
Alasdair Macleod is the head of research at GoldMoney.
by Alasdair Macleod
Mises Daily, January 31, 2017
The easy pattern of prolonged trade negotiations has been rudely interrupted by President Trump. Even before he had become president, his anticipated presence in the White House changed global attitudes and expectations. In Europe, EU officials are wrong-footed, while British trade officials cannot believe their luck.
EU officials were prepared to punish the UK knowing they could prevaricate for ever, because the EU should never, in its view, be challenged by a member state. The UK has been a disruptive member, and other members must be discouraged from following Britain’s exit at a time when there are increasing signs of rebellion by Europe’s "deplorables." Britain, having shocked its own establishment by voting for Brexit, faced the prospect of protracted negotiations with the EU that could, in the words of one British official who has since resigned, take a decade or more.
President Trump has dramatically changed the balance of power in Britain’s trade negotiations with the EU. It is probably no accident that the British approach was finally declared after Trump won the presidential election, and his attitude to trade with Britain was more friendly than Obama’s. The British negotiating strategy is remarkably sensible from a government that hasn’t until now believed in free markets, at least to the extent that it is prepared to back genuine free trade as a policy. Effectively, the EU has been told by Prime Minister Theresa May that Britain will propose, and they can take it or leave it, because Britain’s focus is now to trade relatively freely with the rest of the world. And if they don’t agree, Britain will cut corporation taxes to compensate British-based businesses from EU intransigence.
The threats from members of the European political establishment sound increasingly desperate, signaling they are waking up to the weakness of their position. They claim Britain will be cut out from the EU’s existing trade agreements. But when you look at them, you see there are only two of them with other G20 members — South Korea and Mexico. The rest are with small states, damning evidence of the failure of the EU to interact with the rest of the world. Big businesses in Europe are now switching sides, having unsuccessfully argued against a hard Brexit. They are now lobbying European governments instead for tariff-free trade with the UK.
Trump and Trade
Donald Trump apparently sees himself as bringing business priorities to government. He intends to run America in the manner of a nineteenth century mercantilist, where the priority is that America Inc. must become great again, with every able-bodied person regarded as potential contributors to the national enterprise. With respect to trade agreements, he will tear up the rules agreed between long-winded diplomats in favor of more effective business-driven resolutions, favoring America. Business negotiating strategies will be implemented, as we can see with the early signs of public negotiations between mercantilist Trump and China’s mercantilist Xi.
Britain’s free traders are likely to be at odds with Trump. He is signaling he is not interested in free trade. His attitude to the EU also marks a major change in American geopolitical thinking. Europe is now regarded as a leach, sucking America’s blood, not paying its way in NATO. Its socialism is alien to Trump. That’s the new world, as proposed by Trump, but the reality can be expected to turn out somewhat differently.
Trade Fallacies
All this would be fine, if President Trump based his understanding on the economics of trade imbalances. Like most people, he appears to think a trade deficit is the result of unfair foreign competition. It is not. It is the result of monetary expansion. In a sound money environment, everything is paid for out of real money. If I buy a foreign good, it must be matched by a fellow citizen’s export. If people change their preferences for real money, there will be a temporary surplus or deficit, but prices will rapidly adjust to find a new balance, the flows stop, and trade balances again.
In a sound-money environment, permanent or semi-permanent trade surpluses and deficits cannot exist. With unsound money, in other words if extra money is conjured up out of thin air and spent into the economy, excess demand is created, which either drives up prices domestically, or it is spent on imported goods. And given a country’s total production usually matches its total consumption, that extra money is certain to lead to an increase in imports.
It’s the cheat factor of fiat currency that’s responsible for trade imbalances, not unfair competition from foreigners. And because all countries cheat with their own fiat currencies, untangling the trade surpluses and deficits becomes a fruitless task.
We can conclude that however Trump’s trade policies turn out, America’s trade deficits will not go away. He will need to take a firm grasp of the budget deficit, and the Fed must take tighter control over the expansion of bank credit and money, both of which are unlikely.
Unintended Consequences
The Trump administration appears to be set to discourage imports by the introduction of a border tax, or discriminatory corporate income taxes. We know this will not achieve its objective, unless bank credit fails to grow. And if bank credit fails to grow despite the Fed’s desire for it to do so, a reduction in the trade deficit would be part and parcel of a contracting economy. America would then risk triggering a rerun of the depression of the 1930s, which was given an extra spin from the Smoot-Hawley tariff signed into law by President Hoover. In those days, both the dollar and sterling, as the two leading currencies, started the decade on the gold standard, which continued for the dollar after sterling abandoned it in 1931. This meant that commodity prices priced in both gold and dollars collapsed, impoverishing miners and agricultural producers worldwide. If the same thing happened today, the dollar would go down with commodity prices, because we know the Fed would expand money supply to avoid a slump. But measured in gold, commodity prices would still fall.
For now, this outcome is regarded by markets as a low risk, but given Trump’s contradictory statements on trade, it would be wrong to dismiss a Smoot-Hawley rerun. Trump’s rhetoric is indeed frighteningly similar.
China would be justified in taking the view that Trump’s intentions are protectionist, and therefore represent an escalation of the financial war between the two countries. That will depend on the outcome of negotiations between Presidents Trump and Xi. China could equally console herself with the knowledge that the dollar will become less important if gross American trade (as opposed to the net balance) diminishes because of protectionist measures. For the moment, the dollar is riding high, partly due to the declining use of the euro. But a higher dollar could be regarded as an opportunity for China to sell more Treasuries to invest in commodity stockpiles, before the dollar declines. And when the dollar declines, the yuan is likely to stabilize and become more attractive as a global trade settlement currency.
If, and it is an if, the Chinese take this view, they will not worry too much about Trump and his aggressive stance. He might be surprised that the Chinese give in on very little in the trade negotiations due to take place later this year. Their view could be that Trump is fighting yesterday’s trade war. Instead, China will be content with free trade agreements between the Pacific nations cut out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. South-East Asia will manufacture the cheap goods China used to make, because China is already upscaling her economy into services and technology, redeploying capital from the manufacture of cheap goods.
Where are Europe and Britain likely to end up in all this? The will for a rapid resolution of an Anglo-American trade agreement is there at both the White House and Downing Street. However, under the terms of Brexit, a deal cannot be signed before March 2019, which is a long time in politics. The threat of a US/UK agreement is more important as a lever to pull the EU into line, than its eventual reality. Additionally, Britain can easily sign agreements with Commonwealth members, comprised of 52 countries and a third of the world’s population. Importantly, these are the growing economies of the future. South Korea, Mexico, and the minor nations that have existing agreements with the EU should also be ready signatories, assuming the EU does not successfully pressure them not to enter agreements with the UK. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries and China total another two billion, again growing more rapidly than the advanced nations, taking the potential total to well over half the world’s population.
The opportunity for Britain presented by Brexit, and facilitated by Trump’s election, is truly extraordinary, but that’s not reckoning with the politics. Politicians do not define free trade in the way that free trade should be. To politicians, free trade is a complex agreement, regulating every provision of goods and services. Free trade without politicians is simple: we can all get on with buying and selling with each other what we truly desire.
The greatest threat to world trade comes not from the break-up of the EU, nor from China. It appears to be Trump’s lack of understanding of why trade imbalances exist, and his wrongheaded policy of American protectionism.
Alasdair Macleod is the head of research at GoldMoney.
sábado, 28 de janeiro de 2017
O PT cleptocrata encontra um socio do seu quilate: Cabral e seus zilhoes - Editorial Estadao
Nunca Antes Neste País: nunca antes no país um slogan vagabundo, mentiroso, vergonhoso, hipócrita e lamentável se revelou tão verdadeiro, tão apropriado, tão adequado aos dois grandes mafiosos mega-ultra-super-cleptocratas, cada um com seu estilo peculiar, mas ambos, juntos ou separadamente, combinados ou não, são os maiores representantes da mesma erva daninha, do mesmo estrume que emporcalha o Brasil, os grandes cleptocratas, e organizadores de roubos em escala tão gigantesca.
Coisa de levantar o chapéu, se me permitem a expressão: realmente, nunca antes no Brasil assistimos a assaltos dessa magnitude contra os recursos públicos, promiscuidade tão grande no roubo.
Um único desejo, se possível: que os dois partilhem a mesma cela por aproximadamente dez anos, como mínimo, para pagar pelos seus crimes...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Campeão da roubalheira
Editorial | O Estado de S. Paulo, sábado, 28 de janeiro de 2017
A história da República registra proezas de cleptocratas extremamente proficientes na arte de meter a mão nos cofres públicos – que o diga a São Paulo dos tempos do ademarismo e do malufismo. O que talvez não se esperasse é que sobre os protagonistas daquelas épocas reinasse agora, impávido, um fantástico “campeão nacional” da roubalheira, cujas proezas levaram à falência todo um Estado da Federação, o Rio de Janeiro: o hoje encarcerado ex-governador Sergio Cabral, em seus melhores dias amigo do peito dos presidentes Lula da Silva e Dilma Rousseff.
De acordo com o que foi até agora apurado pela força-tarefa da Lava Jato no âmbito da Operação Eficiência, o esquema de corrupção comandado por Cabral é simplesmente fantástico: pelo menos US$ 100 milhões foram encontrados em contas no exterior ligadas ao grupo criminoso, dos quais cerca de US$ 80 milhões pertenceriam ao ex-governador, dono também de US$ 1,8 milhão em diamantes que serão igualmente repatriados. Assim mesmo, segundo revelaram procuradores e delegados da operação, “o patrimônio da organização criminosa comandada por Cabral é um oceano não completamente mapeado”. Para o Ministério Público, “as cifras são indubitavelmente astronômicas” e “esses US$ 100 milhões são apenas uma parte do dinheiro do esquema”.
O jornal O Globo revela que Sergio Cabral, em 25 anos de carreira política, fez seu patrimônio crescer gradativamente, sempre por conta de recursos de origem suspeita. Como deputado estadual e presidente da Assembleia Legislativa fluminense, entre 1991 e 2002, inicialmente filiado ao PSDB e depois ao PMDB, Cabral acumulou um patrimônio de US$ 2 milhões em contas no exterior. Como senador, de 2003 a 2006, seu patrimônio não declarado fora do País já era de US$ 7 milhões. Como governador, de 2007 a 2014, a movimentação de suas contas secretas no exterior foi de US$ 152 milhões, o que equivale a inacreditáveis US$ 18,1 milhões por ano de governo. Dinheiro que financiou um alto padrão de vida não apenas para Sergio Cabral e família, mas também para parentes próximos, como um irmão, a ex-mulher e toda uma quadrilha que se encarregava da captação e distribuição dos recursos de origem escusa depositados em 12 contas no exterior.
Essas novas descobertas foram feitas pela Operação Eficiência – e, mais uma vez, não se trata de coincidência – a partir de investigações que tinham como objeto o empresário Eike Batista, que, conforme já havia sido anteriormente descoberto, teria pagado a Cabral propina de US$ 16,6 milhões por “favores” diversos. Por ironia, as novas revelações sobre o ex-governador fluminense vêm a público simultaneamente com aquelas relativas ao empresário, que cinco anos atrás, surfando nas prerrogativas de “campeão nacional” do empreendedorismo a que fora elevado pelo lulopetismo, foi apontado pela revista Forbes como o sétimo homem de negócios mais rico do mundo. Só o BNDES contribuiu com US$ 6 bilhões para os planos mirabolantes de Eike Batista que se revelaram inexequíveis e o acabaram levando à falência.
A prisão de Sergio Cabral e seu bando não chega a ser um consolo para a população do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, que não consegue honrar suas contas, nem mesmo a obrigação elementar de pagar em dia seus milhares de funcionários. Mas, se essa desgraça pode ser atribuída, em boa parte, à corrupção deslavada de quem governou o Estado por mais de sete anos, o conjunto da obra é responsabilidade de um poder central que anos a fio vendeu ao País a ilusão da Pátria Grande lastreada na gastança irresponsável que alimentou programas sociais, necessários, mas insustentáveis, e a ilusão de importantes empreendimentos privados reservados para “campeões nacionais” politicamente escolhidos e descuidadosamente financiados por abundantes recursos públicos.
Essa foi uma experiência dispendiosa e frustrada da qual Eike Batista e seu império de fachada são um triste exemplo. Assim, o título de “campeão nacional”, que o lulopetismo não conseguiu garantir para empreendedores amigos de Lula e Dilma, é ironicamente ostentado agora – finalmente por direito de conquista – por um político corrupto que privava da intimidade do gabinete presidencial.
Coisa de levantar o chapéu, se me permitem a expressão: realmente, nunca antes no Brasil assistimos a assaltos dessa magnitude contra os recursos públicos, promiscuidade tão grande no roubo.
Um único desejo, se possível: que os dois partilhem a mesma cela por aproximadamente dez anos, como mínimo, para pagar pelos seus crimes...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Campeão da roubalheira
Editorial | O Estado de S. Paulo, sábado, 28 de janeiro de 2017
A história da República registra proezas de cleptocratas extremamente proficientes na arte de meter a mão nos cofres públicos – que o diga a São Paulo dos tempos do ademarismo e do malufismo. O que talvez não se esperasse é que sobre os protagonistas daquelas épocas reinasse agora, impávido, um fantástico “campeão nacional” da roubalheira, cujas proezas levaram à falência todo um Estado da Federação, o Rio de Janeiro: o hoje encarcerado ex-governador Sergio Cabral, em seus melhores dias amigo do peito dos presidentes Lula da Silva e Dilma Rousseff.
De acordo com o que foi até agora apurado pela força-tarefa da Lava Jato no âmbito da Operação Eficiência, o esquema de corrupção comandado por Cabral é simplesmente fantástico: pelo menos US$ 100 milhões foram encontrados em contas no exterior ligadas ao grupo criminoso, dos quais cerca de US$ 80 milhões pertenceriam ao ex-governador, dono também de US$ 1,8 milhão em diamantes que serão igualmente repatriados. Assim mesmo, segundo revelaram procuradores e delegados da operação, “o patrimônio da organização criminosa comandada por Cabral é um oceano não completamente mapeado”. Para o Ministério Público, “as cifras são indubitavelmente astronômicas” e “esses US$ 100 milhões são apenas uma parte do dinheiro do esquema”.
O jornal O Globo revela que Sergio Cabral, em 25 anos de carreira política, fez seu patrimônio crescer gradativamente, sempre por conta de recursos de origem suspeita. Como deputado estadual e presidente da Assembleia Legislativa fluminense, entre 1991 e 2002, inicialmente filiado ao PSDB e depois ao PMDB, Cabral acumulou um patrimônio de US$ 2 milhões em contas no exterior. Como senador, de 2003 a 2006, seu patrimônio não declarado fora do País já era de US$ 7 milhões. Como governador, de 2007 a 2014, a movimentação de suas contas secretas no exterior foi de US$ 152 milhões, o que equivale a inacreditáveis US$ 18,1 milhões por ano de governo. Dinheiro que financiou um alto padrão de vida não apenas para Sergio Cabral e família, mas também para parentes próximos, como um irmão, a ex-mulher e toda uma quadrilha que se encarregava da captação e distribuição dos recursos de origem escusa depositados em 12 contas no exterior.
Essas novas descobertas foram feitas pela Operação Eficiência – e, mais uma vez, não se trata de coincidência – a partir de investigações que tinham como objeto o empresário Eike Batista, que, conforme já havia sido anteriormente descoberto, teria pagado a Cabral propina de US$ 16,6 milhões por “favores” diversos. Por ironia, as novas revelações sobre o ex-governador fluminense vêm a público simultaneamente com aquelas relativas ao empresário, que cinco anos atrás, surfando nas prerrogativas de “campeão nacional” do empreendedorismo a que fora elevado pelo lulopetismo, foi apontado pela revista Forbes como o sétimo homem de negócios mais rico do mundo. Só o BNDES contribuiu com US$ 6 bilhões para os planos mirabolantes de Eike Batista que se revelaram inexequíveis e o acabaram levando à falência.
A prisão de Sergio Cabral e seu bando não chega a ser um consolo para a população do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, que não consegue honrar suas contas, nem mesmo a obrigação elementar de pagar em dia seus milhares de funcionários. Mas, se essa desgraça pode ser atribuída, em boa parte, à corrupção deslavada de quem governou o Estado por mais de sete anos, o conjunto da obra é responsabilidade de um poder central que anos a fio vendeu ao País a ilusão da Pátria Grande lastreada na gastança irresponsável que alimentou programas sociais, necessários, mas insustentáveis, e a ilusão de importantes empreendimentos privados reservados para “campeões nacionais” politicamente escolhidos e descuidadosamente financiados por abundantes recursos públicos.
Essa foi uma experiência dispendiosa e frustrada da qual Eike Batista e seu império de fachada são um triste exemplo. Assim, o título de “campeão nacional”, que o lulopetismo não conseguiu garantir para empreendedores amigos de Lula e Dilma, é ironicamente ostentado agora – finalmente por direito de conquista – por um político corrupto que privava da intimidade do gabinete presidencial.
Grande Guerra: a ordem internacional - Coloquio em Oxford (setembro)
CfP: Rethinking the World Order: International Law and International Relations at the End of the First World War
by Jan Stoeckmann
Type: Call for Papers
Date: March 31, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Subject Fields: Intellectual History, Law and Legal History, Political History / Studies, Political Science
Rethinking the World Order:
International Law and International Relations at the End of the First World War
Oxford, 31 August – 1 September 2017 (Apply by 31 March 2017)
The horrors of the Great War and the desire for peace shaped scholarship in International Law and International Relations (IR) during the late 1910s—a stimulating time for both disciplines. Scholars observed and analysed political events as they unfolded but also took an active part, as governmental advisors or diplomatic officials, in devising the new international order. The Paris Peace Conference and the subsequent birth of the League of Nations as well as the Permanent Court of International Justice served as testing grounds for new legal and political concepts. The end of the First World War was in many ways a milestone for both disciplines, prompting scholars to reflect on the consequences of the war on society, politics, and the world economy. How could another world war be avoided in the future? How could states be held accountable for violations of international law? What were the preconditions for peaceful international governance? These questions led to pioneering research on issues such as arbitration, sanctions, revision of treaties, supra-national governance, disarmament, self-determination, migration, and the protection of minorities. At the same time, the study of International Law and IR also advanced in terms of methodology and teaching, including new professorships, journals, conferences and research centres.
A century later, it is a good moment to reflect upon disciplinary histories and revisit some of the theoretical and practical debates that shaped the period from 1914 to 1945. The workshop conveners are particularly (but not exclusively) interested in the following research questions:
Was the First World War a watershed moment for the development of International Law and IR?
Which were the key debates in both disciplines? And how can they be re-interpreted today?
What were the connections and/or dividing lines between the two disciplines?
Did International Law and IR evolve similarly across different countries?
Who were the principle actors, both individuals and institutions, in the respective fields?
Which role did International Law and IR respectively play in shaping ‘real-world’ policy? And to what extent were theoretical developments shaped by political events?
How did ideas float between academia and politics?
How successful were non-governmental organisations—such as academic societies, arbitration clubs, political pressure groups, League of Nations clubs, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), etc.—in achieving their goals?
The two-day interdisciplinary workshop will be held at the European Studies Centre (ESC) at St Antony’s College, Oxford from 31 August to 1 September 2017. We invite abstracts from early career researchers and advanced postgraduate students in history, law, IR and other related disciplines to share their research in a multi-disciplinary environment. By facilitating this exchange we hope to open new avenues of research and to encourage new approaches to the history of both disciplines. We are planning to have six panels, one keynote address, and an open plenary session that allows all participants to pitch their research projects.
Please submit your proposal (including a title, 300 words abstract, and a short bio) to jan.stoeckmann@new.ox.ac.uk by 31 March 2017. Successful applicants will be notified by 30 April 2017. We are currently working on logistical details, including reimbursements and publication plans, and will keep you updated.
For updates see: www.rethinkingtheworldorder.wordpress.com
The convenors are Dr Gabriela Frei, British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Junior Research Fellow in History Jesus College, Oxford, and Jan Stöckmann, DPhil Candidate in History New College, Oxford.
Contact Info:
Jan Stöckmann, New College, Oxford
Contact Email:
jan.stoeckmann@new.ox.ac.uk
URL:
https://rethinkingtheworldorder.wordpress.com/
by Jan Stoeckmann
Type: Call for Papers
Date: March 31, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Subject Fields: Intellectual History, Law and Legal History, Political History / Studies, Political Science
Rethinking the World Order:
International Law and International Relations at the End of the First World War
Oxford, 31 August – 1 September 2017 (Apply by 31 March 2017)
The horrors of the Great War and the desire for peace shaped scholarship in International Law and International Relations (IR) during the late 1910s—a stimulating time for both disciplines. Scholars observed and analysed political events as they unfolded but also took an active part, as governmental advisors or diplomatic officials, in devising the new international order. The Paris Peace Conference and the subsequent birth of the League of Nations as well as the Permanent Court of International Justice served as testing grounds for new legal and political concepts. The end of the First World War was in many ways a milestone for both disciplines, prompting scholars to reflect on the consequences of the war on society, politics, and the world economy. How could another world war be avoided in the future? How could states be held accountable for violations of international law? What were the preconditions for peaceful international governance? These questions led to pioneering research on issues such as arbitration, sanctions, revision of treaties, supra-national governance, disarmament, self-determination, migration, and the protection of minorities. At the same time, the study of International Law and IR also advanced in terms of methodology and teaching, including new professorships, journals, conferences and research centres.
A century later, it is a good moment to reflect upon disciplinary histories and revisit some of the theoretical and practical debates that shaped the period from 1914 to 1945. The workshop conveners are particularly (but not exclusively) interested in the following research questions:
Was the First World War a watershed moment for the development of International Law and IR?
Which were the key debates in both disciplines? And how can they be re-interpreted today?
What were the connections and/or dividing lines between the two disciplines?
Did International Law and IR evolve similarly across different countries?
Who were the principle actors, both individuals and institutions, in the respective fields?
Which role did International Law and IR respectively play in shaping ‘real-world’ policy? And to what extent were theoretical developments shaped by political events?
How did ideas float between academia and politics?
How successful were non-governmental organisations—such as academic societies, arbitration clubs, political pressure groups, League of Nations clubs, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), etc.—in achieving their goals?
The two-day interdisciplinary workshop will be held at the European Studies Centre (ESC) at St Antony’s College, Oxford from 31 August to 1 September 2017. We invite abstracts from early career researchers and advanced postgraduate students in history, law, IR and other related disciplines to share their research in a multi-disciplinary environment. By facilitating this exchange we hope to open new avenues of research and to encourage new approaches to the history of both disciplines. We are planning to have six panels, one keynote address, and an open plenary session that allows all participants to pitch their research projects.
Please submit your proposal (including a title, 300 words abstract, and a short bio) to jan.stoeckmann@new.ox.ac.uk by 31 March 2017. Successful applicants will be notified by 30 April 2017. We are currently working on logistical details, including reimbursements and publication plans, and will keep you updated.
For updates see: www.rethinkingtheworldorder.wordpress.com
The convenors are Dr Gabriela Frei, British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Junior Research Fellow in History Jesus College, Oxford, and Jan Stöckmann, DPhil Candidate in History New College, Oxford.
Contact Info:
Jan Stöckmann, New College, Oxford
Contact Email:
jan.stoeckmann@new.ox.ac.uk
URL:
https://rethinkingtheworldorder.wordpress.com/
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...
-
Países de Maior Acesso aos textos PRA em Academia.edu (apenas os superiores a 100 acessos) Compilação Paulo Roberto de Almeida (15/12/2025) ...
-
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...
-
Reproduzo novamente uma postagem minha de 2020, quando foi publicado o livro de Dennys Xavier sobre Thomas Sowell quarta-feira, 4 de março... -
Itamaraty 'Memórias', do embaixador Marcos Azambuja, é uma aula de diplomacia Embaixador foi um grande contador de histórias, ...
-
Desde el post de José Antonio Sanahuja Persles (Linkedin) Con Camilo López Burian, de la Universidad de la República, estudiamos el ascens...
-
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...
-
O Chanceler alemão Merz: "Caros amigos, as décadas da Pax Americana chegaram ao fim para nós na Europa, e para nós na Alemanha também...