O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

quarta-feira, 29 de julho de 2020

Concurso para a carreira diplomática: NÃO SOU professor para cursinhos - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Muito frequentemente recebo, via blog, site ou diretamente em alguma ferramenta social, este tipo de consulta: 

Professor, você ministra algum curso para candidatos à carreira diplomática? Constatei ultimamente que boa parte das matérias do edital do CACD soam mais inteligíveis acompanhando suas publicações, ao invés dos cursos regulares. Grato por compartilhar análises próprias e os links gerais.

Já respondi diversas vezes que não, que não estou nesse mercado, não pretendo entrar e não dou aulas nem palestras para cursinhos ou quaisquer outras plataformas que tenham a ver com a preparação para o concurso.
Não tenho nada contra os cursinhos – a despeito de ser um autodidata radical, e sempre recomendo estudo solitário –, mas não sou alguém que faça coisas (aulas, escritos, manuais) que sejam demandados por terceiros. Só faço aquilo que eu desejo fazer, sem diretrizes e sem atender ao politicamente correto, sem respeitar posturas oficiais, e portanto nem sempre com posturas compatíveis com as políticas governamentais, pois eu me considero absolutamente livre para expressar meu próprio pensamento.
Aqueles que leem o que escrevo – e muita coisa está livremente disponível em meu site, blog e outras ferramentas sociais – o fazem por sua própria conta e risco, pois nunca conferi para saber se o que digo e escrevo corresponde à "verdade oficial" (ou do momento). 
Eu apenas divulgo o que me parece interessante, seja os documentos oficiais, como este edital: 

DIÁRIO OFICIAL DA UNIÃO
Publicado em: 30/06/2020 | Edição: 123 | Seção: 3 | Página: 95
Órgão: Ministério das Relações Exteriores/Secretaria-Geral das Relações Exteriores/Secretaria de Comunicação e Cultura/Instituto Rio Branco

EDITAL Nº 1, DE 29 DE JUNHO DE 2020
CONCURSO DE ADMISSÃO À CARREIRA DE DIPLOMATA

A diretora-geral do Instituto Rio Branco, no uso das atribuições que lhe
conferem a portaria MRE nº 919, de 19 de setembro de 2019, e a portaria MRE nº 178, de 13 de maio de 2020, torna pública a realização do Concurso de Admissão à Carreira de
Diplomata, para o provimento de 25 (vinte e cinco) vagas na classe inicial de terceiro-secretário.

seja matérias de imprensa, como esta: 

https://gauchazh.clicrbs.com.br/educacao-e-emprego/noticia/2020/07/instituto-rio-branco-abre-concurso-para-diplomatas-com-salario-inicial-de-r-19-mil-veja-o-que-fazem-esses-profissionais-ckd695kaz0000013gs4hf0riz.html

seja ainda documentos, relatórios, estudos, análises que julgo podem servir aos estudiosos e candidatos.
Apenas alerto que meus textos podem não coincidir com o que acreditam os donos do poder, e certamente não coincidem – ao contrário, divergem radicalmente – com as loucuras e bobagens atualmente em curso no governo e no Itamaraty.
Creio que está respondido.

Paulo R. de Almeida
Professor de Economia Politica no 
Centro Universitário de Brasília (Uniceub)
pralmeida@me.com
www.pralmeida.org
diplomatizzando.blogspot.com
CV Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/9470963765065128
https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paulo_Almeida2

Trump e seus camisas negras (para fins eleitorais)

Mussolini tinha seus “camisas negras”; as tropas de assalto de Hitler vestiam  camisas marrons; Trump pensa desfilar suas camisas camufladas.
O capitão vai mobilizar as camisas cinzentas dos PMs?


We don’t need Trump’s thugs in Chicago
The excuse for sending federal police here is to protect federal property. The reality is that this is a cynical re-election ploy aimed at earning support for a law-and-disorder president.
Jesse Jackson
Chicago Sun-Times – 29.7.2020

“Hitler had his Brown shirts and Mussolini had his Black shirts, now Donald Trump has his camouflage shirts.” Thus began a statement signed by 15 distinguished interdenominational religious leaders in Chicago that I joined, including ministers, priests, and rabbis.
Comparisons to Hitler are always explosive, but the comparison is apt. “Hitler’s bullyboys,” the statement continues, “operated on the fringes or outside of the law to violently intimidate Germany’s leftists and finally to exterminate Jews. Trump’s bully boys are operating on the fringes or outside the law to violently intimidate America’s progressives and people of color who are exercising their First Amendment right to protest racial injustice.”
Portland, Oregon, provides the model. Trump dispatched untrained, unidentified, camouflage-wearing, military-uniformed, no name-tagged bullyboys who are literally kidnapping protesters, stuffing them in unidentified vans, taking them to unknown locations without charges — and against the wishes of local law enforcement officers the mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon.
Trump has announced that he will send similar teams to Chicago, New York, Detroit, Atlanta, Baltimore and other “liberal Democrat-run cities,” to use his phrase. The excuse is to defend federal property. The reality is that this is a cynical re-election ploy. As Portland shows, Trump’s gambit will spark a large, hostile reaction which he hopes to use to scare suburban voters into supporting this law-and-disorder president.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has warned Trump not to try this in Chicago. “[N]o troops, no agents that are coming in outside of our knowledge, notification, and control that are violating people’s constitutional rights.” Lightfoot told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday during an appearance on “State of the Union. “We can’t just allow anyone to come into Chicago, play police in our streets, in our neighborhoods, when they don’t know the first thing about our city. That’s a recipe for disaster. And that’s what you’re seeing playing out in Portland on a nightly basis.”
We support her resistance — and the opposition expressed by the Pentagon, members of Congress, former U.S. military officials, historians and constitutional scholars — to Trump’s effrontery.
We don’t need the president’s thugs in Chicago, but we would like real federal assistance. While overall crime has decreased compared to last year, violent crime — particularly murders and shootings — has soared.
Chicago has no gun shop and no gun range. The guns come from outside of Chicago, generally across the border from Indiana. We need common sense regulations on guns to stop the pipeline into Chicago. Trump could help because it is Republicans and the gun lobby that stands in the way.
Real federal assistance wouldn’t be dispatching bullyboys to terrorize citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. It would help with jobs and training for the young. It would help with rent and mortgage forgiveness during the pandemic lockdown when people can’t work. If Trump and Senate Republicans don’t act immediately, literally millions will be on the verge of eviction.
We need real investment in our schools, so the savage inequality with suburban schools can be reduced. We need health care to be a right, not a privilege, and at the very least for the federal government to cover all medical expenses related to COVID-19. In a pandemic, we all have a stake in ensuring that the sick can afford to get the treatment they need.
Our sons and daughters volunteer to serve in the military. When Vladimir Putin puts a bounty on the heads of our soldiers, we need Trump to defend them, not to ignore the attack.
Trump scorns real assistance to cities. He scorns meeting with our elected leaders before announcing that he plans to dispatch his thugs to our city. And he disgraces our democracy with this cynical and dangerous campaign ploy.
Black Lives Matter Chicago and other organizations are going to court to get an injunction to prohibit Trump’s agents from “interfering in or otherwise policing lawful and peaceful assemblies and protests” in Chicago.
The religious leaders who issued the statement pledged that if Trump dispatched bullyboys to Chicago without the permission of the mayor, they would be met with a “massive, disciplined, nonviolent ... march of resistance.” We will not let the president trample our Constitution, suppress our rights, and terrorize our citizens with impunity.

*

Ugly Protests Are Trump's Only Hope
Froma Harrop
Seatlle Times – 29.7.2020

It would take quite a spectacle to upstage America's humiliating failure to contain the coronavirus. It's not every day that the Bahamas labels U.S. tourists as carriers of disease to be kept out.
President Donald Trump's poll numbers continue to sink as cases and death tolls rise. The only thing that could possibly save him is political violence in America's cities. And that's what he's cooking up.
It's entirely in Trump's playbook to provoke civic discord. He's been drawing his detractors into his game for four years. And what better way now than to send armed federal officers in unmarked cars into cities that don't want them? Unfortunately, protesters in Portland easily rose to the bait. And that chaos set off violent clashes, this time with local police, in Seattle, Omaha and Oakland, California.
"I'm furious that Oakland may have played right into Donald Trump's twisted campaign strategy," Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said. "Images of a vandalized downtown is exactly what he wants to whip up his base and to potentially justify sending in federal troops that will only incite more unrest."
Suppose the protesters hadn't shown up. Suppose they had left the federal agents with empty streets and little to do.
Their causes may be just and their demonstrations overwhelmingly peaceful. But that matters not in these fraught times. Any video snippet of street fighting is guaranteed to get on the evening news.
Meanwhile, some protests have been infiltrated by far-right creeps. In Nevada, for example, the U.S. attorney has charged three members of the "boogaloo" movement -- extremists trying to foment a race war -- with conspiring to cause destruction during peaceful marches in Las Vegas. They were found to possess Molotov cocktails.
If you were out to help Trump, isn't that what you would do? Predictably, Trump's attorney general, William Barr, blamed only left-wingers linked to antifa for the violence. Some may well be part of the poisonous mix. And large protests, especially after nightfall, have provided cover for some old-fashioned criminality.
Trump is already running a "You won't be safe in Joe Biden's America" campaign. Of course, it features video of fights with police in fiery clouds of tear gas. That all this stuff is, in fact, happening in Trump's America may be a valid point, but it is a point that will be lost on some viewers.
And with Americans already exhausted and scared, piling on night after night of chaotic protests will eventually work against the protesters' goals. Very intelligent people don't seem to get that.
Yale historian Timothy Snyder was just on Rachel Maddow saying, "If you're not protesting now, this would be a good time to start." That might have won him warm applause at the MSNBC studios, but it also greenlighted political events that even responsible organizers can no longer control.
Anxiety sells news. If two marchers among hundreds hold up idiotic "Defund Police" signs, they will be the featured image.
For the record, most black mayors want better policing, not less of it."We do not call for abolishing or defunding police departments," said McKinley Price, mayor of Newport News, Virginia, and president of the African American Mayors Association.
Again, no one is questioning the right to demonstrate, only the wisdom of letting it move the focus away from rampant disease, a plummeting economy and lockdown stress that has drained so many people of their self-control.
In fewer than 100 days, Americans will have an opportunity to send Trump packing. Those who want that should avoid becoming bit players in his staged spectaculars.
If protest leaders are smart -- and have sympathy for their suffering cities -- they will turn their attention to registering voters and away from large gatherings in the streets, at least until the election. Isn't more than 50 straight days of protests in Portland enough for now?
The answer in Trump world would undoubtedly be no.

O conflito (ainda verbal) entre os EUA e a China - três artigos

Agradeço IMENSAMENTE a meu amigo e colega Pedro Luiz Rodrigues por me abastecer diariamente dos mais ricos materiais da imprensa internacional sobre temas da mais alta relevância para minha informação, reflexão e depois elaboração eventual de minhas próprias análises sobre os temas em pauta. 
Como sempre ocorre, não “compro” todas as análises e opiniões contidas nessas matérias, mas procuro refletir e opinar com base em meu próprio conhecimento, e em outras leituras, e a partir daí elaborar alguma opinião levando em conta o interesse dos brasileiros, individualmente, da sociedade brasileira e do Estado brasileiro, nessa exata ordem. Ou seja, não é por ser diplomata (mais anarco, do que disciplina, ou afeto à hierarquia) que vou defender os interesses do Estado brasileiro, cujas políticas (de governos) são muito influenciadas por suas elites — civis, militares, econômicas e políticas —, que nem sempre possuem o melhor julgamento do interesse nacional, em relação ao qual, repito, o interesse dos indivíduos passa antes dos interesses dos dirigentes ou do Estado.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 


China’s catastrophic success:
US strategic blunders fuel rivalry
Deepening enmity could amplify Beijing’s assessment that
Washington may pursue the overthrow of the CCP as an end goal.
John Culver
Lowy Interpreter, Sydney – 25.7.2020

The Trump administration publicly identified China as a great power competitor in its November 2017 National Security Strategy. 
From Beijing’s perspective, China and the United States have been moving toward a strategic “systems rivalry” for the past decade. The CCP apparently reached this strategic conclusion after the 2008–2009 Global Financial Crisis and framed some of the more dire implications for its rule in the 2012 CCP “Document No. 9”.  
Beijing assumes that this rivalry will last decades. It could involve periods of “cold war” and military conflict – especially in East Asia, where US alliance responsibilities and Chinese sovereignty claims and “red lines” converge. From the CCP’s Marxist-Leninist perspective, the side that best marshals superior domestic stability, economic performance and relevance to international conditions will prevail.  
If Beijing comes to see US antagonism to CCP rule as structural and bipartisan – especially in the aftermath of the 2020 US elections – China’s self-imposed restraint to prioritise stable US relations and drive economic reform and growth would be greatly weakened.
Beijing saw China’s “composite” national power as rising relative to that of the United States. But this was only partially due to China’s correct choices
Beijing assumed that as Washington saw China closing the gap in “comprehensive national power” it would react, seeking to blunt China’s ability to challenge America’s status as global hegemon and dominant power in the Indo-Pacific.
Before the Covid-19 pandemic, China had been both restrained and constrained in its response to what it saw as US economic, trade, financial wars and information aggression. Beijing still recognised a need for a predictable, and if possible, stable, relationship with Washington. To borrow a phrase, China adopted a hedging strategy over the past three years of “fighting without breaking/splitting”. (斗而不破 ).
Beijing saw the trade war as largely motivated by US domestic politics.
But the past may not be prologue. As Wang Jisi, “dean” of the Chinese America-watching community noted in April
The deepening enmity of US-China strategic rivalry is eroding core CCP assumptions that competition would remain bounded – by nuclear deterrence, deep economic integration, shared stewardship of financial stability and cooperation on global challenges such as pandemics – and may be amplifying Beijing’s assessment that the US is on a trajectory to pursue overthrow of the CCP as a strategic goal.  
If Beijing comes to see US antagonism to CCP rule as structural and bipartisan – especially in the aftermath of the 2020 US elections – China’s self-imposed restraint to prioritise stable US relations and drive economic reform and growth would be greatly weakened. For the CCP, the relatively peaceful, stable global and regional environment that prevailed in the late bipolar Cold War and post-Cold War would end. Economic growth and rising prosperity would diminish as sources of regime legitimacy. Defence of the CCP system, fuelled by nationalism, and more active cooperation with Russia and other US adversaries, could become more prominent.

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position or views of the US government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

*

Broad support helps China withstand US shock wave
Global Times, Pequim – 29.7.2020 – Editorial

The US has launched an overall suppression against China, and is trying to rope in Western countries to form an anti-China alliance. The world has bad expectations for China-US relations. But Chinese society has withstood the US-initiated new shock wave in a relatively stable manner

First, the US hastily started a new cold war against China, and US society is far from forming a consensus on it Part of the new cold war comes from the US elites' true will and motivation, but a large part is because of the Trump administration's attempt to divert domestic attention to achieve reelection. The new cold war cannot be regarded as the US' established strategy toward China. It will be tested by time.
Chinese society has formed a broad consensus of avoiding a new cold war with the US, and breaking Washington's strategic containment by expanding opening-up and doing our own things well. China's strategy is very practical, while the US needs to make every effort to make changes. Every step the US takes may face huge resistance.
Second, Washington has faced a bad beginning
Third, the China-US trade war prepares Chinese society for bigger challenges from the US. It shows Chinese people that US strength is limited. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the flaws in the US system. All this, coupled with Washington's intensified anti-China political show, has reshaped the Chinese people's understanding of the US. The impression that "the US is outstanding in every aspect" has completely collapsed among Chinese people. More Chinese people now believe China and the US have their own strengths. Chinese society is confident when facing the US.
Fourth, China and the US are competing for the support of other Western countries and most countries worldwide. It is generally believed that the US has a great advantage in persuading Western countries. But this is not the case.
Western countries have similar values with the US. However, the US requires them to follow in opposing China by giving up their own interests. China encourages them to be relatively neutral, which is more in line with their own interests. China's suggestion is a normal choice for these countries, but the US requires them to make painful changes. Which country is more likely to succeed?
Fifth, in the face of the US' frenzied suppression, China has acted calmly. China has only carried out countermeasures. China's countermeasures are reciprocal and do not expand to other areas. On US global suppression, China is its most powerful opponent. The US attacks are exhausting, and China's counterattacks are orderly. China's endurance has shown its advantages.
Sixth, Washington tries to completely destroy relations with Beijing, which has posed serious risks to US national interests, and also harmed world peace. Washington has lost in terms of morality and justice. This will generally help China accumulate more resources to resist US suppression.
Seventh, there are still some Chinese people who worry about the US turning against China. Some of them simply find it hard to adapt to sudden changes, and most of them worry that China will be trapped into self-isolation and conservatism under US pressure. However, these are all within the scope of the Chinese people's ability to adjust. Since the trade war, China has been moving forward steadily. We have every reason to believe that the more we fight, the wiser we become, and the more we mature.

*

Beijing to balance nationalism with pragmatism in US relations
Sarah Zheng, Kinling Lo and Jun Mai
South China Morning Post, Hong Kong – 29.7.2020 

Beijing - 
Analysts say that despite the “Wolf Warrior” attitude from Chinese diplomats, official rhetoric and online nationalists, Beijing has stopped short of overly provocative steps and has not, or cannot, retaliate with equal force to American diplomatic volleys.
Tensions flared last week when the US ordered China’s consulate in Houston to close within 72 hours over alleged espionage activities. Beijing reacted by closing the American consulate in Chengdu, rather than shuttering high-profile offices like the one in Wuhan that was temporarily closed during the pandemic or more significant US consulates in Shanghai or Hong Kong.
Despite framing the closure in Chengdu as “necessary”, “appropriate” and “reciprocal” – and allowing for a live stream of the event to be viewed by millions – it highlighted Beijing’s balancing act in trying to please its domestic audience without pushing bilateral relations to the brink.
“Basically, it intended to show that China stands firm but does not want to escalate the situation,” said Zhang Baohui, a political science professor at Lingnan University in Hong Kong. “China’s overall approach, as a rising power, is how not to move the US towards a full-fledged cold war.”
Tensions between China and the US began to simmer when, in mid-2018, Washington fired the first shots in a trade war that continues to this day. Although US President Donald Trump has dismissed further trade talks with China, Beijing maintained it was still committed to the “phase one” trade deal the two sides signed in January.
Relations have only worsened as the major powers clashed over technological competition, corporate espionage, the coronavirus pandemic and Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Taiwan, and the South China Sea.
Last Thursday, when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged democratic-leaning Chinese citizens to more aggressively “induce change” from the Chinese Communist Party, Foreign Minister Wang Yi was busy working to improve relations with Germany. 
Foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the speech showed Pompeo was “launching a new crusade against China in a globalised world” and urged the world to “step forward to prevent him from doing the world more harm”.
In early July, Wang sent out a public call for reconciliation and dialogue “as long as the US is willing”. But just over a week later, he said the US had “
lost its mind, morals and credibility
” and said the Trump administration’s “America First” policy had induced bullying and egoism.
Cui Lei, an associate research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies in Beijing, said the party was still seeking to ease the situation, as had happened after previous moments of heightened tensions; particularly after the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and in 2001 when a US aircraft and Chinese fighter jet collided near Hainan.
“Beijing’s strategy is both to maintain stability, express goodwill and to preserve, at least on the surface, a sense that they will not give in,” Cui, a former diplomat, said. “As long as the US does not want to go to war, there is still room for negotiations.”
When the US sanctioned senior Chinese officials in July over Beijing’s repression in Xinjiang, the most prominent being Politburo member and Xinjiang party secretary Chen Quanguo, China responded by sanctioning lawmakers Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Smith and the relatively unknown official Sam Brownback, the US ambassador at large for international religious freedom.
Also in July, Beijing reacted to the US State Department’s approval of a US$620 million missile upgrade package to Taiwan by sanctioning Lockheed Martin, a move of little consequence because the US weapons supplier has limited business interests in China.
Shi Yinhong, a government adviser and US specialist at Renmin University in Beijing, said China had largely avoided equal reciprocation to US actions in recent years.
“China has less in its toolbox to retaliate with, compared to sanctions that the US and its closest allies, including the UK and Australia, could use,” he said. “Regular use of tit-for-tat could also give Trump exactly what he wants, and further isolate China internationally. And it would get the domestic public used to a strong response and further stimulate the appetite for US hawks in China.”
It is difficult to gauge domestic public sentiment in China because of tight censorship and fears of expressing positions in contrast to the official political line.
On China’s highly regulated social media platforms, state media coverage of the US-China row has spurred more nationalistic, anti-American sentiments. This could put pressure on the leadership to not appear weak against perceived US grievances.
Zhu Feng, an international relations professor at Nanjing University, said there was a “wide spectrum of public opinions” but that they may not necessarily influence Beijing decision-making.
“For domestic purposes, China did try to avoid looking weak with the decision in Chengdu and as part of its ‘Wolf Warrior diplomacy’, but I think China has been clear in trying to avoid the new cold war the US now wants to impose on China,” he said.
Some have also suggested that tensions between the powers could ease after the US presidential election in November, citing that Trump has sought to blame Beijing for American woes from the coronavirus pandemic. The US makes up more than one-quarter of the nearly 16.5 million cases globally.
But American lawmakers have coalesced around a bipartisan consensus pushing for a more aggressive approach to counter Beijing’s increasing assertiveness.
Shen Dingli, a Shanghai-based expert on China-US relations, said every action from either country would guarantee a reaction in the current atmosphere, with no end to the downward spiral on the horizon.
“This has become an infinite loop of action and reaction, and every step of it is taking Sino-US ties closer to the edge of a breaking in ties,” he said. “As long as neither country says, ‘We will not make any moves after being attacked’, then this loop obviously will not stop.”

Bye bye dólar? Ainda não, mas estamos a caminho...

Uau! Quando a “consciência esclarecida” do establishment da costa leste, o representante oficial dos “brightest and wisest” do Council on Foreign Relations, decide que chegou a hora de abandonar a “exuberância arrogante” do dólar, é porque a coisa está “preta” (êpa!) para o lado do Império.
Isto significa que chegou realmente o momento da multipolaridade nas relações internacionais?
Não, infelizmente ainda não.
Mesmos os brightest and wisest da Ivy League foram infectados pela paranoia (natural) do Pentágono e vão se engajar numa fantasmagórica Segunda Guerra Fria, desta vez contra a China — mas desta vez já começam derrotados — e vão torrar mais um pouco do dinheiro dos contribuintes numa insana corrida para a frente para manter sua supremacia absoluta em todas as áreas.
Os “mais iguais” não suportam a conversão num igual entre outros mais iguais; querem ser únicos.
Isso se chama “hubris”, na língua dos antigos gregos. Os atenienses foram atingidos por essa epidemia, como escreveu Tucídides.
Interessante como o “Thucydides trap” de Graham Allison é auto-aplicável.
Isso entre os mais iguais.
Do lado dos cachorrinhos idiotas aqui da terrinha, eles ficam abanando o rabo para o grandalhão lá do Norte e só sabem repetir: “I love you Trump”.
Tudo vai dar errado.
Como repetia aquela hiena do desenho animado: “Oh Deus, oh céus, eu sabia que não ia dar certo!”
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 29/07/2020


Foreign Affairs, Nova Iorque – 28.7.2020
It Is Time to Abandon Dollar Hegemony
Issuing the World’s Reserve Currency Comes at Too High a Price
Simon Tilford and Hans Kundnani

In the 1960s, French Finance Minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing complained that the dominance of the U.S. dollar gave the United States an “exorbitant privilege” to borrow cheaply from the rest of the world and live beyond its means. U.S. allies and adversaries alike have often echoed the gripe since. But the exorbitant privilege also entails exorbitant burdens that weigh on U.S. trade competitiveness and employment and that are likely to grow heavier and more destabilizing as the United States’ share of the global economy shrinks. The benefits of dollar primacy accrue mainly to financial institutions and big businesses, but the costs are generally borne by workers. For this reason, continued dollar hegemony threatens to deepen inequality as well as political polarization in the United States.

Dollar hegemony isn’t foreordained. For years, analysts have warned that China and other powers might decide to abandon the dollar and diversify their currency reserves for economic or strategic reasons. To date, there is little reason to think that global demand for dollars is drying upBut there is another way the United States could lose its status as issuer of the world’s dominant reserve currency: it could voluntarily abandon dollar hegemony because the domestic economic and political costs have grown too high.
The United States has already abandoned multilateral and security commitments during the administration of President Donald Trump—prompting international relations scholars to debate whether the country is abandoning hegemony in a broader strategic sense. The United States could abandon its commitment to dollar hegemony in a similar way: even if much of the rest of the world wants the United States to maintain the dollar’s role as a reserve currency—just as much of the world wants the United States to continue to provide security—Washington could decide that it can no longer afford to do so. It is an idea that has received surprisingly little discussion in policy circles, but it could benefit the United States and ultimately, the rest of the world.

THE PRICE OF DOLLAR DOMINANCE

The dollar’s dominance stems from the demand for it around the world. Foreign capital flows into the United States because it is a safe place to put money and because there are few other alternatives. These capital inflows dwarf those needed to finance trade many times over, and they cause the United States to run a large current account deficit. In other words, the United States is not so much living beyond its means as accommodating the world’s excess capital.
Dollar hegemony also has domestic distributional consequences—that is, it creates winners and losers within the United States. The main winners are the banks that act as the intermediaries and recipients of the capital inflows and that exercise excessive influence over U.S economic policy. The losers are the manufacturers and the workers they employ. Demand for the dollar pushes up its value, which makes U.S. exports more expensive and curtails demand for them abroad, thus leading to earnings and job losses in manufacturing.
The costs have been borne disproportionately by swing states in regions such as the Rust Belt—a consequence that in turn has deepened socioeconomic divisions and fueled political polarization. Manufacturing jobs that were once central to the economies of these regions have been offshored, leaving poverty and resentment in their wake. It is little surprise that many of the hardest-hit states voted for Trump in 2016.
The domestic costs of accommodating large capital flows are likely to increase and become more destabilizing for the United States in the future. As China and other emerging economies continue to grow and the United States’ slice of the global economy continues to shrink, capital inflows to the United States will grow relative to the size of the U.S. economy. This will amplify the distributional consequences of dollar hegemony, further benefiting U.S. financial intermediaries at the expense of the country’s industrial base. It will likely also make U.S. politics even more fraught.
Given these mounting economic and political pressures, it will become increasingly difficult for the United States to create more balanced and equitable growth while remaining the destination of choice for the world’s excess capital, with the overvalued currency and deindustrialization this implies. At some point, the United States may have little alternative but to limit capital imports in the interests of the broader economy—even if doing so means voluntarily giving up the dollar’s role as the world’s dominant reserve currency.

THE BRITISH PRECEDENT

The United States would not be the first country to abdicate monetary hegemony. From the mid-nineteenth century until World War I, the United Kingdom was the world’s dominant creditor, and the pound sterling was the dominant means of financing international trade. During this period, the value of money was based on its redeemability for gold under the so-called gold standard. The United Kingdom held the largest gold reserves in the world, and other countries held their reserves in gold or in pounds.
In the first half of the twentieth century, the British economy declined, and its exports became less competitive. But because the United Kingdom adhered to the gold standard, running a trade deficit meant transferring gold abroad, which reduced the amount of money in circulation and forced down domestic prices. The United Kingdom suspended the gold standard during World War I, along with several other countries. But by the end of the war, it was a debtor nation and the United States, which had accumulated huge gold reserves, had replaced it as the world’s principal creditor.
The United Kingdom returned to the gold standard in 1925, but it did so at the prewar exchange rate, which meant that the pound sterling was highly overvalued, and with much-depleted gold reserves. British exports continued to suffer, and the country’s remaining gold holdings dwindled, forcing it to cut wages and prices. The country’s industrial competitiveness declined, and unemployment soared, causing social unrest. In 1931, the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard for good—which in effect meant abandoning sterling hegemony.
In 1902, Joseph Chamberlain, then secretary of state for the colonies, famously described the United Kingdom as a “weary titan.” Today, the term aptly fits a United States that sees its economic might waning relative to that of other powers, particularly China. International relations theorists and foreign policy analysts debate the grade and extent of the U.S. decline and even the outlook for a “post-American” world.
Some argue that under Trump, the United States has deliberately abandoned the project of “liberal hegemony”—for example, by creating uncertainty about U.S. security commitments. Others describe the U.S. retreat from hegemony as part of a longer-term structural retrenchment. Either scenario makes wholly conceivable that the United States will follow the British precedent and voluntarily relinquish monetary hegemony. Whether and how this might happen has surprisingly been little discussed.

THE CASE FOR TAXING SPECULATIVE CAPITAL

At the moment, the dollar looks more dominant than ever. Even as the U.S. economy has plunged into recession and shed millions of jobs, the demand for dollars has increased—just as it did after the 2008 financial crisis. Foreigners sold large numbers of U.S. Treasury bonds in March, but they exchanged them for U.S. dollars. The Federal Reserve injected trillions of dollars into the global economy in order to prevent international financial markets from seizing up, expanding the system of swap lines with other central banks that it used in 2008. Even as the Trump administration’s mishandling of the pandemic reinforced the view that the United States is a declining power, the actions of the Federal Reserve and investors around the world have underscored the centrality of the dollar in the global economy.
Yet this should not reassure the United States. The influx of capital will continue to harm U.S. manufacturers, and the pandemic-induced downturn will only compound the pain felt by workers.In order to alleviate the mounting economic and political pressures in regions such as the Rust Belt, the United States should consider taking steps to limit capital imports. One option would be to supply fewer dollars to the global economy, pushing up the value of the currency to a point where foreigners would balk at buying it. Doing so would make U.S. trade less competitive, however, and weigh down already excessively low inflation.
Alternatively, the United States could call the bluff of those powers, including China and the European Union, that have called for a diminished global role for the dollar. There is no obvious successor to the United States as the purveyor of the world’s dominant reserve currency.To allow capital to flow freely in and out of China, for instance, would require a fundamental—and politically difficult—restructuring of that country’s economy. Nor can the eurozone take over so long as it depends on export-led growth and the corresponding export of capital. But the absence of a clear successor shouldn’t necessarily stop the United States from abandoning dollar hegemony.
The United States could impose a levy or tax that penalizes short-term, speculative foreign investments but exempts longer-term ones. Such a policy would get at the origin of trade imbalances by reducing capital inflows (trade barriers hit at the symptoms rather than the cause). It would also mitigate the current backlash against free trade and reduce the economically unproductive profits of financial institutions.
In an optimistic scenario, the world’s three economic hubs—China, the United States, and the European Union—would agree to construct a currency basket along the lines of the International Monetary Fund’s special drawing rights and either empower the IMF to regulate it or create a new international monetary institution to do so. The pessimistic but probably more likely outcome is that tensions—especially between China and the United States—would make cooperation impossible and increase the likelihood of conflict between them around economic issues.
Even if it is impossible to find a cooperative solution, it may make sense for the United States to unilaterally abandon dollar hegemony. Doing so would force China and the eurozone to deploy their excess savings at home, which would require them to make major adjustments to their economic models so that they produce more balanced and equitable growth. It would also limit the excessive profits of U.S. financial intermediaries and benefit American workers by bringing down the value of the dollar and making U.S. exports more competitive. In short, abandoning dollar hegemony could open the way for a more stable and equitable U.S. economy and global economy.

• SIMON TILFORD is an economist at the Forum for a New Economy.
• HANS KUNDNANI is a Senior Research Fellow at Chatham House.

A pouco nobre arte de enganar com os números - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Da arte pouco nobre de enganar com os números


Paulo Roberto de Almeida
[ObjetivoComentário crítico sobre distorção de dadosfinalidadeesclarecimento público]


Jornalistas estão reproduzindo mais uma das “pegadinhas” desonestas da Oxfam: a de que a riqueza “financeira” dos megarricos teria crescido ainda mais na pandemia, o que se “consegue” selecionando dois períodos arbitrários num índice de bolsa de valores, com números que “provam” que os mais ricos ficaram ainda mais ricos, aos passo que os mais pobres afundaram ainda mais. 
Fica parecendo que os primeiros ficaram mais ricos às custas dos segundos, o que absolutamente não é verdade.
Jornalistas — e o público em geral — não deveriam cair nesse tipo de mentira conveniente, sem investigar as fontes de informação e a “metodologia” aplicada aos números, um exercício de estatística elementar que muitas vezes escapa de mentes mais apressadas, ou pouco preparadas para interpretar corretamente dados primários.
‪De certa forma, a Oxfam, em sua desonestidade subintelequitual contumaz reproduz a tristemente famosa “teoria do Intercâmbio desigual”: basta pegar as commodities num pico de alta numa série histórica, e depois comparar com preços não deflacionados de manufaturas mais adiante: pimba! “provou”!
Se tem uma coisa que eu não suporto mesmo – bem mais do que a “burrice” daqueles que têm todas as informações à mão, mas preferem insistir em erros primários, simplificando as coisas – é a desonestidade intelectual, que eu chamo de subintelequitual.
Isso ocorre muito entre militantes de certas causas, que tendem a possuir teses prontas, e que depois vão “torturar” os números para que eles “revelem” aquelas teses pré-fabricadas.
Por isso eu tenho muito pouco respeito pelo economista Thomas Piketty e suas “teses” sobre a concentração de renda, apelando para um título de duvidoso gosto marxiano: o “capital no século XXI”, e isto independentemente dos dados aparentemente corretos do crescimento da riqueza financeira ao longo das últimas décadas, depois de um longo período de “desconcentração” no século XX.
Primeiro, a seleção dos dados “financeiros”, como se ela fosse a única forma de riqueza possível, quando existem outras formas de riqueza intangível, mais difíceis de se medir, mas não menos reais.
Depois, essa outra arbitrariedade de seguir essa “marcha do capital” ao longo das décadas, como se os mesmos ricos continuassem abocanhando a riqueza geral da sociedade, em detrimento dos mais pobres, que “ficaram com uma parte menor” daquela riqueza medida unicamente pelo seu lado financeiro, que é chamado de capital. 
Ora, isso é de uma desonestidade tipicamente marxiana e marxista, que “consegue” provar as teses pré-fabricadas da concentração de renda, da “pauperização” dos mais pobres, enfim, da divisão da sociedade em classes antagônicas e, finalmente, a de que os mais ricos estão impedindo as classes médias e os mais pobres de prosperar. 
Isso não é nem teoria, nem economia aplicada: é simplesmente mistificação econômica, uma espécie de “metafísica hegeliana do capital”, que apenas segue a riqueza na sua forma exclusivamente financeira, pairando na superestrutura da sociedade, como se a riqueza geral permanecesse a mesma ao longo dos tempos, aliás apropriada pelas mesmas “classes” e pelos mesmos indivíduos ou famílias (o que pode realmente ocorrer, pois os mais ricos tendem a defender a sua riqueza, multiplicá-la e passar aos seus descendentes).
Em terceiro lugar, a “conclusão” de que a riqueza do capital financeiro é uma coisa malévola em si, e que ela é causa das desigualdades, e portanto da infelicidade atual do nosso tempo, já que a humanidade em geral ainda possui muitos pobres e miseráveis, ao mesmo tempo em que os superricos, os megabilionários se multiplicam e ficam cada vez mais ricos, aparentemente às custas de todos os demais. 
Daí a concluir que a sua riqueza é ilegítima, indevida e perversa para a felicidade geral da sociedade é apenas um passo, como faz a Oxfam e os simplistas que seguem suas mistificações. 
Daí também as teses para taxar mais os ricos e “distribuir” esse estoque de riqueza entre os mais pobres, como se os fluxos de criação de novas riquezas se mantivessem inapelavelmente constantes, como se a economia fosse uma cornucópia infinita, suportando os novos Robin Wood da extração estatal, apoiados em economistas bonzinhos, pela eternidade.
Isso é Rousseau, isso é Marx, isso é Piketty, e todos os partidários da tese de que a propriedade é um roubo, e de que o mais importante é a desigualdade entre as pessoas, e não a capacidade de gerar riquezas através do trabalho inteligente, o skilled labour de que falava Adam Smith, ou o quarto fator produtivo, a inteligência, de que falava Cairu, depois da terra, do trabalho e do capital. 
Por fim, considero que a mais nobre missão do economista seja enriquecer os mais pobres, ao passo que economistas que se entregam à pouco nobre missão de empobrecer os mais ricos, como Piketty, não deveriam merecer esse título.
O maior problema da humanidade NÃO É a desigualdade, inerente a todas as épocas e formações sociais, uma vez que ela é inerente a todos os seres humanos, inapelavelmente sempre únicos e originais, e supostamente dotados de consciência, racionalidade e responsabilidade sobre suas vidas, a partir de certo ponto de suas vidas. 
Todos os seres humanos partem de um marco zero, e serão mais pobres ou mais ricos, mais felizes ou infelizes, a partir de certa dotação natural de fatores, nas sobretudo a partir do ambiente social, cultural e patrimonial no qual foram criados e se desenvolveram (ou não).
Daí que uma nova “teoria dos sentimentos morais” deveria assegurar que todos os seres humanos pudessem ser dotados das mesmas condições igualitárias de partida para que pudessem florescer ao longo da vida, o que se obtém basicamente através da educação e de um mínimo de condições infraestruturais para colocar suas dotações adquiridas a serviço de uma vida útil e benéfica a si e aos descendentes.
A chamada “renda básica” não pode ser nada além de um ajutório temporário para que a pessoa possa se ajudar a si própria.
Daí que a educação é o maior bem da humanidade, um patrimônio inter-geracional que precisa ser mantido em condições ótimas de realimentação e de acumulação social e societal (de preferência pela solidariedade universal, ou globalista).
A educação é um problema “técnico”, portanto “solucionável” com os devidos investimentos sociais.
Sociedades que possuem elites predatórias (como as nossas, na AL e e outras partes do mundo também) são pouco propensas a redistribuir riquezas por meio da educação, uma vez que a riqueza dessas elites pode efetivamente ser feita através da extração da riqueza alheia, por meio da concentração de poder (original ou adquirido). 
Ou seja, não existe uma solução fácil á concentração de renda, à má distribuição de riquezas, à desigualdade entre is homens.
Apenas não creio que o maior problema da humanidade esteja na desigualdade, e sim na pobreza. E esta se combate com mais liberdades econômicas e políticas, e alguma solidariedade social.
Um pouco de sorte também ajuda. 
Certos povos têm mais “sorte” do que outros. O Brasil, aparentemente, ainda não tropeçou com essa “sorte”.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 3726, 29 de julho de 2020

terça-feira, 28 de julho de 2020

De Trump Para Biden, sem vergonha nenhuma, e sem se corrigir - Entrevista de Sami Adghirni com o chanceler acidental

Os trumpistas brasileiros, que erraram em toda a linha durante um ano e meio, aliás desde antes – quando o patético 03, ignorante e inepto, passeava com boné da campanha de "Trump 2020" e nunca se cansou de apoiar sua eleição – se preparam agora para desembarcar do Titanic do Trump, e tentar embarcar no transatlântico do Biden.

O mais contraditório é que, depois de apoiar Trump, e não apenas os EUA, ele proclamam que as relações são entre países e não os seus líderes. Mas, continuam se submetendo a Trump, apoiando seu candidato ao BID, quando isso representa uma TRAIÇÃO a um acordo estabelecido desde o início do Banco, em 1960, que reserva o cargo a um latino-americano, sendo que os EUA ficariam com a vice-presidência (aliás mais estratégica). Esses caras não aprendem.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

A Trump Ally, Brazil Says It’s Prepared to Deal With Biden

By Samy Adghirni
Bloomberg, 27 de julho de 2020 19:01 BRT
Updated on 27 de julho de 2020 19:36 BRT

Foreign minister says ties are between countries, not leaders
Brazil backs U.S. name for IDB in sign of ‘new relationship’

Brazil has developed a very close relationship with the U.S. under President Donald Trump, but would have no problem dealing with Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate for president, if he’s elected later this year, according to the Latin American nation’s foreign minister.
Ernesto Araujo, who implemented a major pro-U.S. shift in foreign policy since far-right President Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2019, said Brazil is prepared for the possibility of a Trump defeat and political tide-turning in the November election, despite many Democrats’ growing criticism of the country’s environmental and human right record.
“I am sure that, despite some adjustments, we would be be able to maintain a very positive agenda under a possible Democratic administration,” he said in a video interview. “While Presidents Bolsonaro and Trump have built a very close relationship that has brought mutual benefits, the advancements happened between Brazil and the U.S., not between two presidents.”
Cooperation in areas including business, defense and security would likely continue under Biden, Araujo said, adding that many opportunities lie ahead because the countries share the same values, such as democracy and freedom.
Trump and Bolsonaro are mutual admirers who were both elected by appealing to nationalist sentiment in their electorates. The Brazilian leader is often likened to Trump, a comparison he has embraced. But the seismic shift of Brazil’s foreign policy under Bolsonaro has been heavily criticized by former diplomats and foreign policy experts for breaking the country’s tradition of supporting multilateral efforts.
At the moment, the leaders’ close relationship has yielded some benefits for Latin America’s largest economy. Trump lifted a ban on fresh-beef imports from Brazil that had been in place since a 2017 meat scandal. He also announced he supports the country’s bid to join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and refrained from placing tariffs on Brazilian steel. The two countries have also signed deals for defense and space-exploration cooperation. Discussions for a bilateral trade agreement are underway as well.
The relationship between the two countries has improved, Araujo said, because Bolsonaro cleared up a “grudge” that previous Brazilian governments had against the U.S.

Inter-American Leadership
Despite progress in bringing the two countries together, there have also been marked setbacks, with Brazil on the losing end. Trump has repeatedly pointed to the country as an example of how not to deal with a pandemic, and in May he banned travel from Brazil to the U.S.

In June Brazil lost its bid for the presidency of the Inter-American Development Bank when the Trump administration announced it would launch its own candidate. The coronavirus pandemic has boosted the importance of the Washington-based IDB, as it plans to lend billions of dollars to help Latin American nations recover. Trump’s decision broke a non-written tradition by which the bank is always headed by a Latin American, but Araujo minimized the importance of that gesture, saying it had not come as a surprise because Brazil had agreed to it.
“For us, what matters is to have a common work program and not necessarily the nationality of whomever will be the bank’s president,” he said. “We had a plan to launch our candidate but we agreed on the U.S. candidate.”
Araujo called the agreement “a sign of this new relationship we have with the U.S.”

Other Topics

Read below about other topics from the interview.
HUAWEI/5G: While often portrayed as a China skeptic, Araujo didn’t say if he’s in favor of banning Huawei from building Brazil’s 5G network in the auction expected next year. He said Brazil is dealing with the issue on a technical level, in accordance with the country’s priorities and vision.
DEFORESTATION: Araujo blamed Bolsonaro’s domestic opponents for spreading what he called lies throughout the world about deforestation in the Amazon that have damaged Brazil’s reputation in Europe and the U.S. The minister praised the current administration’s “unprecedented effort to enforce environment legislation.”
ARGENTINA: Bolsonaro has publicly said three times that he was willing to meet leftist Argentinian President Alberto Fernandez, but the appeal has yet to be reciprocated, Araujo said. Questioned about strengthening ties between Argentina and China, the minister said he wouldn’t comment on his neighbor’s decisions.
VENEZUELA: Araujo said Brazil hasn’t yet declared representatives of Venezuela’s government in Brasilia as unwelcome, even though they have refused to leave despite the Bolsonaro administration no longer recognizing them as diplomats. The minister said the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the envoys to remain in Brazil because of the pandemic has complicated the case.

(Updates with paragraphs about topics discussed.)