O Intermitente
(So long, farewell, auf weidersehen, good-bye)

sábado, dezembro 13, 2003

Praise The Lord!

Cimeira de Bruxelas falha


A Cimeira de Bruxelas, que se preparava para aprovar o Tratado Constitucional da União Europeia falhou, com os vinte e cinco Estados a não conseguirem chegar a um ponto de consenso.

A presidência italiana vai agora informar os parceiros europeus do insucesso em atingir o necessário consenso.
A cimeira deverá assim acabar já este sábado, ao invés de domingo. Em termos práticos, não será da Cimeira de Bruxelas que vai sair a futura Constituição Europeia.

posted by Miguel Noronha 3:22 da tarde

sexta-feira, dezembro 12, 2003

Socialismo e Liberalismo

Artigo de Rubem de Freitas Novaes (Economista Doutorado pela Universidade de Chicago).

Roberto Campos costumava qualificar de canalhas os indivíduos que não tivessem manifestado simpatias pelo socialismo na juventude; e de idiotas aqueles que mantivessem o credo intacto na idade adulta. Embora as exceções sejam muitas, é impressionante o número de pessoas, e até mesmo de instituições, que obedeceram a esta tendência anti-intervencionismo estatal ao longo da vida. Lula e o seu PT certamente respeitam mais os mercados hoje do que ontem. Fernando Henrique, Pedro Malan, Delfim Netto, Roberto Campos e até mesmo Olavo de Carvalho e Denis Rosenfield, para citar apenas alguns entre os nossos compatriotas ilustres, flertaram com o socialismo quando jovens e dele se afastaram, em diferentes graus, com o passar do tempo. Por que pessoas tendem a caminhar nesta direção? Que razões e motivações as empurram?

Numa hipótese de mais agrado aos socialistas, indivíduos combinam diferentes dosagens de altruísmo e egoísmo, que se alteram no tempo transformando os ideais. Os jovens, mais puros e sonhadores, se sensibilizam em maior escala com as diversas desigualdades da vida. Com o passar dos anos, alguma influência sobre a química interna, ou sobre os circuitos do cérebro, vai alterando as proporções existentes de egoísmo e altruísmo de tal sorte que adultos, mais suscetíveis às ?fraquezas? da alma humana (ambição, cobiça etc.) tornam-se cidadãos mais ?duros? e individualistas, afastando-se do socialismo.

Outra hipótese, bem mais plausível a meu juízo, indicaria que o real fator de atração do ser humano para os ideais liberais é o conhecimento acumulado através do estudo e/ou da experiência de vida. O liberalismo representaria um degrau superior na escala do saber humano. O socialismo, pródigo em boas intenções, é muito pobre na geração de conseqüências positivas. Assim, a verificação dos melhores resultados do capitalismo, em particular, e do liberalismo, em geral, acabaria por moldar a mente daqueles que avançam no conhecimento histórico e na experiência do cotidiano.

Da mesma forma como no plano individual, também no plano coletivo os conceitos relativos ao socialismo têm evoluído no tempo. Não se vê mais qualquer partido político importante pregando a extinção da propriedade privada ou a estatização dos meios de produção, como outrora. Socialistas hoje limitam-se a propor mecanismos de intervenção para corrigir o que consideram ser imperfeições do mercado e a extrair o máximo de recursos do setor privado para tentar melhorar a distribuição da renda e da riqueza. As experiências do passado foram madrastas com eles em todos os testes históricos que permitiram comparações pertinentes entre regimes econômicos. Perderam onde quer que se tenham confrontado com regimes capitalistas. E o que é pior: onde quer que tenham assumido o poder, perdeu a democracia e ganhou o autoritarismo. Convencem-se hoje, meio constrangidos, que se o discurso socialista pode ainda ser efetivo para ganhar eleições, não mais serve para governar. Com isso, deixam no ar algumas sérias dúvidas sobre os rumos futuros de nosso país.

Estando no poder e não mais podendo defender o modelo socialista, muitos adeptos dos partidos de esquerda, em lugar de explicitar um projeto para o futuro, limitam-se a atribuir todos os males do país ao neoliberalismo, aderindo à campanha do ?não levamos, mas eles não levam?. Esquecem propositalmente que nossos últimos governos nunca deixaram de sufocar o setor privado (tendo apenas trocado o capitalismo de Estado e a regulamentação excessiva, setor por setor, por um crescimento espantoso dos orçamentos públicos e da carga tributária) e que ninguém será tolo a ponto de aceitar, a não ser por alguma disfunção intelectual, que possa ser considerado liberal um governo que gasta 40% do PIB, e ainda dispõe da força do Banco do Brasil, do BNDES, da Caixa Econômica e de muitos outros instrumentos para agir sobre a economia. É tempo de sepultar críticas ao passado e de construir um futuro previsível. Se a proposta de governo é nova e contém mudanças na direção do socialismo, que se tornem transparentes, então, as bases da sua estratégia de desenvolvimento.

Parece, entretanto, que não se quer mexer nos fundamentos da atual política econômica, que trata com respeito (ou temor) alguns (mas não todos) postulados de uma economia de livre mercado. Neste caso a equipe que cuida da macroeconomia precisará contar com o apoio de medidas eficazes no campo da microeconomia, onde milhares de decisões importantes são tomadas no dia-a-dia. Não faz qualquer sentido deixar que setores críticos como a infraestrutura e o desenvolvimento agrário, por exemplo, sejam conduzidos por quem não acredita minimamente nas vantagens e princípios do capitalismo e não transmite, portanto, confiança ao empresariado produtor e investidor. Nossos governantes maiores não podem desconhecer que um grande somatório de pequenos erros nos diversos escalões ministeriais pode comprometer todo o esforço organizador de nossas contas públicas e conduzir a economia brasileira para o atraso.

Problemas de maior monta poderemos sofrer, ainda, se o nosso governo, paralisado pela falta de confiança nas teses históricas da esquerda, estiver simplesmente abdicando de apresentar qualquer formulação econômica clara, seja no sentido do liberalismo, seja no sentido do aprofundamento do intervencionismo estatal. Tomado por contradições, ampliaria o enorme fosso que vai dos discursos e da propaganda oficial à dureza da realidade, importando-se apenas com a conquista do poder pelo poder. Nestas condições, somente a face cruel do socialismo ? o seu lado autoritário ? se imporia, no esforço prioritário de manutenção do partido dominante nas alturas do Olimpo.

Embora RFN se esteja a referir à realidade brasileira a validade das suas constatações é bastante alargada.
posted by Miguel Noronha 5:16 da tarde

Let them wear scarves

Acerca da polémica sobre o uso do véu islâmico nas escolas francesas.

President Chirac has said he will announce next week whether he favours a ban, though he has already hinted that he does. As for the political sop of the extra holidays, they would appear to fall into the same category of religious proselytism as the headscarf.

If he advocates a ban, M Chirac will please most French men and women, who believe that there are too many immigrants and that not enough is being done to defend traditional French values. Such a step could help the president and his party in the run-up to regional elections in March.

Much less certain, however, is that it will turn French Muslims into better citizens. It is just as likely to incite them to assert their religious identity in opposition to the government.

America - whose constitution also enshrines the separation of church and state - allows Muslim schoolgirls to wear the hijab. That, surely, is a wiser approach than militant secularism.

posted by Miguel Noronha 2:26 da tarde

União dos Estados Socialistas Europeus

No EUobserver.

A draft document, seen by the EUobserver, indicates that Finance Ministers - meeting this morning as part of the wider European Summit - are expected to endorse the so-called "European Action for Growth".

This plan aims to boost economic growth in Europe by increasing investment in large-scale cross-border transport projects and also in telecommunications, energy, research and development and innovation.

Mais uma vez a UE aposta nas polítcas inflacionistas de "pleno emprego"...
posted by Miguel Noronha 10:43 da manhã

quinta-feira, dezembro 11, 2003

The U.S. is not going to Quit...

Artigo de Ahmad Al-Jarallah editor do Al-Siyassa e do Arab Times(Kuwait) citado pelo MEMRI.

"Any resistance that depends on suicide bombers to destroy its target is a desperate and futile movement. Such a resistance hasn't succeeded in evicting Jews from Palestine or ending the misery of Palestinians. It has also failed to curtail the political authority of Jews over Palestinians. Those who still employ this method - covered by slogans of Jihad and promises of a place in heaven for the suicide bomber - wrongly believe it is an effective method.

"They are living in the past and they can see only the history of the United States. They think America is the same country that withdrew from regions where it incurred heavy casualties, such as Vietnam, Beirut in 1982, and Somalia. They refuse to see the recent history of the US in Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and in the war to liberate Kuwait. Americans weren't fazed by suicide bombings. Trucks laden with deadly bombs and driven by suicide bombers failed to scare them. Instead, such attempts have steeled their resolve to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places.

"Regrettably, some myopic Arab leaders can see only the negative side of the U.S. army's history. All their speeches are stale and full of lies and their people are sick and tired of their meaningless slogans. These leaders delude themselves trying to lead their people towards mass suicide. They are not aware history is changing and they don't realize any self-respecting military will learn from its past mistakes. The U.S. has chosen to take terrorism head on by launching a war on terror. Nobody, except these handful of Arab leaders, are surprised by America's resolve to fight terrorism.

"Saudi Arabia - which was earlier ambivalent towards terrorism - has been forced to join the war on terror. The tone of Saudi media has changed and they want to eliminate the dangers of international terrorism. They now proclaim terrorists violate the teachings of Islam. Kuwait and Egypt have also been fighting terrorism for a long time. The latest victim of terrorism is Turkey where a number of innocent civilians were killed? "This will only result in an international war on terrorism which will have legitimate reasons to continue till the fountainheads of terrorism are smashed. Those who lead revenge operations - for their defeats in Kabul and Baghdad - in the name of resistance are unwittingly strengthening the resolve of the United States to face and defeat terrorism. The United States is not going to quit. Instead, it will convert poles of Jihadi flags into arrows to pierce the hearts of terrorists - who ultimately will be consigned to the dustbin of history."

posted by Miguel Noronha 5:14 da tarde

It Is Time to Wake Up

Este artigo do Arab News insta os árabes a aperceberem-se que os americanos não são os seus piores inimigos. Longe disso...

It is becoming clearer by the day that if we want to lead a happy and tranquil life, reclaim our true identity, bring up our children to be good and educated citizens, invest in our natural resources in a way that is "normal", build up a country at peace with itself and others, we need help. There is nothing wrong with admitting that. It takes away nothing from our past nor does it cloud our future.

As it is, we admit to a certain gap as we go about our daily lives: When we fly in an American-built aircraft, we bow to American technological superiority. When we turn on a Walkman, we nod to Japanese knowledge. When we ride in a Mercedes, we accept German know-how. When we douse ourselves in French cologne, we accept that our ancient secrets of "perfumed Arabia" have been bettered. Even when we see a non-Saudi cleaning our streets we are put to shame by those willing to actually work for a living in this life.

So what is wrong with subscribing to Pax Americana? In other words, what is wrong with peace on American terms? Every major power in human history, including Arab and Muslim, has imposed its version of peace on the nations of the world. A decade ago, we asked them to come and help. What has changed? They have always had a tangible presence in our land: They dug the oil out of the sand, they stationed their men here, they sold us arms, they helped open up the closed deserts, they kept the Soviets at bay, and even gave our students diplomatic visas to go study in their country. Are we afraid that they might rob us of our resources? Surely you don't need an army to get Bechtel and Halliburton fat contracts. They, and many others, are already here and have built us some rather nice edifices. If they can do the same for Iraq, why not? The Soviets, and now their heirs the Russians, are asking for debt payments from Iraq. In terms of money, they demand more than the Americans do. In achievements, they delivered nothing. It is time to wake up. The passion aroused by the sight of an invading army into an Arab land is history now. Those who face reality have a chance of affecting change and marching alongside history. Those who keep up the emotional denial will end up regressing. We as Arabs should know. Bin Laden and his ilk do not have the right to speak for us nor dictate who stays and who leaves the Arabian Peninsula. Not an inch should be conceded to that lunatic and his misguided followers. He has sent them to their deaths while he (and/or those who survive him) dictate from the caves of Afghanistan.

America, like any other country in the world, has its agenda. That is normal. It is also normal to dispute and resist that agenda if it is not favorable to our needs. But today we face an existential problem that precedes such finer points of political science. The Americans have never interfered with our religion or our institutions. If Bin Laden and his Talibanesque clique are the alternative, then we face the reality of having our books and tapes burned, our daughters not going to school, our education monopolized by the aphorisms of a certain creed, even our dress and diet controlled in a way that would make the ex-Soviet Gulags look like the Ritz. We will remain blind consumers who risk going back to tents when the oil runs out. How many of us look forward to that?

posted by Miguel Noronha 9:53 da manhã

Munique Revisitada

Continuando na linha iniciada pelo eixo franco-alemão antes da guerra do Iraque a UE continua a previligiar as boas relações com os estados párias. Desta vez a visada é a Síria com quem foi alcançado um acordo visando aumento da cooperação política e comercial. O facto deste ser um dos países mais autoritários cujos serviços secretos têm sido, nos ultimos dias, ligados aos atentados terroristas no Iraque parece não preocupar minimamente a UE.
posted by Miguel Noronha 8:51 da manhã

quarta-feira, dezembro 10, 2003

Wahhabismo, Terrorismo e o Futuro da Casa Saud

No seguimento do meu post anterior recomendo a leitura deste artigo do Washington Times.
posted by Miguel Noronha 11:39 da manhã

Novo projecto de Constituição Europeia rejeita reivindicações portuguesas

Espero que, ao contrário do que anteriormente sucedeu, o Governo português seja consequente nas suas atitudes e, na CIG, vote contra o projecto da Constituição Europeia.
posted by Miguel Noronha 10:19 da manhã

terça-feira, dezembro 09, 2003

Subsídios à Cultura

Francisco José Viegas escreve sobre o assunto no Aviz

[E]m circunstâncias ideais, o Estado não devia ter nada a ver com o domínio da criação - não gosto do Estado nem da galeria de comissários do gosto (sobretudo quando são vanguardistas, porque têm tendência para se tornarem pequenos ditadores), funcionários da «divisão de estética e metacrítica», pedagogos oficiais e ressentidos com poder. Sobretudo isso - não gosto do Estado nem do seu ressentimento. O desejo de ser pago pelo Estado assusta-me. É uma dependência medíocre. Mas, como escrevi, é uma opção pessoal.

posted by Miguel Noronha 7:34 da tarde

Tax Misery Index - pt II

Podem encontrar mais explicações assimo como comentário à evolução do Tax Misery Index aqui.

The annual publication of our Tax Misery Index and other measures of the state's burden establishes a benchmark for companies and individuals weighing siting alternatives in competing countries. Of course, tax is not the sole factor in choosing a corporate or personal location, but when equally attractive options are on the shortlist, the tie-breaker for enterprising people is generally tax. These comparisons provide the tools to make that pick.

The Misery Index is the best measure we've found for the weight that is keenly felt by entrepreneurs who are the source of employment and wealth. They and their backers are the fastest interpreters of economic incentives around the globe.

posted by Miguel Noronha 6:01 da tarde

Tax Misery Index

Este indice é calculado pela Forbes somando as taxas marginais superiores de cada imposto nos diversos países.

Os EUA aparecem 5 vezes para reflectir diferentes regimes fiscais existentes em vários Estados assim como o resultado da planeada redução de impostos.



Podem ver estes dados em tabela aqui.
posted by Miguel Noronha 5:23 da tarde

Frédéric Bastiat: The Broken Window

Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow[1], when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"

Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.

Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs' worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.

But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.

It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.

Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is seen.

If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen.

And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.

Now let us consider James Goodfellow.

On the first hypothesis, that of the broken window, he spends six francs and has, neither more nor less than before, the enjoyment of one window.

On the second, that in which the accident did not happen, he would have spent six francs for new shoes and would have had the enjoyment of a pair of shoes as well as of a window.

Now, if James Goodfellow is part of society, we must conclude that society, considering its labors and its enjoyments, has lost the value of the broken window.

From which, by generalizing, we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of objects unnecessarily destroyed," and at this aphorism, which will make the hair of the protectionists stand on end: "To break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment," or more briefly: "Destruction is not profitable."

What will the Moniteur industriel [2] say to this, or the disciples of the estimable M. de Saint-Chamans [3], who has calculated with such precision what industry would gain from the burning of Paris, because of the houses that would have to be rebuilt?

I am sorry to upset his ingenious calculations, especially since their spirit has passed into our legislation. But I beg him to begin them again, entering what is not seen in the ledger beside what is seen.

The reader must apply himself to observe that there are not only two people, but three, in the little drama that I have presented. The one, James Goodfellow, represents the consumer, reduced by destruction to one enjoyment instead of two. The other, under the figure of the glazier, shows us the producer whose industry the accident encourages. The third is the shoemaker (or any other manufacturer) whose industry is correspondingly discouraged by the same cause. It is this third person who is always in the shadow, and who, personifying what is not seen, is an essential element of the problem. It is he who makes us understand how absurd it is to see a profit in destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is equally absurd to see a profit in trade restriction, which is, after all, nothing more nor less than partial destruction. So, if you get to the bottom of all the arguments advanced in favor of restrictionist measures, you will find only a paraphrase of that common cliché: "What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke any windows?"

[1] In French, Jacques Bonhomme, used like "John Bull" in English to represent the practical, responsible, unassuming average man. - Translator.

[2] Newspaper of the Committee for the Defense of Domestic Industry, a protectionist organization. - Translator

[3] Auguste, Vicomte de Saint-Chamans (1777—1861), Deputy and Councillor of State under the Restoration, protectionist and upholder of the balance of trade. His celebrated stand on the "obstacle" here quoted by Bastiat comes from his Nouvel essai sur la richesse des nations, 1824. This work was later (1852) incorporated in his Traité d'économie politique. - Translator

Retirado de "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen"

Mais obras de Bastiat na Library of Economics and Liberty e no Cercle Frédéric Bastiat
posted by Miguel Noronha 4:14 da tarde

Constitution attacked by former presidium member

A former member of the small influential team, which drew up the European Constitution, has strongly criticised the way decisions were made during the 16 months of work on the text.

Gisela Stuart, a UK labour MP and member of the 13-strong team around the Constitution's architect Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, has vented her anger in the UK?s Sunday Times.

"There was little time for informed discussion, and even less scope for changes. Large parts of the text passed through without detailed discussions", she writes.

She has a litany of complaints including criticism of Mr Giscard's methods, the fact that preliminary texts were only available in French and that there appeared to be a hierarchy when it came to whose words mattered.

"Consensus was achieved among those deemed to matter, who made it plain that the rest would not be allowed to wreck the fragile agreement struck", she writes.

"Some members of the secretariat showed particular irritation with my insistence that documents be produced in English. On one occasion a redraft of articles dealing with defence mysteriously arrived just before midnight. They were written in French and the authorship was unclear. Verbal reassurances were given that this was little more than a "linguistically better draft of the earlier English version". The draft was discarded when some of us spotted that references to Nato had mysteriously disappeared".

She finishes the article by saying that if some EU governments fail to ratify the Constitution, it will not matter as the EU can survive without it.

"Should a country, or several countries, fail to endorse the constitution, the EU will not collapse - the previous treaties remain and the accession of new countries still goes ahead.

"The [UK] government does not have to accept it", she urges.

Her comments come just a few days before EU governments meet in Brussels to finalise the EU Constitution.

posted by Miguel Noronha 2:37 da tarde

segunda-feira, dezembro 08, 2003

Novo Blogue

Dou as boas vindas ao Super Flumina.
posted by Miguel Noronha 6:27 da tarde

domingo, dezembro 07, 2003

Subsído à Cultura pt III

Ainda em relãção a este assunto o Jaquinzinhos propõe, em alternativa, um "Subsídio ao Bom Senso".

Subscrevo inteiramente.
posted by Miguel Noronha 11:55 da tarde

Leitura Recomendada

Entrevista a Hernando de Soto o autor de "O Mistério do Capital".
posted by Miguel Noronha 1:25 da tarde