Um negro a presidir a um pais europeu?

Muita gente diz coisas do género "Isto alguma vez era possível na Europa? Um negro (ou de outra minoria étnica qualquer) eleito chefe de Estado?". Este artigo de Razib lança alguma luz sobre o assunto.

Europe is white, that's why they won't have a Barack Obama soon

The New York Times has a piece up, After Breakthrough, Europe Looks in Mirror, which quotes people who wonder when Europe will have its own colored head of state. Let's ignore for a moment that the longest serving Prime Minister in British history was 1/8 Indian; that was nearly 200 years ago and despite his known and acknowledged colored heritage Lord Liverpool was first and foremost a scion of the British nobility. These sorts of self-flagellations make no sense. The United States is about 30% non-white (many Hispanics identify as racially white, but operationally the Hispanic/Latino category is considered non-white). If Europe looks in the mirror, it sees a white person!

The 70% which is "white" in the United States includes a few percent of Middle Eastern Americans who would be considered colored in Europe (Ralph Nader is not considered colored in the United States, so I don't grant that Arabs are always considered to be non-white, it depends). So it is probably fair to say that on the order of 2 out of 3 Americans are of European white ancestry. A substantial majority, but still way less white than any European country. Additionally, non-whites have been a substantial proportion of the American population from its founding, when blacks were 20-25% of the population. The proportion declined as European immigration increased until the United States was a 90% white nation by the 1950s. I think most Americans will agree that the 1950s were the apotheosis of "white America" (even if the high tide of white supremacy was receding). Guess how white the United Kingdom is today? 92% white!. Yes, Britain today is whiter than the United States was during the 1950s. Even London is still majority white. Yes, London is 68% white. Washington D.C. is 38% non-Hispanic white. New York City, 35%. Chicago, 31% non-Hispanic white. Even Seattle is darker than London! Yeah, you read that right, Seattle is more colored than London.

The rest of Europe isn't any more colorful. Quick back of the envelope suggests that Italy is more than 95% white. Spain, more than 95% white. Sweden, well over 90% white. Germany, around 90% white (I am being very generous here with high estimates, but it is likely that well over 50% of the 19% non-Germany population in Germany are from EU or Balkan nations; ergo, white). France is a tough cookie because they don't like to collect ethnic data since all their ancestors are Gauls on a priori grounds. But, high bound estimates of Muslims suggest that around 10% of the population is of North African or West African origin which is Muslim. Add on top of that another 5% which is non-Muslim African, Vietnamese, etc., I think it is plausible to believe conservatively that France is still at least 85% white, making it the most colored country in Europe! The most colored nation in Europe is probably as white as the American state of Ohio.

(...)

Ainda os direitos de animais

A respeito da opinião do Ricardo Alves e do meu quase-conterraneo Rui Carmo de que os animais não têm direitos, eu tinha uma questão: isso é uma regra geral, quase por definição, do género "qualquer animal que não pertença à mesma espécie biológica que nós está, automaticamente, excluido do conceito de direitos" ou admitem que, caso uma dada espécie reúna umas certas condições (passe um certo "teste", por assim dizer), essa espécie possa ser também sujeito de direitos (não necessariamente os mesmos que aos humanos)? Quando digo uma dada espécie, não me estou a referir necessariamente a uma espécie existente - estou também a pensar, p.ex., nalguma espécie que fosse criada em laboratório por engenharia genética, ou que fosse descoberta nalgum vale perdido, ou nalguma expedição espacial (no caso do Ricardo, dá-me efectivamente a impressão que a opinião dele será essa, mas posso estar enganado).

Note-se, já agora, que há uma diferença entre "direitos dos animais" e "direitos de animais" - a primeira expressão parece indicar que os animais teriam direitos pela sua pertença ao Reino Animal (o que até poderia levantar alguma polémico sobre o exacto estatuto dos protozoários: são animais ou outra coisa qualquer?), a segundo indica apenas que alguns animais podem ter direitos, eventualmente diferentes de espécie para espécie (quanto mais penso no assunto, mais acho que há um forte caso para atribuir direitos ao cão-doméstico - afinal, trata-se de um animal que vive naturalmente em sociedades organizadas, com o que chamariamos "direitos e deveres", e que se relaciona com o Homem, essencialmente, transferindo para os humanos - ou para alguns humanos - as normas sociais da matilha; não anda longe daquilo que algumas pessoas falam quando dizem "para os animais terem direitos, teriam também que ter deveres").

Lincoln by himself

* July 17, 1858: “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.”

* Aug. 21, 1858:”I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races (…) I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” And, “Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals.”

* Sept. 18, 1858:”I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes.”

* In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect “the duties and imposts,” and he kept his promise.

* April 19, 1861: the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that “the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed” in the states that had seceded.

* Congress, July 22, 1861: that the purpose of the war was not “interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states” (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union “with the rights of the several states unimpaired.”

* Aug. 22, 1862: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it” Fonte

Efeitos das reformas na assistência social

Resultados das reformas na assistência social dos EUA em 1996 (feitas em conjunto por Clinton e pelo Congresso republicano), tornando mais dificil receber o que talvez possa ser considerado a versão local do RSI:

Welfare reform undermined, no blog da Economist -

GETTING poor mothers off welfare and into employment as quickly as possible seems to be a useful policy goal. But a new paper by economists Dhaval Dave, Nancy E Reichman, and Hope Corman suggests it can be short-sighted.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 limited the time mothers could spend on welfare and required some work as a condition for receiving it. The reforms were, by most measures, successful at reducing the number of women on welfare and increasing their levels of employment. The more time out of the labour market, the thinking goes, the harder it is to rejoin. Encouraging poor mothers to work should break the cycle of poverty and make them less likely to require government assistance for most of their adult lives. But on the other hand, the authors of the paper found that the reforms made adult women less likely to pursue education.

The reforms do not penalise minor (under 18) women who still attend school. Actually, the reforms encourage the younger women to finish their education. To receive some of the government funds, single, minor mothers must attend high school or some training program. The authors found this incentive decreased the teen dropout rates of the population between 9 and 13%.

By contrast, the reforms aimed at adult women, which promoted work and not training, made education less attractive. The authors found the reforms decreased the probability of adult women attending high school or college by 20 to 25%.

On War

"The philosophy of conquest that animated the Roman empire also lived in the rulers of medieval Europe. But, under feudalism, their means of warfare were strictly limited. The aggressiveness of kings was checked by their vassals, which led to the normalcy of peaceful relations among sovereign states. When feudalism fell apart, kings organized their own armies of mercenaries; a system in which financial considerations limited war. The threat of coalitions among nations against an aggressor also constrained conquest. With peace the normal condition of life, laws of the Great Society began to be codified culminating in the works of Grotius in the seventeenth century.

In this era, most people were not part of the war effort. War was fought among small armies of professional soldiers that afforded non-combatants the status of neutrals; their lives and property were sacrosanct. Limited war did not affect the daily activity of ordinary people save for the burdens of taxation, inflation, and debt which they loathed (...)

How far we are today from the rules of international law developed in the age of limited warfare! Modern war is merciless, it does not spare pregnant women or infants; it is indiscriminate killing and destroying. It does not respect the rights of neutrals. Millions are killed, enslaved, or expelled from the dwelling places in which their ancestors lived for centuries. Nobody can foretell what will happen in the next chapter of this endless struggle.... Modern civilization is a product of the philosophy of laissez faire. It cannot be preserved under the ideology of government omnipotence. Statolatry owes much to the doctrines of Hegel. However, one may pass over many of Hegel's inexcusable faults, for Hegel also coined the phrase ‘the futility of victory.' To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war." Human Action (Mises) on War

PS: Já agora, uma das razões porque os Bancos Centrais surgiram foi para possibilitarem o financiamentod as grandes guerras dos Estados Modernos. Ao destruir o padrão-ouro (roubando o ouro da população depositado nos bancos) ficaram finalmente libertos para fabricar toda a moeda necessária sem recurso a impostos. Digamos que nascem assim em absoluto Pecado Original.

O regresso da Guerra Fria?

Muita gente anda dizer que muitos apoiantes "de esquerda" de Barack Obama em breve ficarão desapontados. Talvez. Mas, em vez disso, talvez tenhamos um regresso aos tempos da "guerra fria": nessa época, a maior parte da esquerda ocidental era fortemente pró-EUA, talvez até mais que muita direita (houve até uma eleição qualquer em França em que os maoístas apoiaram De Gaulle porque Mitterrand era o "candidato dos americanos"; e, em Portugal, em assuntos como as Lajes ou as relações com os governos então "marxistas-leninistas" dos PALOPs, o PS era provavelmente mais alinhado com Washigton do que o PSD).

Assim, talvez o resultado da eleição de BO seja abrir caminho a que a "esquerda dentro do sistema" se reconcilie definitivamente com os EUA e volte a desempenhar o seu papel de "pilar atlantista"/"cão-de-fila do imperialismo" (escolher à vontade do leitor).

Re: Re: Os animais têm direitos?

Em resposta a este post, Ricardo Alves escreve "E não vejo os animais (não humanos) a respeitarem os nossos direitos(!)" (Francisco burnay também escreve algo sobre o assunto).

Em rigor, creio que, em muitos animais sociais que vivem em conjunto com o Homem, temos efectivamente comportamentos que podem ser considerados como "respeitar os nossos direitos" - veja-se a obediência/lealdade que muitas vezes os cães dedicam aos seus donos.

Isso acontece, claro, porque, devido ao convivio desde tenra idade, esses animais transferem para os humanos (ou, pelo menos, para alguns humanos) as normas de interação social instinitivas que regulam a vida dessas espécies em estado selvagem - mas, no fundo, não é essa a essencia do conceito de "direitos", a tendência instintiva para achar que "há coisas que se devem fazer e outras que não se devem fazer"? É verdade que esta linha de raciocinio pode levar a conclusões que me custam a aceitar (nomeadamente que os cães devem ter mais direitos que os gatos), mas parece-me fazer algum sentido.

Nos comentários, alguem escreveu "só o ser humano tem a capacidade de pensar e manipular ideias (e isto não é um pressuposto, é uma conclusão corroborada por todas as informações científicas)."

Sinceramente, não tenho muita certeza disso - afinal, pelo menos os chimpanzés são capazes (atraves do computador) de aprender algumas palavras e até de criar novas; creio que há até um caso de um chipanzé que, depois de aprender que melão era "mellon" e água "water", se referiu espontaneamente a uma melacia como sendo "mellon water". Parece-me alguma capacidade de manipular ideias.

Como já referi algures, a divisão "digital" entre animais racionais - o homo sapiens (ou será só o homo sapiens sapiens?) - e irracionais (todos os outros) parece-me um bocado artificial: afinal, em termos de capacidade intelectual, há provavelmente mais semelhança entre um gato e um humano do que entre um gato e uma anémona-do-mar; acho que faz mais sentido uma classificação "analógica", classificando os animais por graus diferentes de racionalidade, a começar na amiba (se considerarmos a amiba um animal) e a acabar no homem?

E aproveito para relembrar uma questão que pus em tempos:

Imagine-se que se descobria, algures numa floresta ou num vale perdido, uma colónia sobrevivente de Homo erectus; qual deveria ser o seu estatuto? Deveriam ter os mesmos direitos que o Homo sapiens sapiens? Deveria ser considerados "animais", como os gatos e as cabras (o H. s. sapiens também é um animal, mas pronto)? Deveriam ter um estatuto intermédio?

Nomeadamente, as pessoas que dizem que "apenas o Homem tem direitos" não costumam ser muito claros no que querem dizer com "Homem" - a familia Hominidae? o género Homo? a espécie Homo sapiens? a subespécie Homo sapiens sapiens (se considerarmos que é uma subespécie)? Claro que o facto de apenas a última existir hoje em dia evita ter que pensar no assunto.

Alegada carga policial frente à Escola C+S de Alfragide

Lusa - Pelo menos quatro estudantes ficaram hoje feridas durante uma alegada carga policial na Escola C+S de Alfragide, contaram à agência Lusa vários estudantes entrevistados no local.

Segundo Bruna Cruz, a polícia, depois de rodeada pelas cerca de duas centenas de alunos, carregou sobre os jovens, tendo um deles ido apresentar queixa na esquadra da polícia de Alfragide, o que lhe foi recusado.

A recusa, segundo Carlos Sousa contou à Lusa, foi justificada por ser necessário apresentar uma reclamação por parte da escola sobre o sucedido.

Bruna Cruz adiantou ter sido agredida no joelho, que está inchado e com nódoas negras, andando com dificuldade.

Obama clock: Quanto tempo vai demorar até acabar com o Patriot Act?

E substitui-lo por outro?

A América de uns e outros

Henrique Raposo foi agora para o Expresso dar as suas escolhas: Hamilton (ainda a Revolução separatista tinha acabado de assentar e já tentava estabelecer um Banco Central e uma economia mercantilista) e Lincoln (um advogado dos grandes negócios - - hipócrita que enchia os discursos de "Deus" e que se pensa que nunca tenha entrado numa Igreja). E quem é que estava errado? Thomas Jefferson. As americanófilos de hoje o que gosta é do "processo político" (democracia que não existe em nenhum documento) e do Estado Federal americano, os porta-aviões , os bombardeamentos por uma boa causa, os bailouts à banca e indústria . Aquela América que Jefferson desprezaria.

PS: por curiosidade a expressão "Independent States" aparece 3 vezes na declaração de independência, não "Independent State". A declaração por sinal, não é um mero documento histórico, ainda faz parte do aparato legal-constitucional.

Sarah Palin e Africa

Está toda a gente a dizer que Sarah Palin não sabia que África é um continente. Há alguma prova disso ou há apenas um testemunho em segunda mão de um jornalista que diz ter falado com elementos não identificados da campanha de McCain que terão dito que ela não sabia que Africa era um continente?

A possivel "administração Obama"

A Look Under the Hood of the (Potential) Obama Administration, por Joshua Frank:

Below is a brief summary of Obama’s potential choices for a few key roles in his administration.

Chief of Staff

Obama’s key White House position will go to Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. While Emanuel knows his way around the corridors of Washington, qualifying him in the traditional sense, this alone doesn’t mean he’s the guy you want drawing up Obama’s policy papers day after day.

For starters, Emanuel is a shameless neoliberal with close ties to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), even co-authoring a strategy book with DLC president Bruce Reed. Without Emanuel, Bill Clinton would not have been able to thrust NAFTA down the throats of environmentalists and labor in the mid-1990s. Over the course of his career, Emanuel’s made it a point to cozy up to big business, making him one of the most effective corporate fundraisers in the Democratic Party. He’s also a staunch advocate of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

Emanuel’s shinning moment came in 2006 as he helped funnel money and poured ground support into the offices of dozens of conservative Democrats, expanding his party’s control of the House of Representatives. Emanuel, who supports the War on Terror, and expanding our presence in Afghanistan, worked hard to ensure that a Democratic House majority would not alter the course of US military objectives in the Middle East.

In short, Rahm Emanuel is not only a poor choice for Obama’s Chief of Staff; he’s one of the least progressive picks he could have made. While he may have decent views on abortion, tax policy, and social security, Emanuel’s broader vision is more of the same: war and corporate dominance.

Treasury Secretary

For arguably the most important position Obama will be appointing, the President-Elect may pick well-regarded economist Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Volker is one of Obama’s closest economic advisors and is thought to be the top-choice for the position of Treasury Secretary.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Volker, in an attempt to cut inflation, dramatically raised interest rates, which helped the elite maintain value in their assets but strangled the working class as credit dried up.

(...)

“[Volker] engineered a draconian shift in U.S. monetary policy. The long-standing commitment in the U.S. liberal democratic state to the principles of the New Deal, which meant broadly Keynesian fiscal and monetary policies with full employment as a key objective, was abandoned in favour of a policy designed to quell inflation no matter what the consequences might be for employment. The real rate of interest, which had often been negative during the double-digit inflationary surge of the 1970s, was rendered positive by fiat of the Federal Reserve. The nominal rate of interest was raised overnight … Thus began ‘a long deep recession that would empty factories and break unions in the U.S. and drive detour countries to the brink of insolvency, beginning a long-era of structural insolvency’ (...)”

(...)

Defense Secretary

While Obama’s choice for this important role is speculative, quite a few fingers are pointing to Richard Holbrooke.

After Gerald Ford’s loss and Jimmy Carter’s ascendance into the White House in 1976, Indonesia, which invaded East Timor and slaughtered 200,000 indigenous Timorese years earlier, requested additional arms to continue its brutal occupation, even though there was a supposed ban on arms trades to Suharto’s government. It was Carter’s appointee to the Department of State’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Richard Holbrooke, who authorized additional arms shipments to Indonesia during this supposed blockade. Many scholars have noted that this was the period when the Indonesian suppression of the Timorese reached genocidal levels.

During his testimony before Congress in February 1978, Benedict Anderson of Cornell University cited a report that proved there never was a United States arms ban, and that during the period of the alleged ban; the US initiated new offers of military weaponry to the Indonesians at Holbrooke’s request.

Over the years Holbrooke, who is philosophically aligned with Paul Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives, has worked vigorously to keep his bloody campaign silent. Holbrooke described the motivations behind his support of Indonesia’s genocidal actions:

“The situation in East Timor is one of the number of very important concerns of the United States in Indonesia. Indonesia, with a population of 150 million people, is the fifth largest nation in the world, is a moderate member of the Non-Aligned Movement, is an important oil producer — which plays a moderate role within OPEC — and occupies a strategic position astride the sea lanes between the Pacific and Indian Oceans … We highly value our cooperative relationship with Indonesia.”

Other foreign policy advisors may also include the likes of Madeline Albright, the great supporter of Iraq sanctions, which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Madeline Albright, when asked by Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes about the deaths caused by U.N. sanctions, infamously condoned the deaths. “I think this is a very hard choice,” she said. “But the price–we think the price is worth it.”

A última vez que um Democrata foi eleito

... começou com um Genocídio.

Aqui Lew Rockwell interviews Amy Sommer, co-executive producer of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement."

Aqui o documentário em duas partes que ganhou uns prémios.

Água na fervura

Os sitios onde Obama e McCain tiveram melhores resultados que Kerry e Bush, respectivamente:

Tirando a Luisiana e os casos expectáveis do Alasca e do Arizona, temos que as maiores subidas de McCain foram no que (sobretudo durante a Guerra da Secessão) poderiamos chamar "Estados fronteiriços" - isto é, estados/territórios esclavagistas que, ou não sederam (West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma), ou só sederam depois de começar a guerra (Tennesse, Arkansas), enquanto, quer no "Sul profundo", quer no resto do país, os Democratas subiram (note-se que eu não estou a dizer que este padrão se aplica a todos os "estados fronteiriços" - afinal, Virginia e Carolina do Norte, os grandes sucessos Democratas, também pertecem à categoria "Estados que só sederam depois de começar a guerra").

A explicação para isso é fácil - em termos percentuais, e olhando apenas para os eleitorado branco, os Republicanos só subiram no Sul e pouco mais. No Sul propriamente dito isso foi anulado pelo peso demográfico dos negros, mas, na zona de transição (onde havia poucas plantações, logo poucos escravos, logo poucos negros) esse efeito foi mais vísivel.

Onde eu quero chegar com isto? Que, se os Democratas obtiveram uma vitória conjuntural (não houve qualquer mudança significativa nos padrões de votação), a sua principal dificuldade estrutural (o apoio que, nas eleições nacionais, os brancos do Sul dão aos Republicanos, mesmo contra os seus interesses económicos - afinal, o Sul e a Appalachia são as regiões mais pobres dos EUA) parece que se está a reforçar.

Ou seja, parece-me que os Democratas conquistaram votos de eleitores flutuantes (que noutra eleição podem passar facilmente para os Republicanos - nomeadamente os votos que Obama obteve entre a alta burguesia), enquanto os conservadores consolidaram a sua base de apoio.

Ainda bem que...

... eu não tenho que ganhar a vida fazendo previsões eleitorais.

Não era suposto

... o presidente da Federação ter tanta importância. Seria mais para ser como o Presidente da Suiça que ninguém sabe quem é nem o que faz. Na verdade, os melhores presidentes americanos foram aqueles de que nunca se ouve falar. Já agora, para quem não sabia, originariamente e durante uns tempos, o vice-presidente era suposto ser o que ficava em segundo na escolha pelo colégio eleitoral, o que aconteceu com Jefferson que era oponente de John Adams mas tendo ficado como seu vice.

Lincoln

... teria ficado assustado com a ideia que tinha feito uma guerra onde morreram 600 000 pessoas para Henrique Raposo achar que tinha feito a Guerra-para-impedir-a-Secessão para colocar um afro-american na Presidência, porque só se fosse para o ser na Libéria (a via defendida por Lincoln). Mas enfim, HR tem como fonte Jaffa. Mais um historiador neo-con.

Entretanto na Guerra preferida de Obama

US Airstrike Kills 40 Civilians at Afghan Wedding

Anarcho-Libertarianism

Murray N. Rothbard, 1963: "Two other points about Western imperialism: first, its rule is not nearly so liberal or benevolent as many libertarians like to believe. The only property rights respected are those of the Europeans; the natives find their best lands stolen from them by the imperialists and their labor coerced by violence into working the vast landed estates acquired by this theft.

Second, another myth holds that the "gunboat diplomacy" of the turn of the century was a heroic libertarian action in defense of the property rights of Western investors in backward countries. Aside from our above strictures against going beyond any State's monopolized land area, it is overlooked that the bulk of gunboat moves were in defense, not of private investments, but of Western holders of government bonds. The Western powers coerced the smaller governments into increasing tax aggression on their own people, in order to pay off foreign bondholders. By no stretch of the imagination was this an action on behalf of private property – quite the contrary."

Palpite

Geórgia para Obama (os meus palpites costumam sair furados).

Kennedy

Miguel Portas escreve "A [eleição] que hoje decorre é das que contam.Como a de Roosevelt, em 1932, a de Kennedy em 60 ou, pelos piores motivos, a de Reagan na viragem para os anos 80".

Exactamente, o que é que Kennedy fez (além de, estilo James Dean, ter "morrido cedo com um cadáver bonito"*)?

Bem, iniciou o envolvimento norte-americano em larga escala no Vietname e deixou o mundo à beira da guerra nuclear (talvez só evitada graças a um obscuro oficial soviético).

Poder-se-á responder que abriu caminho ao fim da segregação racial, mas as primeiras medidas anti-segregacionistas já vinham do tempo de Eisenhower, e, à época, os Democratas eram o partido do Ku Klux Klan, logo até é possível que uma administração republicana fosse mais activa nesse aspecto; de qualquer forma, o fim da segregação deve muito mais a Martin Luther King, aos Peregrinos da Liberdade ou aos manifestantes de Selma do que a qualquer presidente, congressista ou juiz do Supremo Tribunal.

*essa expressão costuma ser atribuida a Dean; na realidade, é de John Derek (o futuro marido de Bo Derek), no filme "O Crime não Compensa" (de Nicholas Ray, o mesmo realizador de "Fúria de Viver" - a ligação deve vir daí)

My Endorsment

Igualdade de Oportunidades vs. Igualdade de Resultados

Social mobility: an uphill battle, por Chris Dillow:

Could it be that efforts to improve social mobility just don’t justify themselves in cost-benefit terms?

The fact is that if a government wants to increase equality of opportunity - to weaken the influence of family background upon people’s life chances - it must fight against one of nature’s most powerful impulses, parents’ desire to do the best for their children. Because rich parents are better able than poor ones to do this, the battle to improve social mobility is a viciously uphill one.

Just consider the policies, some of which are sketched in the Cabinet Office report, necessary to improve equality of opportunity (...).

Many of these policies are just infeasible or enormously expensive.

And what would be the benefit of them - to give a handful of ambitious poor kids (I write as one who was once one of these) the chance to scramble up the greasy pole?

Here’s my question. Wouldn’t it be better, in cost-benefit terms - for egalitarians to focus more upon reducing inequalities of outcome?

More progressive taxation, allied to an attempt to dismantle organizational hierarchies, might be far easier ways of achieving equality than costly and vain efforts to improve social mobility.

The idea that greater equality of opportunity is somehow more feasible or more desireable than greater equality of outcome is, surely, a huge error.

Estranha fotografia?

[Pelos vistos, tirada em Martinsville, Indiana]

Sobre Obama (e McCain)

The limits to Barack Obama's radicalism, por David Osler:

YESTERDAY the Financial Times - a free market business newspaper not normally considered the voice of the British left - endorsed Barack Obama as ‘the better choice’ for president of the United States. And, compared to John McCain, the only other contender that could possibly win next week, he certainly is that. (...)

As the FT editorial makes plain, president Obama will inevitably disappoint his progressive base of support, both domestically and in other countries. His political DNA makes him organically incapable of the kind of radicalism necessary to tackle racism and poverty, or to disembroil the US from Afghanistan and Iraq, to name but some of the more pressing tasks. (...)

It is a measure of the desperation of the McCain camp that they have unearthed a 2001 radio interview in which Obama makes some mildly redistributionist remarks, and are trying to push the line that this makes him some kind of 'socialist'.

The idea that Obama is some kind of closet dangerous red is patently laughable; if he has ever uttered anything that would put him much to the left of the mildest European centrist, I have yet to hear it.

The thing is, isn’t it a bit ironic to knock Obama for redistributionism on the very day that the Bush administration began to dish out money to the private sector as part of its plan to get the credit markets back on their feet?

As of now, the US government now holds equity in nine banks and is the major shareholder of a formerly private insurance giant AIG. McCain supported the plan; to hear him turn around and attack redistribution will strike many left of centre observers as just that little bit rich.

Estalinismo e russos mortos

Stalinism: why we still need to talk about dead Russians, por David Osler:

The rise of fascism is one of the great themes of twentieth century history, and to affect ‘neutrality’ on the topic would be not only intellectually and morally untenable, but would be - in effect - to take the wrong side.

Similarly, nuances of analysis on the Spanish civil war should of course not debar anybody from joining a leftist political organisation. But it would be strange kind of socialist party that would extend membership to those who felt that the good guys came out on top in that one.

Yet somehow there seems to be something of a blind spot when it comes to Stalinism.(...)

You see, you have to understand that objectively Stalin represents a historically progressive figure, comrade. He defended and even extended proletarian property relations and won the Great Patriotic War, didn’t he? Can’t make an omelette, and all that. (...)

Not to repudiate Stalinism explicitly, then, at best leaves the left open to accusations of double standards, of picking and choosing inconsistently between good and bad totalitarianism. At worst, it is active advocacy of repression.

Google Blog Search

Sou só eu que acho que o Google Blog Search (suspeito que mais por erro do que por decisão consciente) ficou uma porcaria?

Pensamento Crítico Contemporâneo - 2ª Edição

Tomando como eixo um amplo conjunto de autores contemporâneos e as correntes e sensibilidades que os atravessam, este seminário pretende mapear algumas das principais problemáticas que hoje desafiam um pensamento crítico. Desenrolando-se ao longo de dez sábados, o seminário decorrerá num lugar privilegiado na cidade de Lisboa: a Fábrica de Braço de Prata.

Em cada sábado serão abordados dois autores. Na primeira parte de cada sessão serão apresentadas duas comunicações, que estão a cargo de um conjunto de convidados que vai da Filosofia ao Jornalismo, passando pela História, a Antropologia, a Sociologia, os Estudos Literários e a Musicologia. Na segunda parte haverá oportunidade para debate entre todos os participantes no seminário.

O seminário tem um objectivo introdutório e destina-se ao público em geral, dispensando qualquer tipo de formação académica prévia. Serão disponibilizados materiais de leitura que permitirão uma melhor preparação das sessões e materiais de leitura para que cada pessoa possa posteriormente aprofundar o seu conhecimento sobre os autores e os temas tratados no seminário.

A moderação das sessões estará a cargo dos coordenadores do seminário. Em relação à primeira edição do seminário, esta segunda edição ocupar-nos-á por mais um sábado. Os autores debatidos serão na sua maioria os mesmos que estiveram em foco na primeira edição do seminário, acrescentando-se porém à lista anterior os nomes de T.W.Adorno, André Gorz, Néstor Garcia Canclini e Cornelius Castoriadis.

PREÇO DO CURSO: 25€ | 15€ estudantes do 1º ciclo do Ensino Superior.

No final do seminário, será conferido um certificado de participação a quem solicitar.

Quem pretender apenas inscrever-se numa sessão determinada e não na totalidade do curso, terá que pagar um preço de 4€ por sessão. A inscrição avulsa numa determinada sessão efectua-se no próprio dia, na Fábrica de Braço de Prata, junto ao secretariado do Seminário.

Para ver o programa completo, podem ir, p.ex., aqui.

Os animais têm direitos?

Há quem diga que não, muitas vezes dizendo que os humanos é que têm responsabilidades perante os animais.

Talvez, mas, na prática, dizer "os animais têm direitos" ou dizer "os humanos têm responsabilidades perante os animais" não será exactamente a mesma coisa?

Afinal, se formos ver, os tais "direitos humanos" também não passam de "responsabilidades dos humanos uns perante os outros" - p.ex., grande parte dos defensores dos direitos humanos considera a cadeira eléctrica (e a pena de morte em geral) como "bárbara", mas, quando um humano morre electrocutado por um raio, ninguem chama a isso uma "violação dos direitos humanos" (a menos que outros humanos tenham responsabilidade, por acção ou omissão, nisso).

Se uma Guerra pode ser boa para a economia

(e isso é um pensamento discretamente repetido por todo o tipo de kyenesianos de direita mas não só... por exemplo a WWII terá acabado com a Grande Depressão, dizem)

...vamos então fazer uma guerra com todas as "vantagens" e nenhuma das desvantagens:

1. Vamos combinar um confronto Europa versus EUA

2. Cada um dos lados constrói uma frota imensa naval e aérea (subida massiva de impostos e dívida pública, uma economia planificada de guerra é necessário, o desemprego pode baixar para zero dado que a produção tem de ser aumentada e adicionalmente são necessários imensos soldados)

3. Os exércitos navais (de dimensão nunca antes vista) encontram-se no meio do Atlântico.

4. E... em vez de se combaterem provocando mortes desagradáveis...

5. Limitam-se a afundar todos os navios e aviões no meio do atlântico sem provocar uma única morte.

6. Repetir a partir do passo 2 (mas se a Ásia precisar de ajuda, pode-se combinar à vez).

PS: Ideia obtida via o podcast "We Who Dare Say No to War , Lew Rockwell interviews Tom Woods

Fascismo económico...

... surge quando é inevitável ter que escolher quem é ajudado e quem não é. Na Europa e em todo o lado será o mesmo.

U.S. Treasury Shuns Banks That Need Cash Most in $160 Billion Buying Spree Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government's $160 billion handout to banks from Niagara Falls to Beverly Hills is going mostly to lenders that need it least, putting weaker rivals at risk of being shut down or taken over, analysts say.

Isto não uma espécie de lock-out?

Salário Minímo: Associação das PME vai pedir aos associados para não renovarem contratos a termo

Lisboa, 29 Out (Lusa) - O presidente da Associação Nacional das Pequenas e Médias Empresas (ANPMES) disse hoje que se o primeiro-ministro "insistir" no aumento do salário mínimo, a associação determinará junto dos seus associados a não renovação dos contratos a termo.

"A associação não se vai manifestar, mas vai determinar junto dos associados que não renovem os contratos. O que significa que o primeiro-ministro vai ter um aumento do desemprego", disse Augusto Morais.

O dirigente da associação salientou que o "aumento do desemprego vai levar os trabalhadores a recorrerem ao fundo de desemprego, obrigando o Governo a fazer um orçamento rectificativo", recordando que há em Portugal 43.720 contratos a termo.

A esquerda e Chavez

Ali em baixo, Luis Pedro Coelho escreve:

As coisas vão aquecer na Venezuela.

A esquerda europeía vai garantir que nunca teve nada a ver com
aquilo.

Possivelmente. Mas quando (e se) isso acontecer, acho que será necessário distinguir entre a esquerda que já diz isso actualmente (como a ex-UDP, o Ruptura/FER ou, p.ex., o Daniel Oliveira) da que anda (ou andava até à pouco tempo) entusiasmada com o Alberto João Jardim do mar das Caraíbas "novo Bolivar" (como o PCP, o Mário Soares e mesmo, até certo ponto, o ex-PSR). Os primeiros terão muito mais autoridade para negarem ter algo a ver com o "chavismo" do que os segundos.

[Já agora, o mesmo vale para a direita: quando os "direitistas" dizem que a culpa da crise actual não é nada do liberalismo, mas sim do intervencionismo, dos juros "artificialmente baixos", da "promoção insustentável" da habitação própria, etc., esses argumentos - independentemente de estarem certos ou errados - soam melhor quando vêm de sectores estilo LewRockwell - que há anos andavam a dizer que a crise vinha aí - do que de sectores estilo National Review - que diziam que estava tudo bem]

Lenga, lenga...

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

O voto antecipado nos EUA

FiveThirtyEight.com:

According to Michael McDonald's terrific website, there are three states in which early voting has already exceeded its totals from 2004. These are Georgia, where early voting is already at 180 percent of its 2004 total, Louisiana (169 percent), and North Carolina (129 percent).

Hmm ... can anybody think of something that those three states have in common?

Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens versus Patrick J. Buchanan

Buchanan nem sequer está presente, VDH e Hitchens podiam fazer a festa, mas sinceramente ganha. (Pelo menos ouve-se Hitchens a dizer que se sabe as a matter of fact que Churchill gostava de guerras e que passou a WWII permanentemente com os copos.)

Uma supreendente entrevista organizada pela Hoover Institution da Standford University, com um entrevistador intelectualmente honesto, o que é raro.



"Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens take on the World War II revisionists, focusing first on Patrick J. Buchanan, the author, most recently, of Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. They counter the essential claims in Buchanans book that Britains guarantee to protect Poland in the event of a German invasion made the war inevitable; that the Holocaust was a consequence of the war and that, without it, the Holocaust may not have occurred; and that Germany invaded Russia only because Britain under Churchill was determined to partner with Russia against Germany. Finally they address two claims made by author Niall Ferguson that [the Allies] adopted the most brutal tactics of those they were fighting and that the principal beneficiary of the Second World War was Stalins Soviet Union."

Do outro lado: Sarah Palin Supports New 9/11 Investigation

Asked by We Are Change Ohio, “Do you support the family members and first responders who are calling for a new 9/11 investigation?,” Palin responded, “I do.” “I do because I think that helps us get to the point of never again, and if anything that we could do could still complete that reminder out there,” the Alaska Governor added. Palin was aware of the context because she then asked the cameraman if he had been affected by 9/11."  Prison Planet.com

Contra Obama

Hoje apetece-me falar mal do salvador lembrando os presentes que a sua estratégia "sair do Iraque para ir para o Afeganistão" simplesmente não é melhor do que a de Bush. Pessoalmente acho muito pior a presença do Afeganistão onde a NATO está envolvida para transformar uma região que nunca terá um Estado auto-sustentável numa federação suiça. Viver em desertos inóspitos por séculos invadidos por estes e aqueles não confere própriamente
as condições objectivas. As contínuas notícias de morte de X talibans aqui e mais Y talibans acolá já deviam fomentar algum repúdio porque a definição de taliban parecem ser "todos os que a coligação mata". Obama parece achar que o Afeganistão tem uma causa ... mas causa contra quem? Mais depressa podiam ser deixados a si próprios do que aos iraquianos, com muito menos consequências e pelo contrário quanto mais tempo por lá estiverem mais o Paquistão tem a sua estabilidade dificultada, onde alíás Obama quase já prometeu intervir (=bombardear). Ainda por cima vai sentir a necessidade de mostrar que é capaz e tão duro como outro qualquer. Com o risco de ser por causas humanitárias, tipo Kosovo. No.

Já agora (II)

E o texto anterior (com as suas referencias ao anti-imperialismo do Oeste americano, venha ele de cowboys ou de neo-hippies) fez-me lembrar ainda outro texto, este mais antigo, de Bill Kauffman, My America vs. The Empire:

Facile contemners of President Bush deride him as a "Texas cowboy." If only he were. Alas, President of the World Bush is a deracinated preppie, an Andover yell leader who blamed his first defeat for public office, in a 1978 congressional race, on "provincialism." It seems that the real cowboys were unimpressed by a naughty boarding-school cheerleader who was unable to pronounce correctly the name of the largest city in the district. Young Bush's helpmate, Vice President Cheney of Haliburton, is a man so placeless that once he humbly determined himself to be the most qualified running mate Mr. Bush might have, he had to hop a plane to Wyoming and become an instant citizen of the Equality State so as to avoid violating the pettifogging constitutional clause that effectively prevents President and Vice President from being residents of the same state.

Já agora

O meu post anterior fez-me lembrar um artigo que li ontem sobre os Republicanos estarem, gradualmente, a perder terreno no Oeste (o que, por outro lado, pode vir a por em causa a validade do meu outro post...), nomeadamente esta passagem (onde fala da curiosa mistura de sub-culturas em certas zonas do Oeste):

McCain may also have gotten off to a bad footing in the West because of his hawkish stance on foreign policy. Between the Ron Paul-ish isolationist elements evident in the rural reaches of the West--the region was by far Paul's best for fundraising on a per-capita basis--and the neo-hippie culture still apparent in places like Boulder, Colorado, and Santa Fe, the West has relatively little appetite for foreign entanglements.

EUA, partidos e ambiente (II)

Já o complexo "Ralph Nader + Verdes" tem uma distribuição eleitoral um pouco diferente da de Republicanos e Democratas.

Veja-se os resultados de Nader nas eleições de 2000:

Os resultados de Nader são interessantes: por um lado, temos os lugares do costume - Nova Inglaterra, Costa Oeste, Minnesota/Winscosin e Hawai. Os baixos resultados no Sul (incluindo na Florida, onde, segundo muitos, a candidatura "verde" terá sido responsável pela não eleição de Joe Lieberman para a vice-presidência) também podem ser considerados "do costume".

O que sai do costume: os bons resultados no Colorado, Utah, Montana e Alasca (10% neste ultimo); juntando isto com Washington e Oregon, temos que Nader e os Verdes tiveram (em termos relativos, claro) mesmo bons resultados ao pé da "natureza selvagem" (ou seja, ao contrário dos Republicanos e Democratas, não há grande contradição entre o seu programa e o habitat dos seus eleitores)

Possível explicação (isto é apenas um palpite - não fiz qualquer estudo sobre o assunto): enquanto os eleitores Democratas serão uma mistura de operários fabris, imigrantes e da classe média das grandes cidades, suspeito que entre a esquerda alternativa já haverá uma proporção significativa de indivíduos, provavelmente nascidos na tal classe média das grandes cidades, mas que, a dado dia, decidiram mesmo fazer a bagagem e irem viver para uma casa de madeira (não necessariamente desconfortável) nas Montanhas Rochosas (para quem vive no Barlavento algarvio, é um fenómeno familiar; é só trocar alemães por californianos ou nova-iorquinos).

"Purgatório"

João Pereira Coutinho no Expresso:

"O episódio é interessante porque revela o quadro mental em que a esquerda usualmente chafurda. Creio que foi Roger Scruton quem o resumiu na perfeição: quando um "conservador" critica um "progressista", ele parte do pressuposto que o adversário está errado. O critério é epistemológico, não ético. Mas quando um "progressista" critica um "conservador", o julgamento é moral; e o adversário, um simples inimigo. Naturalmente que existem todas as excepções do mundo. Mas as excepções confirmam a tese: o pluralismo não entra na cabeça de uma esquerda moralista e intolerante. Foi precisamente essa arrogância moral da esquerda, a que se junta uma óbvia falta de sentido de humor, que fizeram de mim uma pessoa à direita."

JPC deve ser das tais excepções que ele fala - é que toda a critica que ele faz à esquerda nesta passagem, incluindo a razão que ele dá para ser de direita (não gostar da "arrogância moral" e da "falta de sentido de humor" da esquerda) é uma critica moral (ele critica a atitude moral das pessoas de esquerda, não a validade ou não das suas ideias).

Ou então esta passagem de JPC desmente-se a ela própria.

EUA, Republicanos, Democratas e ambiente

Nos EUA, parece-me que, por norma, os Democratas são quem mais valoriza a preservação do ambiente, das florestas e rios selvagens, etc. Já os Republicanos tendem a defender o desenvolvimento urbano e industrial (nota: o Earth First foi fundado por veteranos da campanha de Goldwater, mas houve tanto gente que apoiou Goldwater e depois foi para esquerda...).

Assim, é impressão minha, ou Republicanos e Democratas estão empenhados em desenvolver/preservar o habitat natural do adversário?

Esquerda / Direita - estereótipos

Via Matt Jenny (um "anarco-capitalista de esquerda", se é que isso faz sentido):

Academic Discipline:
Sociology, literature, anthropology, law, history [Left]
Economics, engineering, physics, chemistry, computer science [Right]

Eu sou economista, o que me poria na "direita" (não sei se estes estereótipos serão válidos para Portugal - o ISEG é historicamente das faculdades mais à esquerda do país, enquanto as faculdades de Direito até há pouco eram dominadas pelos antigos ministros do Salazar).

Back pack, body piercing (Left)
Attaché case, jewelry (Right)

Eu às vezes uso mochila (esquerda)

Activities and/or Entertainment:
Outdoor: backpacking/canoeing/mountain biking (Left)
Indoor: opera/shopping/eating out (Right)

Dessas, a que eu mais faço é comer fora (direita)

Automobile:
Honda Element or Subaru Outback w/public radio (NPR) bumper stickers, Volvo and Prius, any hybrid car (Left)
Four-wheel drive SUV or pick-up with "Don't Mess with Texas" bumper sticker, and gun rack, Cadillac, Lincoln, Jaguar and Porsche (Right)

Essa é difícil de aplicar a Portugal - imagino que um Renault Clio conte como "esquerda"

Body adornments:
Tattoos (Left)
Ties (Right)

Nem uma coisa nem outra

Child rearing:
Spanking prohibited (Left)
Spanking allowed (Right)

Eu nunca bati nos meus sobrinhos (mesmo quando as minhas irmãs me autorizam), deve contar como "esquerda"

Clothes:
Baggy pants, beads, fringes (Left)
Tight pants, tuxedo, shirt, tie, three piece suit (Right)

Nem uma coisa nem outra (suspeito que o meu estilo de vestir seja o que há 30 anos seria considerado "esquerda").

Clothes bought at:
REI or overpriced boutiques (Left)
Large, undifferentiated chains (Right)

Aqui, tendo para a "direita" (mas, de novo, suspeito que não se aplica a Portugal)

Drugs:
Hookah tobacco, marijuana (Left)
Cigarettes and cigars, wine and spirits (Right)

Normalmente, nem uma coisa nem outra.

Urban chic on the coasts, blue states (Left)
Rural/suburban, flyover country, red states (Right)

O Algarve é um "distrito verde", logo "esquerda" (penso que fora da América do Norte, os subúrbios serão "esquerda")

Education:
Public school, but for private, Waldorf (Left)
Private school, Montessori (Right)

16 anos de escola pública ("esquerda")

Energy Source:
Windmill, water, solar power
Nuclear power, coal, oil

"Esquerda"

Food:
Organic, vegetarian, vegan, French (Left)
Genetically modified, red meat, French fries (Right)

"Direita"

Hair dye:
Purple, blue, green (Left)
Blonde (Right)

Nem uma coisa nem outra

Language:
Use of the F word ok; indeed, almost required
Use of the F word forbidden (at least in mixed company)

"Direita"

Make up:
None (Left)
Rouge, lipstick, eye-shadow (Right)

"Esquerda" (no entanto, não me parece que fosse muito "direitista" eu usar maquilhagem...)

Meeting place:
Coffee shop (Left)
Martini bar or Ale House (Right)

Pode-se considerar "esquerda"

Movies:
Independent, foreign, small budget (Left)
Anything with Arnold Schwarzenegger or Tom Hanks (Right)

Eu gosto de filmes norte-americanos de "baixo orçamento" (adoro os do Roger Corman) mas também dos do Schwarzenegger.

Music:
World, alternative, folk, rap (Left)
Mainstream rock, pop, country, classical (Right)

"esquerda"

Musical instrument:
Guitar (Left)
Violin (Right)

Não toco nenhum

Pets:
Cats (Left)
Dogs (Right)

Gatos ("esquerda") - aliás, um dia ainda eu de escrever um post sobre a minha teoria de que a esquerda é mais individualista que a direita

Political emblem:
Donkey (Left)
Elephant (Right)

Prefiro estrelas a variantes de setas (conta como "esquerda"?)

Political system:
Communism (Left)
Fascism (Right)

Em proporção ao tempo de governo e população abrangida, creio que o comunismo matou menos gente que o fascismo ("esquerda")

Religion:
Recycling, Astrology, Crystals, Socialism (Left)
Catholic/Protestant/Jewish (Right)

O autor original esqueceu-se de pôr "fé na indústria/adoração das chaminés fabris" nas religiões de direita (em contraponto à reciclagem) e também "capitalismo" (face a socialismo). Fora da Califórnia, também me parece que os cristais e a astrologia terão mais a ver com alguma direita lunática (estilo López Rega) do que com a esquerda. De qualquer forma, "esquerda".

Sexual practices:
Free love (Left)
Serial monogamy (Right)

"Direita", apesar de tudo.

Shoes:
Earth shoes, sandals (Left)
High heels, boots (Right)

Nem uma coisa nem outra (acerca dos saltos altos, aplica-se o mesmo que à maquilhagem)

Sports:
Team: soccer, volleyball (Left)
Individual (apart from football): running, swimming, boxing, cock fighting, bull fighting,
guns (Right)

Nadar no Oceano Atlantico ("direita", pelos vistos) - já agora, isto pões em causa a minha teoria de esquerda individualista

Transportation:
Bus, light rail, public transportation, bicycle (Left)
Automobile, toll roads (Right)

Em Portimão, só ando de carro ou a pé; em Lisboa, prefiro transportes

Vacation weekend:
Backpacking a rustic area (Left)
Water parks and cheesy festivals (Right)

"Esquerda"

Assim, temos 12 respostas de esquerda, 7 de direita e 9 indeterminadas. Ou seja, pelos vistos sou um "esquerdista cultural".

E na Venezuela...

Chavez rompe com grande parte da esquerda local (via Troll Urbano).

O ciclo especulativo

"(...)The Great Depression is blamed on "greedy speculators". With artificially low interest rates, it made sense to borrow and buy assets. If interest rates are 2% and inflation is 10%, then borrowing to invest is sensible. Many farmers and small business owners were forced to borrow to expand, to keep up with their competition.

The "greedy speculators" were acting independently in the "free market". The Federal Reserve and negative interest rates were the real culprit. The speculators were following the false signal the Federal Reserve was sending via artificially cheap interest rates.

In 1929, the Federal Reserve insiders decided to jack up interest rates worldwide, causing a depression. The insiders knew what was coming. They stopped issuing loans and converted all their holding to cash.(...)

The insiders had converted their holdings to cash before the crash. After the crash, they were able to buy assets at a huge discount. Since they were unleveraged, they were able to borrow and buy up even more assets at the bottom of the Great Depression.

In 1933, President Roosevelt confiscated everyone's gold, defaulted on the dollar, and declared the USA bankrupt. The dollar was devalued relative to gold, from $20/oz to $35/oz. Since the dollar was no longer redeemable in gold, this allowed a further increase in the money supply. The insiders who borrowed to buy assets at the bottom of the Great Depression were allowed to default on their loans, repaying their debts with devalued dollars. Many loan contracts contained "gold clauses" requiring payment to be increased if the dollar were devalued relative to gold. Congress declared these "gold clauses" invalid, ripping off creditors and providing a massive subsidy to debtors.

In this way, politically connected insiders profited from all three legs of the Great Depression. They profited by borrowing and buying assets at the start of the boom. They were first in line to buy assets with the newly printed money, so they were the primary beneficiaries of inflation. Due to their political connections, they were able to foresee the crash coming. They converted their holdings to cash before the crash. At the bottom of the Depression, they were able to borrow and buy assets at a discount. Later, they were able to default on these loans via inflation; inflation meant these loans could be repaid with devalued dollars.

(...) The Great Depression accomplished several goals. It forced small farmers off their land when they were unable to repay their mortgages. It forced many small businesses to close. It caused the cartelization of many industries. (...)" FSK'S GUIDE TO REALITY (30-04-2008)

Marx e a crise actual

Chris Dillow argumenta que Marx explica pouco a presente crise:

The credit crunch is making Marx fashionable again. Which I find odd. Strictly speaking, this crisis has made Marx less relevant, not more.

Our current crisis is a less Marxist one than almost any post-war recession.

To Marx, crises originated in the real economy. Recessions occur when an over-accumulation of real capital equipment combine with a lack of demand to cause a falling rate of profit and then capital-scrapping, job cuts and slump.

Now, this was a great explanation for previous recessions. The long boom of the 1950s and 60s led to over-accumulation and falling profits and the recessions of the 70s and 80s. The tech bubble of the late 90s caused a massive over-accumulation of capital and nugatory profits. It's this stress upon profits that elevates Marx and his follower such as Kalecki above mere Keynesians.

However, this is a poor description of our current woes. Non-financial profits have been reasonably healthy. Instead, this crisis originates in the financial system.

To Marx, however, finance was not so much a cause of capitalist crises - and for that matter of capitalist growth as well - but a mere accelerant of them. It’s the petrol, not the spark. Credit, he wrote (vol III, p572), “accelerates the violent outbreaks of this contradiction, crises…” Accelerate, note, not cause.

(...)

Of course, I’ve said that this crisis shows that the capitalist mode of ownership is dysfunctional. But I mean this in a different sense to Marx. I mean that individual companies are inefficient. But it’s not clear that Marx thought this. Instead, his big contribution was to show that capitalism was micro efficient but macro inefficient. He showed how individual capitalists, each pursuing profit maximization, could produce an outcome that was bad for capitalists in general - falling profits and crisis. He seems to have taken for granted that individual capitalist enterprises were rationally organized - though this could well have been a postulate for the sake of argument, rather than a direct claim.

A visão austro-libertarian sobre a inflação monetária

Nota: Isto para além de ser a causa dos grandes ciclos económicos e crises bancárias.

Adenda: Por inflação monetária entenda-se a capacidade criar dinheiro pelo sistema bancário, essencialmente para conceder crédito sem captação/mobilização de poupança.

DEFLATION AND LIBERTY, JÖRG GUIDO HÜLSMANN:"(...) It is true that the firms who receive money fresh from the printing press are thereby benefited. But other firms are harmed by the very same fact because they can no longer pay the higher prices for wages and rents that the privileged firm can now pay. And all other owners of money, whether they are entrepreneurs or workers, are harmed too, because their money now has a lower purchasing power than it would otherwise have had.

(...) Inflation is an unjustifiable redistribution of income in favor of those who receive the new money and money titles first, and to the detriment of those who receive them last. In practice the redistribution always works out in favor of the fiat-money producers themselves (whom we misleadingly call “central banks”) and of their partners in the banking sector and at the stock exchange. And of course inflation works out to the advantage of governments and their closest allies in the business world. Inflation is the vehicle through which these individuals and groups enrich themselves, unjustifiably, at the expense of the citizenry at large.

21In this regard, inflation works in an unholy alliance with the tax code. The main advantage of the successful newcomer is that he has high revenues. But present-day corporate and income tax rates effectively prevent him from accumulating capital quickly enough to sustain the competition of the establishment. As a result, there are virtually no more firms that make it from the very bottom into the major league of corporate capitalism. It took a technological revolution to overcome these obstacles and bring a few firms such as Microsoft to the top of corporate America.

(...) If there is any truth to the socialist caricature of capitalism—an economic system that exploits the poor to the benefit of the rich—then this caricature holds true for a capitalist system strangulated by inflation. The relentless influx of paper money makes the wealthy and powerful richer and more powerful than they would be if they depended exclusively on the voluntary support of their fellow citizens. And because it shields the political and economic establishment of the country from the competition emanating from the rest of society, inflation puts a brake on social mobility. The rich stay rich (longer) and the poor stay poor (longer) than they would in a free society."

Prémio Dardos

Der Terrorist a A Terra dos Espantos atribuíram ao Vento Sueste o Prémio Dardos.

Tal implica:

- exibir esta imagem
- linkar o blogue pelo qual recebeu o prémio
- distinguir mais 15 blogues

Lá consegui arranjar 15 blogues:

O Nadir dos Tempos
Spectrum
Causa Liberal
O Blogger de Portimão
Fénix Vermelha
Troll Urbano
Uma Terra sem Amos
19 meses depois
Almareios
Esquerda Republicana
Rabitt's Blog / Mutual Information (conta como 2?)
Despertar da Mente
Idéias Livres
Ação Humana

A Sushi Model of Capital Consumption

Robert P. Murphy "(...) Without further ado, let's examine a hypothetical island economy composed of 100 people, where the only consumption good is rolls of sushi.

The island starts in an initial equilibrium that is indefinitely sustainable. Every day, 25 people row boats out into the water and use nets to catch fish. Another 25 of the islanders go into the paddies to gather rice. Yet another 25 people take rice and fish (collected during the previous day, of course) and make tantalizing sushi rolls. Finally, the remaining 25 of the islanders devote their days to upkeep of the boats and nets. In this way, every day there are a total of (let us say) 500 sushi rolls produced, allowing each islander to eat 5 sushi rolls per day, day in and day out. Not a bad life, really, especially when you consider the ocean view and the absence of Jim Cramer.

But alas, one day Paul Krugman washes onto the beach. After being revived, he surveys the humble economy and starts advising the islanders on how to raise their standard of living to American levels. He shows them the outboard motor (still full of gas) from his shipwreck, and they are intrigued. Being untrained in economics, they find his arguments irresistible and agree to follow his recommendations.

Therefore, the original, sustainable deployment of island workers is altered. Under Krugman's plan for prosperity, 30 islanders take the boats (one with a motor) and nets out to catch fish. Another 30 gather rice from the paddies. A third 30 use the fish and rice to make sushi rolls. In a new twist, 5 of the islanders scour the island for materials necessary to maintain the motor; after all, every day it burns gasoline, and its oil gets dirtier. But of course, all of this only leaves 5 islanders remaining to maintain the boats and nets, which they continue to do every day. (If the reader is curious, Krugman doesn't work in sushi production. He spends his days in a hammock, penning essays that blame the islanders' poverty on the stinginess of the coconut trees.)

"Any talking head on CNBC who doesn't understand capital consumption is going to give horrible policy recommendations."

For a few months, the islanders are convinced that the pale-faced Nobel laureate is a genius. Every day, 606 sushi rolls are produced, meaning that everyone (including Krugman) gets to eat 6 rolls per day, instead of the 5 rolls per day to which they had been accustomed. The islanders believe this increase is due to use of the motor, but really it's mostly due to the rearrangement of tasks. Before, only 25 people were devoted to fishing, rice collection, and sushi preparation. But now, 30 people are devoted to each of these areas. So even without the motor, total daily output of sushi would have increased by 20%, assuming the islanders were equally good at the various jobs, and that there were plenty of fish and rice provided by nature. (In fact, the contribution of the motor was really only the extra 6 rolls necessary to feed Krugman.)

But alas, eventually the reduction in boat and net maintenance begins to affect output. With only 5 islanders devoted to this task, instead of the original 25, something has to give. The nets become more and more frayed over time, and the boats develop small leaks. This means that the 30 fishermen don't return each day with as many fish, because their equipment isn't as good as it used to be. The 30 islanders making sushi are then in a fix, because they now have an imbalance between rice and fish. They start cheating, by putting in smaller pieces of fish into each roll. The islanders continue to get 6 rolls per day, but now each roll has less fish in it. The islanders are furious — except for those who are repulsed by the idea of ingesting raw fish.

Being a trained economist, Krugman knows what to do. He suggests that 2 of the rice workers and 2 of the sushi rollers switch over to help the fishermen. Now with 34 workers, the islanders are able to catch almost as many fish per day as they were in the previous months, even though they are now using tattered nets and dilapidated boats. Krugman — being very sharp with numbers — moved just enough workers so that the fish caught by the 34 islanders matches up perfectly with the rice picked by the remaining 28 islanders who go to the paddies every day. With this amount of fish and rice, the 28 workers in the rolling occupation are able to produce 556 sushi rolls per day. This allows everyone to consume about 5 and a half rolls per day, with a bonus roll left over for Krugman.

The islanders are a bit concerned. When they first followed Krugman's advice, their consumption jumped from 5 rolls to 6 per day. Then when things seemed to be all screwed up, Krugman managed to fix the worst of the discoordination, but still, consumption fell to 5.5 rolls per day. Krugman reminded them that 5.5 was better than 5. He finally got the crowd to disperse by talking about "Cobb-Douglas production functions" and drawing IS-LM curves in the sand.

Because this is a family-friendly website, we will stop our story here. Needless to say, at some point the 5 islanders devoted to net and boat production will decide that they have to cut their losses. Rather than trying to maintain the original fleet of boats and original collection of nets with only 5 workers instead of 25, they will instead focus their efforts on the best 20% of the boats and nets, and keep them in great shape. At that point, it will be physically impossible for the islanders to prop up their daily sushi output. In order just to return to their original, sustainable level of 5 sushi rolls per person per day, the islanders will need to suffer a period of privation where many of them are devoted to net and boat production. (We can only hope that Professor Krugman has been rescued by the Swedes by this time.)

The 5 people looking for ways to synthesize gasoline and motor oil will have to abandon that task, because it was never appropriate for the islanders' primitive capital structure. The islanders will of course discard the motor brought to the island by Krugman once it runs out of gas.

Finally, we predict that during the period of transition, some islanders will have nothing to do. After all, there will already be the maximum needed for catching fish with the usable boats and nets, and there will already be the corresponding number of islanders devoted to rice collection and sushi rolling, given the small daily catch of fish. There would be no point in adding extra islanders to boat and net production, because then they would end up building more than could be sustained in the long run. Hence, the elders rotate 10 people every day, who are allowed to goof off. They could of course go try to catch fish with their bare hands, or go gather rice that would just be eaten in piles by itself, but everyone decides that this is a waste of time. Given the realities, it is decided that during the transition, 10 people get the day off, even though everyone is hungry. That is just how bad Krugman's advice was."