Guilherme Fiuza, Revista ÉPOCA
A faxina de Dilma se parece com a história da queda do avião no cemitério português. Trata-se de humor negro e preconceituoso, mas ilustra bem a atual cena política brasileira. Segundo a anedota, as equipes de resgate lusitanas fizeram a operação mais longa da história dos acidentes aéreos: após uma semana de buscas por corpos na área do cemitério onde o avião caíra, as autoridades portuguesas concluíram que havia mais de 1.000 passageiros a bordo. E anunciavam que as escavações continuariam até que a última vítima fosse localizada.
A piada é pura implicância com nossos colonizadores, mas expressa com exatidão a suposta cruzada de Dilma contra a corrupção em seu próprio governo. Quem transformou o Estado em moeda de troca política foi o partido da presidente. Seria cômica, se não fosse trágica, a imagem de Dilma desenterrando aqui e ali as ossadas do fisiologismo que estão por toda parte – como se ela não tivesse nada com isso. É a vez dos portugueses de contar a anedota dos brasileiros que vibram com a faxina de quem fez a lambança.
Wagner Rossi, da Agricultura, é mais um ministro que cai coberto de elogios da presidente. Assim como Palocci e Alfredo Nascimento, Rossi mereceu todos os votos de confiança de Dilma até o último momento. É como se sua cabeça tivesse rolado por um acidente natural, um capricho do destino. O próprio ministro demitido, em nota oficial, declarou que nada foi provado contra ele, que as denúncias são mera intriga da oposição, que se orgulha do seu trabalho etc. Só mesmo um fenômeno da natureza pode explicar que um ministro tão orgulhoso e seguro de si resolva pedir o boné.
Pelo menos essa turma é transparente. Respondendo à imprensa – sempre ela, importunando a privacidade dos homens de bem –, Wagner Rossi declarou que viajou, de fato, no avião de uma empresa cliente do seu ministério. A empresa em questão conseguiu, depois que Rossi entrou no governo, um aumento de 3.000% no valor dos financiamentos públicos para seus projetos de agronegócios. O então ministro da Agricultura não viu nenhum problema em embarcar no jatinho dessa próspera empresa.
Os termos usados por Rossi em sua explicação denotam toda a inocência e a doçura de sua relação com a tal empresa: “Informo que, em raras ocasiões, utilizei como carona o avião citado na reportagem”. Que fique, portanto, esclarecido aos maliciosos de plantão: não houve nada demais, só um empresário dando carona a um ministro. Uma questão de solidariedade.
Se todos os ministros demitidos do governo popular tivessem essa clareza e espontaneidade, talvez Dilma pudesse ter economizado detergente e água sanitária. Antonio Palocci, por exemplo, poderia ter dito que “utilizou como carona” seu status de coordenador da campanha presidencial e de ex-ministro da Fazenda para prestar consultoria privada. Ninguém duvidaria da sua inocência. Alfredo Nascimento poderia ter declarado que “utilizou como carona” o Ministério dos Transportes para que o pessoal do PR montasse a farra orçamentária do Dnit. E assim por diante, calando essa mídia golpista que vê maldade em tudo.
Vejam o caso do senador maranhense José Sarney, que utilizou como carona o Estado do Amapá para se perpetuar em Brasília. Apesar do escândalo no Ministério do Turismo (da cota pessoal de Sarney), envolvendo uma ONG de fachada que drenou milhões de reais para projetos fantasmas no Amapá, o senador permanece imune em sua cadeira na presidência do Congresso. O secretário executivo do ministério – aquele flagrado ensinando um empresário a montar convênio pirata com o governo – é afilhado político de Sarney. Por que a faxina não chega a ele?
Porque Sarney é dono de uma das capitanias hereditárias do fisiologismo, dessas que Lula e Dilma utilizaram como carona para se agarrar ao poder. Faxina contra a corrupção? Melhor contar piada de português.
sábado, agosto 20, 2011
Resgatando a verdade
Comentário sobre o novo livro "Guia Politicamente Incorreto da América Latina", de Leandro Narloch e Duda Teixeira. Trata-se de um resgate de fatos históricos sobre figuras idolatradas pela esquerda latino-americana, como Che Guevara, Peron, Simon Bolivar, Salvador Allende etc.
sexta-feira, agosto 19, 2011
Why Americans Hate Economics
By STEPHEN MOORE, WSJ
Christina Romer, the University of California at Berkeley economics professor and President Obama's first chief economist, once relayed the old joke that "there are two kinds of students: those who hate economics and those who really hate economics." She doesn't believe that, but it's true. I'm surprised how many students tell me economics is their least favorite subject. Why? Because too often economic theories defy common sense. Alas, the policies of this administration haven't boosted the profession's reputation.
Consider what happened last week when Laura Meckler of this newspaper dared to ask White House Press Secretary Jay Carney how increasing unemployment insurance "creates jobs." She received this slap down: "I would expect a reporter from The Wall Street Journal would know this as part of the entrance exam just to get on the paper."
Mr. Carney explained that unemployment insurance "is one of the most direct ways to infuse money into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren't earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get . . . and that creates growth and income for businesses that then lead them to making decisions about jobs—more hiring."
That's a perfect Keynesian answer, and also perfectly nonsensical. What the White House is telling us is that the more unemployed people we can pay for not working, the more people will work. Only someone with a Ph.D. in economics from an elite university would believe this.
I have two teenage sons. One worked all summer and the other sat on his duff. To stimulate the economy, the White House wants to take more money from the son who works and give it to the one who doesn't work. I can say with 100% certainty as a parent that in the Moore household this will lead to less work.
Economic bimboism is rampant in Washington. The Center for American Progress held a forum earlier this summer arguing that raising the minimum wage would create more jobs. For this to be true, you have to believe that the more it costs a business to hire a worker, the more workers companies will want to hire.
A few months ago Mr. Obama blamed high unemployment on businesses becoming "more efficient with a lot fewer workers," and he mentioned ATMs and airport kiosks. The Luddites are back raging against the machine. If Mr. Obama really wants to get to full employment, why not ban farm equipment?
Or consider the biggest whopper: Mr. Obama's thoroughly discredited $830 billion stimulus bill. We were promised $1.50 or even up to $3 of economic benefit—the mythical "multiplier"—from every dollar the government spent. There was never any acknowledgment that for the government to spend a dollar, it has to take it from the private economy that is then supposed to create jobs. The multiplier theory only works if you believe there's a fairy passing out free dollars.
How did modern economics fly off the rails? The answer is that the "invisible hand" of the free enterprise system, first explained in 1776 by Adam Smith, got tossed aside for the new "macroeconomics," a witchcraft that began to flourish in the 1930s during the rise of Keynes. Macroeconomics simply took basic laws of economics we know to be true for the firm or family—i.e., that demand curves are downward sloping; that when you tax something, you get less of it; that debts have to be repaid—and turned them on their head as national policy.
As Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University and author of the invaluable blog Cafe Hayek, puts it: "Macroeconomics was nothing more than a dismissal of the rules of economics." Over the years, this has led to some horrific blunders, such as the New Deal decision to pay farmers to burn crops and slaughter livestock to keep food prices high: To encourage food production, destroy it.
The grand pursuit of economics is to overcome scarcity and increase the production of goods and services. Keynesians believe that the economic problem is abundance: too much production and goods on the shelf and too few consumers. Consumers lined up for blocks to buy things in empty stores in communist Russia, but that never sparked production. In macroeconomics today, there is a fatal disregard for the heroes of the economy: the entrepreneur, the risk-taker, the one who innovates and creates the things we want to buy. "All economic problems are about removing impediments to supply, not demand," Arthur Laffer reminds us.
So here we are, three years of mostly impotent stimulus experiments and the economy still hobbled. Keynesians would be expected to be second-guessing the wisdom of their theories. Instead, Prof. Romer recently complained that the political system will not allow Mr. Obama to "go back and ask for more" stimulus.
And that is why Americans hate economics.
Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
Christina Romer, the University of California at Berkeley economics professor and President Obama's first chief economist, once relayed the old joke that "there are two kinds of students: those who hate economics and those who really hate economics." She doesn't believe that, but it's true. I'm surprised how many students tell me economics is their least favorite subject. Why? Because too often economic theories defy common sense. Alas, the policies of this administration haven't boosted the profession's reputation.
Consider what happened last week when Laura Meckler of this newspaper dared to ask White House Press Secretary Jay Carney how increasing unemployment insurance "creates jobs." She received this slap down: "I would expect a reporter from The Wall Street Journal would know this as part of the entrance exam just to get on the paper."
Mr. Carney explained that unemployment insurance "is one of the most direct ways to infuse money into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren't earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get . . . and that creates growth and income for businesses that then lead them to making decisions about jobs—more hiring."
That's a perfect Keynesian answer, and also perfectly nonsensical. What the White House is telling us is that the more unemployed people we can pay for not working, the more people will work. Only someone with a Ph.D. in economics from an elite university would believe this.
I have two teenage sons. One worked all summer and the other sat on his duff. To stimulate the economy, the White House wants to take more money from the son who works and give it to the one who doesn't work. I can say with 100% certainty as a parent that in the Moore household this will lead to less work.
Economic bimboism is rampant in Washington. The Center for American Progress held a forum earlier this summer arguing that raising the minimum wage would create more jobs. For this to be true, you have to believe that the more it costs a business to hire a worker, the more workers companies will want to hire.
A few months ago Mr. Obama blamed high unemployment on businesses becoming "more efficient with a lot fewer workers," and he mentioned ATMs and airport kiosks. The Luddites are back raging against the machine. If Mr. Obama really wants to get to full employment, why not ban farm equipment?
Or consider the biggest whopper: Mr. Obama's thoroughly discredited $830 billion stimulus bill. We were promised $1.50 or even up to $3 of economic benefit—the mythical "multiplier"—from every dollar the government spent. There was never any acknowledgment that for the government to spend a dollar, it has to take it from the private economy that is then supposed to create jobs. The multiplier theory only works if you believe there's a fairy passing out free dollars.
How did modern economics fly off the rails? The answer is that the "invisible hand" of the free enterprise system, first explained in 1776 by Adam Smith, got tossed aside for the new "macroeconomics," a witchcraft that began to flourish in the 1930s during the rise of Keynes. Macroeconomics simply took basic laws of economics we know to be true for the firm or family—i.e., that demand curves are downward sloping; that when you tax something, you get less of it; that debts have to be repaid—and turned them on their head as national policy.
As Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University and author of the invaluable blog Cafe Hayek, puts it: "Macroeconomics was nothing more than a dismissal of the rules of economics." Over the years, this has led to some horrific blunders, such as the New Deal decision to pay farmers to burn crops and slaughter livestock to keep food prices high: To encourage food production, destroy it.
The grand pursuit of economics is to overcome scarcity and increase the production of goods and services. Keynesians believe that the economic problem is abundance: too much production and goods on the shelf and too few consumers. Consumers lined up for blocks to buy things in empty stores in communist Russia, but that never sparked production. In macroeconomics today, there is a fatal disregard for the heroes of the economy: the entrepreneur, the risk-taker, the one who innovates and creates the things we want to buy. "All economic problems are about removing impediments to supply, not demand," Arthur Laffer reminds us.
So here we are, three years of mostly impotent stimulus experiments and the economy still hobbled. Keynesians would be expected to be second-guessing the wisdom of their theories. Instead, Prof. Romer recently complained that the political system will not allow Mr. Obama to "go back and ask for more" stimulus.
And that is why Americans hate economics.
Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
The Tea Party's Achilles' Heel
By YUVAL LEVIN AND PETER WEHNER, WSJ
The tea party movement has been a profoundly positive force in American political life. It has recast the political debate to put the country's fiscal problems front and center, helped to drive a historic midterm election, and begun to put the brakes on the Obama administration's reckless spending.
Two years ago, all the focus in Washington was on how much to spend; today it is on how much to cut. The tea party freshman in the House of Representatives, together with more senior like-minded members, prevented the Republican leadership from agreeing to deals that would have increased taxes in exchange for largely illusory cuts. As a result, the debt-ceiling deal was significantly better than it would otherwise have been. Next year, discretionary spending will be, in absolute terms, less than it was this year—a small first step, but an important one.
But the next test, and the real test, for the tea party movement is whether it can channel its energy into entitlement reform—and specifically the reform of Medicare. The reason is simple: Our debt explosion is a health-entitlement explosion. Between now and 2050, according to the Congressional Budget Office, spending on federal health programs—Medicare, Medicaid and the new ObamaCare entitlement—will grow to 13% of gross domestic product from 5.6%, while all other federal spending combined will actually decline as a share of the economy.
The crushing and unprecedented coming debt crisis—which will see the national debt grow to more than twice the size of the economy, strangling our economic future—cannot be averted unless health-care costs are brought under control, and that cannot be done unless the basic structure of the Medicare program is reformed. If we ignore Medicare, we ignore the debt problem.
Unless the tea party movement is willing to step up to the plate on this issue, its members cannot really be considered champions of limited government or defenders of America's future prosperity. There is a very real danger that members of the movement will get distracted by side issues (cutting foreign assistance, for example, which wouldn't move the needle on our long-term debt) or will cling to untenable stands (opposing in principle any increase in the debt ceiling) while avoiding the entitlement debate.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.), winner of the Iowa straw poll and a heroine of the tea party movement, is a perfect example of this. She claims she has a "titanium spine" when it comes to fiscal matters, portraying herself as a crusader on behalf of smaller government. But is she really?
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, has put forward a plan that would transform the fee-for-service structure of Medicare, which is the chief driver of inefficiency in our health-care system, into a system of defined-contribution health benefits. It is the best, most far-reaching reform of health-care entitlements on the table. Yet when asked about Mr. Ryan's Medicare plan, Mrs. Bachmann's titanium spine seems to fold.
She has said she supports the Ryan budget's discretionary cuts but puts "an asterisk" over its Medicare reform. "We have to make sure going forward with senior citizens, that we're focusing on a higher quality of life, dealing with cures for instance for senior citizens," she told one interviewer.
If Mrs. Bachmann is worried that Mr. Ryan's reforms would not address her concerns, then there are other approaches to choose from. But she has declined to offer or endorse any, expressing only vague support for a small increase in the retirement age and greater means testing—neither of which would make a real dent in Medicare's growth, since neither would reform the grossly inefficient payment system that causes costs to explode throughout the health sector. An asterisk is not enough.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Bachmann voted against not only the debt-ceiling deal engineered by Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) but also the House Republican Study Committee's "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill on the grounds that they didn't cut government spending enough.
A posture of bold fiscal conservatism is simply not compatible with timid evasions on Medicare reform. The combination may be politically convenient, but it is substantively incoherent. And it's not just Mrs. Bachmann who has done this—most of the GOP presidential candidates have as well. Virtually every speech they give is laced with promises to tame our deficit and debt, to scale back the size, scope, reach and cost of government. Yet they have little to say when it comes to fixing the fundamental structure of our health entitlements. They want to will the ends but not the means to those ends. And that just won't do.
There are of course serious political dangers in tackling entitlements. But a responsible governing party needs to confront not only our easiest problems but also our most important ones. The tea party movement has been indispensable in forcing Republicans (and through them forcing Washington) to start reversing the rampant spending of the last few decades. It can now do the same with respect to the far greater spending explosion looming over the next few decades—holding politicians, including presidential candidates, to a high and principled standard when it comes to addressing our fiscal problems. It can educate voters about our entitlement crisis and demand that office holders and candidates explain what they will do to fix the problem, and especially to reform Medicare.
If the tea party movement does this, it will take its place among the great, constructive political movements in U.S. history. If it doesn't, it will be judged to have been fundamentally unserious when it came to reining in the spending Leviathan.
Mr. Levin is editor of National Affairs and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Wehner is a senior fellow at the center and a managing director of e21.
The tea party movement has been a profoundly positive force in American political life. It has recast the political debate to put the country's fiscal problems front and center, helped to drive a historic midterm election, and begun to put the brakes on the Obama administration's reckless spending.
Two years ago, all the focus in Washington was on how much to spend; today it is on how much to cut. The tea party freshman in the House of Representatives, together with more senior like-minded members, prevented the Republican leadership from agreeing to deals that would have increased taxes in exchange for largely illusory cuts. As a result, the debt-ceiling deal was significantly better than it would otherwise have been. Next year, discretionary spending will be, in absolute terms, less than it was this year—a small first step, but an important one.
But the next test, and the real test, for the tea party movement is whether it can channel its energy into entitlement reform—and specifically the reform of Medicare. The reason is simple: Our debt explosion is a health-entitlement explosion. Between now and 2050, according to the Congressional Budget Office, spending on federal health programs—Medicare, Medicaid and the new ObamaCare entitlement—will grow to 13% of gross domestic product from 5.6%, while all other federal spending combined will actually decline as a share of the economy.
The crushing and unprecedented coming debt crisis—which will see the national debt grow to more than twice the size of the economy, strangling our economic future—cannot be averted unless health-care costs are brought under control, and that cannot be done unless the basic structure of the Medicare program is reformed. If we ignore Medicare, we ignore the debt problem.
Unless the tea party movement is willing to step up to the plate on this issue, its members cannot really be considered champions of limited government or defenders of America's future prosperity. There is a very real danger that members of the movement will get distracted by side issues (cutting foreign assistance, for example, which wouldn't move the needle on our long-term debt) or will cling to untenable stands (opposing in principle any increase in the debt ceiling) while avoiding the entitlement debate.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.), winner of the Iowa straw poll and a heroine of the tea party movement, is a perfect example of this. She claims she has a "titanium spine" when it comes to fiscal matters, portraying herself as a crusader on behalf of smaller government. But is she really?
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, has put forward a plan that would transform the fee-for-service structure of Medicare, which is the chief driver of inefficiency in our health-care system, into a system of defined-contribution health benefits. It is the best, most far-reaching reform of health-care entitlements on the table. Yet when asked about Mr. Ryan's Medicare plan, Mrs. Bachmann's titanium spine seems to fold.
She has said she supports the Ryan budget's discretionary cuts but puts "an asterisk" over its Medicare reform. "We have to make sure going forward with senior citizens, that we're focusing on a higher quality of life, dealing with cures for instance for senior citizens," she told one interviewer.
If Mrs. Bachmann is worried that Mr. Ryan's reforms would not address her concerns, then there are other approaches to choose from. But she has declined to offer or endorse any, expressing only vague support for a small increase in the retirement age and greater means testing—neither of which would make a real dent in Medicare's growth, since neither would reform the grossly inefficient payment system that causes costs to explode throughout the health sector. An asterisk is not enough.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Bachmann voted against not only the debt-ceiling deal engineered by Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) but also the House Republican Study Committee's "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill on the grounds that they didn't cut government spending enough.
A posture of bold fiscal conservatism is simply not compatible with timid evasions on Medicare reform. The combination may be politically convenient, but it is substantively incoherent. And it's not just Mrs. Bachmann who has done this—most of the GOP presidential candidates have as well. Virtually every speech they give is laced with promises to tame our deficit and debt, to scale back the size, scope, reach and cost of government. Yet they have little to say when it comes to fixing the fundamental structure of our health entitlements. They want to will the ends but not the means to those ends. And that just won't do.
There are of course serious political dangers in tackling entitlements. But a responsible governing party needs to confront not only our easiest problems but also our most important ones. The tea party movement has been indispensable in forcing Republicans (and through them forcing Washington) to start reversing the rampant spending of the last few decades. It can now do the same with respect to the far greater spending explosion looming over the next few decades—holding politicians, including presidential candidates, to a high and principled standard when it comes to addressing our fiscal problems. It can educate voters about our entitlement crisis and demand that office holders and candidates explain what they will do to fix the problem, and especially to reform Medicare.
If the tea party movement does this, it will take its place among the great, constructive political movements in U.S. history. If it doesn't, it will be judged to have been fundamentally unserious when it came to reining in the spending Leviathan.
Mr. Levin is editor of National Affairs and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Wehner is a senior fellow at the center and a managing director of e21.
Termômetro dourado
Rodrigo Constantino, para o Instituto Liberal
A crise está de volta com força total. Na verdade, trata-se da mesma crise de 2008, apenas em capítulos diferentes. Se antes o maior problema estava na alavancagem do setor privado, agora o abacaxi foi transferido para o setor público, que já vinha apresentando números muito ruins. O estouro da bolha de crédito, somado à irresponsabilidade dos governos, fez com que o quadro fiscal, tanto dos EUA quanto da Europa, ficasse assustador.
Não há solução fácil, e aquilo que deveria ser feito tem custo político elevado demais. Cortar a droga de um toxicômano não costuma ser uma cena tranqüila. Há desespero, ranger de dentes, ameaças e revolta. É preciso pulso firme, liderança, postura de estadista. Mas ninguém pode pensar que, por ser difícil, a solução é injetar mais droga ainda para manter a falsa euforia.
Bem, alguns pensam. Os keynesianos acham que toda crise desta natureza se deve à falta de “demanda agregada”, e defendem como solução mais estímulos fiscais e monetários. Como os alquimistas ainda não descobriram um jeito de transformar chumbo em ouro, os investidores fogem do chumbo e correm para o ouro, negando-se a aceitar que são idênticos. Os keynesianos ficam perplexos e, em vez de admitirem que possam estar errados, preferem atacar o termômetro. O ouro é uma “relíquia bárbara”, como dizia o pai da horda, Mr. Keynes.
Enquanto os cães ladram, a caravana passa. Os mais alucinados entre os keynesianos pedem mais estímulos, mais gastos públicos, mais “quantitative easing”. A reação do mercado? Correr para a “relíquia bárbara”, moeda sólida há milênios, sem a contraparte de bancos centrais com licença para imprimir à vontade uma oferta ilimitada de moeda. O ouro já subiu mais de 50% em relação ao dólar nos últimos 12 meses. Desde o começo da crise em 2008, o termômetro dourado já se valorizou 175% frente ao dólar. Ele expõe com precisão a febre do viciado.
quinta-feira, agosto 18, 2011
Escute mais seu pai, Sr. Buffett
From a speech by Howard Buffett, a congressman from Nebraska (and father of Warren Buffett), reprinted in the Freeman, December 1956:
The last 40 years have seen a gigantic expansion of political power over economic affairs by the federal government. This change is linked by many scholars to the passage of the income tax law in 1913. This law revolutionized the taxing system in two ways:
1. It gave the government new powers over the economic status of the individual. This change has curtailed the ability of the individual to achieve economic independence.
2. The part of his production taken from the producer cumulatively increases the power of the federal government proportionately with the increase in its income. This power is not created; it is simply taken away from the people.
George Sokolsky, noted columnist, says it this way: "When human beings become dependent upon the political power of the state for their livelihood, the independence of person must disappear. It is the identification of economic power with police power that destroys the right of the individual to liberty."
The transfer of economic power into political hands takes many forms. In 1932 about 2.5 million people received a check from the government every month. Today about 20 million receive a government check every month. What is the effect on the freedom of this great segment of our people being more or less dependent on the political authorities for their daily bread? . . .
Any discussion of the status of the economic foundation of freedom is incomplete without some attention to a historic human urge—the desire for security. This intense human desire is reflected in the so-called social legislation politicians have placed on our statute books.
Will this legislation fulfill its promises? If you think so, consider this rarely mentioned fine print clause. If the government is to guarantee you what the consequences of your actions will be in this case, security, then the government must take control of your activities. For with responsibility—even self-arrogated responsibility—must go authority.
This means that if politicians are to supply your security, they must control your work, your spending, and your saving. Witness crop controls. In that event you have traded the reality of liberty for the promise of security.
The last 40 years have seen a gigantic expansion of political power over economic affairs by the federal government. This change is linked by many scholars to the passage of the income tax law in 1913. This law revolutionized the taxing system in two ways:
1. It gave the government new powers over the economic status of the individual. This change has curtailed the ability of the individual to achieve economic independence.
2. The part of his production taken from the producer cumulatively increases the power of the federal government proportionately with the increase in its income. This power is not created; it is simply taken away from the people.
George Sokolsky, noted columnist, says it this way: "When human beings become dependent upon the political power of the state for their livelihood, the independence of person must disappear. It is the identification of economic power with police power that destroys the right of the individual to liberty."
The transfer of economic power into political hands takes many forms. In 1932 about 2.5 million people received a check from the government every month. Today about 20 million receive a government check every month. What is the effect on the freedom of this great segment of our people being more or less dependent on the political authorities for their daily bread? . . .
Any discussion of the status of the economic foundation of freedom is incomplete without some attention to a historic human urge—the desire for security. This intense human desire is reflected in the so-called social legislation politicians have placed on our statute books.
Will this legislation fulfill its promises? If you think so, consider this rarely mentioned fine print clause. If the government is to guarantee you what the consequences of your actions will be in this case, security, then the government must take control of your activities. For with responsibility—even self-arrogated responsibility—must go authority.
This means that if politicians are to supply your security, they must control your work, your spending, and your saving. Witness crop controls. In that event you have traded the reality of liberty for the promise of security.
quarta-feira, agosto 17, 2011
Celebre a vida!
Rodrigo Constantino
Intenso e profundamente angustiante. Assim é o novo filme do polêmico Lars Von Trier, ˜Melancholia”. Impossível ficar indiferente diante das cenas do filme, de suas mensagens carregadas de sentido filosófico.
Como em toda boa obra, existem várias interpretações possíveis para o que o autor quis realmente dizer. Melancholia é um planeta que vai colidir com a Terra e destruí-la. Justine é uma mulher melancólica, incapaz de ser feliz, que sorri com extrema dificuldade em seu próprio casamento. Ela não suporta a hipocrisia dos ritos sociais, a “obrigação” de parecer feliz (e quem pode negar que vivemos na era da “tirania da felicidade”, onde Prozac parece solução para qualquer angústia?).
Já Claire, sua irmã, adaptou-se bem a todos os roteiros esperados pela sociedade. Casada com um homem rico e bonito, mãe dedicada, anfitriã perfeita. Enfim, fiel a todo script padrão (ainda que de poucos sorrisos espontâneos e sinceros). Tratam-se de duas visões de mundo bastante distintas, dois estados de espírito opostos.
Na primeira parte do filme, com foco em Justine, temos a visão negativa da melancolia, com Claire visivelmente por cima. Mas na segunda parte, com a aproximação do planeta, vemos o crescente desespero de Claire, que tem seus pilares frágeis destroçados pela inevitável realidade. Ela busca conforto na ciência, mas esta parece incapaz de alterar os fatos. Seu marido, o otimista que tenta alimentar a esperança evitando qualquer pensamento negativo, é o primeiro a fugir da vida quando a Melancholia se aproxima. Quão rápido a coragem se transforma em covardia!
Aqui faço uma breve pausa para falar do pai delas. Sempre irônico, brincalhão e risonho, ele chama todas as mulheres de Betty. Inclusive Justine, no curto bilhete que deixa justificando sua ausência, após o pedido insistente dela para que ele ficasse até o dia seguinte (um grito de socorro ao Pai, talvez?). O pai foi incapaz de oferecer consolo à filha. Ela era indiferente a seus olhos. Apenas mais uma Betty.
Volto ao ponto central. Faz sentido alimentar falsas esperanças, uma vez que a destruição é inevitável? Ou será que a postura melancólica de Justine é a única racional? Gostei bastante da análise que Francisco Bosco fez do filme em sua coluna do Globo. "Mais vale ser o mais simplório e vital dos homens do que o mais erudito e melancólico", resumiu ele de forma perfeita.
Entre o Nada e o Nada, o que importa para mim é o caminho, a trajetória, ainda que sem muito sentido. Podemos estar condenados como Sísifo, mas se entregar não é boa opção. Quando Claire implora que Justine vá para a varanda com ela, aguardar o inevitável choque de Melancholia, há quase uma vingança desta, ao ridicularizar sua fuga. Ela pergunta de forma sádica (nada mais apropriado) se Claire deseja escutar a Nona Sinfonia de Beethoven enquanto chega o fim. Eis o ponto do filme em que minha escolha ficou evidente.
A vida pode não ter tanto sentido, mas conto com o auxílio de Baco, Beethoven e outras belas fugas, ainda que fugas, para a travessia. A Ode à Felicidade pode derrotar a melancolia (agora, se você escuta a sinfonia com indiferença, lamento, mas já está quase morto). Entregar-se é destrutivo demais. Alguns sem dúvida não têm esta opção. Eles são tragados para lá. O próprio autor do filme, para tê-lo feito, não só flertou como provavelmente esteve em Melancholia. Mas creio que devemos sempre buscar o que Bosco chamou, invocando Nietzsche, de "afirmar a vida".
As fugas mais tolas, como seitas fechadas, crenças místicas, drogas, hedonismo, uma vida acéfala de prazeres bobocas, podem e devem ser evitadas enquanto estilo de vida, o que não quer dizer que não possamos fazer uso delas esporadicamente. Confesso achar insuportável aquela "happy people" que vive achando graça de tudo, com a profundidade de um pires convexo. Mas o que colocaremos no lugar destas fugas tolas ainda serão fugas. Talvez mais requintadas, realistas, sabendo-se lá no fundo que são isso, fugas necessárias. A literatura é fuga. As amizades são fuga. Até o amor é fuga!
A vida pode ser um baile de máscaras e hipocrisias quando analisada pela ótica niilista. Nada faz muito sentido se vamos todos virar comida de vermes. Tudo é frívolo. Qual o sentido de dar tanta importância ao carro novo, à vitória do time, ao livro comovente, se o Nada é o destino inevitável? Talvez, justamente por termos consciência disso, possamos valorizar as coisas importantes na vida. Benjamin Franklin pensava que a felicidade consiste nos pequenos prazeres do dia a dia, e não em grandes ocasiões que raramente ocorrem na vida. Eu concordo. E abro um parêntese para um relato pessoal.
Quando minha filha nasceu, eu era vidrado em relógios. Tinha uma coleção respeitável. Certo dia, indo para o trabalho pela manhã, um bandido bem vestido apontou uma arma prateada à minha cabeça, pedindo o relógio. Era um belo Cartier que, para piorar, tinha valor sentimental, pois fora presente de casamento. Entretanto, mantive a calma e fiz o que o assaltante mandou. Ao chegar no trabalho, sorri. Claro que fiquei chateado pelo relógio. Mas meu paradigma tinha mudado. Saber que minha filha, então com um ano de idade, estaria em casa me esperando, com um sorriso para falar “papai”, fazia aquela perda material parecer banal demais para estragar meu dia.
Alguma dose de entorpecente para suportar a vida sem sentido teremos que tomar. Que sejam drogas mais nobres e elaboradas, tais como as amizades, a família, as artes, a música e a filosofia, que nos enriquecem espiritualmente nesta passagem curta chamada existência. Diga não à melancolia. Abra um bom vinho com alguém que você gosta, de preferência escutando Beethoven. Celebre a vida!
Intenso e profundamente angustiante. Assim é o novo filme do polêmico Lars Von Trier, ˜Melancholia”. Impossível ficar indiferente diante das cenas do filme, de suas mensagens carregadas de sentido filosófico.
Como em toda boa obra, existem várias interpretações possíveis para o que o autor quis realmente dizer. Melancholia é um planeta que vai colidir com a Terra e destruí-la. Justine é uma mulher melancólica, incapaz de ser feliz, que sorri com extrema dificuldade em seu próprio casamento. Ela não suporta a hipocrisia dos ritos sociais, a “obrigação” de parecer feliz (e quem pode negar que vivemos na era da “tirania da felicidade”, onde Prozac parece solução para qualquer angústia?).
Já Claire, sua irmã, adaptou-se bem a todos os roteiros esperados pela sociedade. Casada com um homem rico e bonito, mãe dedicada, anfitriã perfeita. Enfim, fiel a todo script padrão (ainda que de poucos sorrisos espontâneos e sinceros). Tratam-se de duas visões de mundo bastante distintas, dois estados de espírito opostos.
Na primeira parte do filme, com foco em Justine, temos a visão negativa da melancolia, com Claire visivelmente por cima. Mas na segunda parte, com a aproximação do planeta, vemos o crescente desespero de Claire, que tem seus pilares frágeis destroçados pela inevitável realidade. Ela busca conforto na ciência, mas esta parece incapaz de alterar os fatos. Seu marido, o otimista que tenta alimentar a esperança evitando qualquer pensamento negativo, é o primeiro a fugir da vida quando a Melancholia se aproxima. Quão rápido a coragem se transforma em covardia!
Aqui faço uma breve pausa para falar do pai delas. Sempre irônico, brincalhão e risonho, ele chama todas as mulheres de Betty. Inclusive Justine, no curto bilhete que deixa justificando sua ausência, após o pedido insistente dela para que ele ficasse até o dia seguinte (um grito de socorro ao Pai, talvez?). O pai foi incapaz de oferecer consolo à filha. Ela era indiferente a seus olhos. Apenas mais uma Betty.
Volto ao ponto central. Faz sentido alimentar falsas esperanças, uma vez que a destruição é inevitável? Ou será que a postura melancólica de Justine é a única racional? Gostei bastante da análise que Francisco Bosco fez do filme em sua coluna do Globo. "Mais vale ser o mais simplório e vital dos homens do que o mais erudito e melancólico", resumiu ele de forma perfeita.
Entre o Nada e o Nada, o que importa para mim é o caminho, a trajetória, ainda que sem muito sentido. Podemos estar condenados como Sísifo, mas se entregar não é boa opção. Quando Claire implora que Justine vá para a varanda com ela, aguardar o inevitável choque de Melancholia, há quase uma vingança desta, ao ridicularizar sua fuga. Ela pergunta de forma sádica (nada mais apropriado) se Claire deseja escutar a Nona Sinfonia de Beethoven enquanto chega o fim. Eis o ponto do filme em que minha escolha ficou evidente.
A vida pode não ter tanto sentido, mas conto com o auxílio de Baco, Beethoven e outras belas fugas, ainda que fugas, para a travessia. A Ode à Felicidade pode derrotar a melancolia (agora, se você escuta a sinfonia com indiferença, lamento, mas já está quase morto). Entregar-se é destrutivo demais. Alguns sem dúvida não têm esta opção. Eles são tragados para lá. O próprio autor do filme, para tê-lo feito, não só flertou como provavelmente esteve em Melancholia. Mas creio que devemos sempre buscar o que Bosco chamou, invocando Nietzsche, de "afirmar a vida".
As fugas mais tolas, como seitas fechadas, crenças místicas, drogas, hedonismo, uma vida acéfala de prazeres bobocas, podem e devem ser evitadas enquanto estilo de vida, o que não quer dizer que não possamos fazer uso delas esporadicamente. Confesso achar insuportável aquela "happy people" que vive achando graça de tudo, com a profundidade de um pires convexo. Mas o que colocaremos no lugar destas fugas tolas ainda serão fugas. Talvez mais requintadas, realistas, sabendo-se lá no fundo que são isso, fugas necessárias. A literatura é fuga. As amizades são fuga. Até o amor é fuga!
A vida pode ser um baile de máscaras e hipocrisias quando analisada pela ótica niilista. Nada faz muito sentido se vamos todos virar comida de vermes. Tudo é frívolo. Qual o sentido de dar tanta importância ao carro novo, à vitória do time, ao livro comovente, se o Nada é o destino inevitável? Talvez, justamente por termos consciência disso, possamos valorizar as coisas importantes na vida. Benjamin Franklin pensava que a felicidade consiste nos pequenos prazeres do dia a dia, e não em grandes ocasiões que raramente ocorrem na vida. Eu concordo. E abro um parêntese para um relato pessoal.
Quando minha filha nasceu, eu era vidrado em relógios. Tinha uma coleção respeitável. Certo dia, indo para o trabalho pela manhã, um bandido bem vestido apontou uma arma prateada à minha cabeça, pedindo o relógio. Era um belo Cartier que, para piorar, tinha valor sentimental, pois fora presente de casamento. Entretanto, mantive a calma e fiz o que o assaltante mandou. Ao chegar no trabalho, sorri. Claro que fiquei chateado pelo relógio. Mas meu paradigma tinha mudado. Saber que minha filha, então com um ano de idade, estaria em casa me esperando, com um sorriso para falar “papai”, fazia aquela perda material parecer banal demais para estragar meu dia.
Alguma dose de entorpecente para suportar a vida sem sentido teremos que tomar. Que sejam drogas mais nobres e elaboradas, tais como as amizades, a família, as artes, a música e a filosofia, que nos enriquecem espiritualmente nesta passagem curta chamada existência. Diga não à melancolia. Abra um bom vinho com alguém que você gosta, de preferência escutando Beethoven. Celebre a vida!
Warren Buffett's Tax Dodge
The billionaire volunteers the middle class for a tax increase.
Editorial do WSJ
Barney Kilgore, the man who made the Wall Street Journal into a national publication, was once asked why so many rich people favored higher taxes. That's easy, he replied. They already have their money.
That insight is worth recalling amid the latest political duet from President Obama and Warren Buffett demanding higher taxes on "millionaires and billionaires." Mr. Buffett is repeating his now familiar argument this week, coinciding with Mr. Obama's Midwestern road trip on the economy. Since the media are treating Mr. Buffett as a tax oracle, let's take a closer look at some of the billionaire's intellectual tax dodges.
• The double tax oversight. The Berkshire Hathaway magnate makes much of the fact that he paid only 17.4% of his income in taxes, which he considers unfair when salaried workers often pay more. But Mr. Buffett makes most of his income from his investments, in particular from dividends and capital gains that are taxed at a rate of 15%.
What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%.
This onerous tax on capital is a U.S. competitive disadvantage in the global economy, which is why Congress agreed in 2003 to cut the rates on dividends and capital gains. Even as the rest of the world is cutting tax rates on corporate income, Mr. Buffett wants to raise U.S. rates in a way that would make America less attractive for investment. Under a sensible tax reform, the feds would impose either a corporate tax or a dividend and capital gains tax, but not both.
• The middle-class bait-and-switch. Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Buffett speaks about raising taxes only on the rich. But somehow he ignores that the President's tax increase starts at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Mr. Obama ought to call them "thousandaires," but that probably doesn't poll as well.
The President needs to levy his tax increase at such a lower income level because that's where the money is. In 2009, 237,000 taxpayers reported income above $1 million and they paid $178 billion in taxes. A mere 8,274 filers reported income above $10 million, and they paid only $54 billion in taxes.
But 3.92 million reported income above $200,000 in 2009, and they paid $434 billion in taxes. To put it another way, roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama's plan aren't millionaires, and 99.99% aren't billionaires.
Mr. Buffett says it's only "fair" to raise his taxes, but he's lending his credibility to raising taxes on millions of middle-class earners for whom a few extra thousand dollars in after-tax income is a big deal. Unlike Mr. Buffett, those middle-class earners aren't rich and may earn $250,000 for only a few years of their working lives. How is that fair?
• The charity loophole. For billionaires like Mr. Buffett, the single most important deduction in the tax code is for charitable giving. Middle-class earners can't give nearly as much money away to reduce their overall tax burden. Yet we don't hear Mr. Buffett calling for the elimination of that deduction in the name of fairness.
Mr. Buffett has also already sheltered the bulk of his fortune from federal taxes by putting them into a foundation that will give the money away. That's an act of generosity, but if the government's purposes are so vital, why doesn't he simply give the money to the IRS?
Rebecca Quick of CNBC put that question to Mr. Buffett in 2007. His answer: "Well, that's a choice and it's an option . . . If I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multibillionaire, or give it to the government, I'd absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government."
Mr. Buffett is no doubt right about the relative efficiency of private donors, but should billionaire philanthropists get such a large tax preference? Another case of fairness?
Mr. Buffett is one of the great stock-pickers of his time, and we don't begrudge him a single dollar of his wealth. We only wish that, having already made himself rich, he weren't so intent on making it harder for others to become rich too. If he's worried about being undertaxed, we'd suggest he simply write a big check to Uncle Sam and go back to his day job of picking investments.
Editorial do WSJ
Barney Kilgore, the man who made the Wall Street Journal into a national publication, was once asked why so many rich people favored higher taxes. That's easy, he replied. They already have their money.
That insight is worth recalling amid the latest political duet from President Obama and Warren Buffett demanding higher taxes on "millionaires and billionaires." Mr. Buffett is repeating his now familiar argument this week, coinciding with Mr. Obama's Midwestern road trip on the economy. Since the media are treating Mr. Buffett as a tax oracle, let's take a closer look at some of the billionaire's intellectual tax dodges.
• The double tax oversight. The Berkshire Hathaway magnate makes much of the fact that he paid only 17.4% of his income in taxes, which he considers unfair when salaried workers often pay more. But Mr. Buffett makes most of his income from his investments, in particular from dividends and capital gains that are taxed at a rate of 15%.
What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%.
This onerous tax on capital is a U.S. competitive disadvantage in the global economy, which is why Congress agreed in 2003 to cut the rates on dividends and capital gains. Even as the rest of the world is cutting tax rates on corporate income, Mr. Buffett wants to raise U.S. rates in a way that would make America less attractive for investment. Under a sensible tax reform, the feds would impose either a corporate tax or a dividend and capital gains tax, but not both.
• The middle-class bait-and-switch. Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Buffett speaks about raising taxes only on the rich. But somehow he ignores that the President's tax increase starts at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Mr. Obama ought to call them "thousandaires," but that probably doesn't poll as well.
The President needs to levy his tax increase at such a lower income level because that's where the money is. In 2009, 237,000 taxpayers reported income above $1 million and they paid $178 billion in taxes. A mere 8,274 filers reported income above $10 million, and they paid only $54 billion in taxes.
But 3.92 million reported income above $200,000 in 2009, and they paid $434 billion in taxes. To put it another way, roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama's plan aren't millionaires, and 99.99% aren't billionaires.
Mr. Buffett says it's only "fair" to raise his taxes, but he's lending his credibility to raising taxes on millions of middle-class earners for whom a few extra thousand dollars in after-tax income is a big deal. Unlike Mr. Buffett, those middle-class earners aren't rich and may earn $250,000 for only a few years of their working lives. How is that fair?
• The charity loophole. For billionaires like Mr. Buffett, the single most important deduction in the tax code is for charitable giving. Middle-class earners can't give nearly as much money away to reduce their overall tax burden. Yet we don't hear Mr. Buffett calling for the elimination of that deduction in the name of fairness.
Mr. Buffett has also already sheltered the bulk of his fortune from federal taxes by putting them into a foundation that will give the money away. That's an act of generosity, but if the government's purposes are so vital, why doesn't he simply give the money to the IRS?
Rebecca Quick of CNBC put that question to Mr. Buffett in 2007. His answer: "Well, that's a choice and it's an option . . . If I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multibillionaire, or give it to the government, I'd absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government."
Mr. Buffett is no doubt right about the relative efficiency of private donors, but should billionaire philanthropists get such a large tax preference? Another case of fairness?
Mr. Buffett is one of the great stock-pickers of his time, and we don't begrudge him a single dollar of his wealth. We only wish that, having already made himself rich, he weren't so intent on making it harder for others to become rich too. If he's worried about being undertaxed, we'd suggest he simply write a big check to Uncle Sam and go back to his day job of picking investments.
terça-feira, agosto 16, 2011
Lesson From Europe
By BRET STEPHENS, WSJ
'The real lesson from Europe," wrote Paul Krugman in January 2010, "is actually the opposite of what conservatives claim: Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works." Here are some postcards from the social democracy that works.
• In Britain, 239 patients died of malnutrition in the country's public hospitals in 2007, according to a charity called Age U.K. And at any given time, a quarter-million Britons have been made to wait 18 weeks or longer for medical treatment. This follows a decade in which funding for the National Health Service doubled.
• In France, the incidence of violent crimes rose by nearly 15% between 2002 and 2008, according to statistics provided by Eurostat. In Italy violent crime was up 38%. In the EU as a whole, the rate rose by 6% despite declines in robbery and murder.
• As of June 2011, Eurostat reports that the unemployment rate in the euro zone was 9.9%. For the under-25s, it was 20.3%. In Spain, youth unemployment stands at 45.7%, which tops even the Greek rate of 38.5%. Then there's this remarkable detail: Among Europeans aged 18-34, no fewer than 46%—51 million people in all—live with their parents.
• In 2009, 37.4% of European children were born outside of marriage. That's more than twice the 1990 rate of 17.4%. The number of children per woman for the EU is 1.56, catastrophically below the replacement rate of 2.1. Roughly half of all Europeans belong in the "dependency" category on account of their youth or old age. Just 64% of the working-age population actually works.
I could go on in this vein for pages, but you get the point. Europe is not a happy place and hasn't been for nearly a generation. It's about to get much worse.
This isn't simply because Europe's economic crisis is still in its infancy, although it is. The tab for bailing out Greece, Portugal and Ireland alone—which together account for about 5% of euro-zone GDP—already runs to hundreds of billions of euros, with no resolution in sight. By contrast, Italy's GDP is more than seven times as large as Greece's. Italy is too big to fail—and too big to save. If the so-called PIIGS wind up leaving the euro zone (or if Germany beats them to it by returning to a Deutsche mark), the dislocations will take years to sort through.
Even then, Europe will still have to address the more profound challenges of economic growth, demography and entitlement reform. But in order for it to do so it must have a clear idea of the nature of the challenges it faces. It doesn't. It also requires political resources to overcome the beneficiaries—labor unions, pensioners, university students, farmers, Brussels technocrats and so on—of the current system. That's not going to happen.
Politics, for starters, prevents it. Whenever a supposed "neo-liberal" comes to power—whether it's Nicolas Sarkozy or Silvio Berlusconi or Angela Merkel—they typically wind up doing no more than tinkering around the edges of regulatory or tax reform. That's because they are stymied by coalition compromises at home, or by European compromises in Brussels, or by some deeper failure of will and character.
Margaret Thatcher was the exception to this rule. But in both Britain and Europe she has had neither equals nor heirs.
Demography also prevents reform. The median age in the EU is 40.6 years. (In the U.S. it's 36.9). Older populations typically resist change, demand the benefits they've been taxed all their working lives for—and vote. The demographic balance is only going to tip further in their favor, and it will change only when younger Europeans decide that children, plural, are worth having. What that will take, only a faith in future prosperity—and in God—can provide. Outside of its growing Muslim population, Europe has neither.
Finally, there is ideology. For the past four decades, "Europeanism" has been an amalgam of Keynesian economics, bureaucratic centralization, and welfarism, corporate and social. Even now, the ideology remains unshaken by events. Though there is plenty of talk about getting spending under control and balancing budgets (typically by way of tax increases), nobody in Europe is proposing a serious growth agenda. At the beginning of the Greek crisis I asked a visiting official from Athens what his ideas were for growth: He suggested olive tree plantations and wind farms. He might as well have thrown a Sicilian Expedition into the mix.
For the U.S., none of this is yet in our cards: That's guaranteed by the tea party that so many Europeans (and Paul Krugman) find so vulgar. But it's worth noting what the fruits of social democracy—a world in which, as Kipling once wrote, "all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins"—really are. And in the wake of the U.K. riots, the rest of his prophecy also bears repeating:
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
'The real lesson from Europe," wrote Paul Krugman in January 2010, "is actually the opposite of what conservatives claim: Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works." Here are some postcards from the social democracy that works.
• In Britain, 239 patients died of malnutrition in the country's public hospitals in 2007, according to a charity called Age U.K. And at any given time, a quarter-million Britons have been made to wait 18 weeks or longer for medical treatment. This follows a decade in which funding for the National Health Service doubled.
• In France, the incidence of violent crimes rose by nearly 15% between 2002 and 2008, according to statistics provided by Eurostat. In Italy violent crime was up 38%. In the EU as a whole, the rate rose by 6% despite declines in robbery and murder.
• As of June 2011, Eurostat reports that the unemployment rate in the euro zone was 9.9%. For the under-25s, it was 20.3%. In Spain, youth unemployment stands at 45.7%, which tops even the Greek rate of 38.5%. Then there's this remarkable detail: Among Europeans aged 18-34, no fewer than 46%—51 million people in all—live with their parents.
• In 2009, 37.4% of European children were born outside of marriage. That's more than twice the 1990 rate of 17.4%. The number of children per woman for the EU is 1.56, catastrophically below the replacement rate of 2.1. Roughly half of all Europeans belong in the "dependency" category on account of their youth or old age. Just 64% of the working-age population actually works.
I could go on in this vein for pages, but you get the point. Europe is not a happy place and hasn't been for nearly a generation. It's about to get much worse.
This isn't simply because Europe's economic crisis is still in its infancy, although it is. The tab for bailing out Greece, Portugal and Ireland alone—which together account for about 5% of euro-zone GDP—already runs to hundreds of billions of euros, with no resolution in sight. By contrast, Italy's GDP is more than seven times as large as Greece's. Italy is too big to fail—and too big to save. If the so-called PIIGS wind up leaving the euro zone (or if Germany beats them to it by returning to a Deutsche mark), the dislocations will take years to sort through.
Even then, Europe will still have to address the more profound challenges of economic growth, demography and entitlement reform. But in order for it to do so it must have a clear idea of the nature of the challenges it faces. It doesn't. It also requires political resources to overcome the beneficiaries—labor unions, pensioners, university students, farmers, Brussels technocrats and so on—of the current system. That's not going to happen.
Politics, for starters, prevents it. Whenever a supposed "neo-liberal" comes to power—whether it's Nicolas Sarkozy or Silvio Berlusconi or Angela Merkel—they typically wind up doing no more than tinkering around the edges of regulatory or tax reform. That's because they are stymied by coalition compromises at home, or by European compromises in Brussels, or by some deeper failure of will and character.
Margaret Thatcher was the exception to this rule. But in both Britain and Europe she has had neither equals nor heirs.
Demography also prevents reform. The median age in the EU is 40.6 years. (In the U.S. it's 36.9). Older populations typically resist change, demand the benefits they've been taxed all their working lives for—and vote. The demographic balance is only going to tip further in their favor, and it will change only when younger Europeans decide that children, plural, are worth having. What that will take, only a faith in future prosperity—and in God—can provide. Outside of its growing Muslim population, Europe has neither.
Finally, there is ideology. For the past four decades, "Europeanism" has been an amalgam of Keynesian economics, bureaucratic centralization, and welfarism, corporate and social. Even now, the ideology remains unshaken by events. Though there is plenty of talk about getting spending under control and balancing budgets (typically by way of tax increases), nobody in Europe is proposing a serious growth agenda. At the beginning of the Greek crisis I asked a visiting official from Athens what his ideas were for growth: He suggested olive tree plantations and wind farms. He might as well have thrown a Sicilian Expedition into the mix.
For the U.S., none of this is yet in our cards: That's guaranteed by the tea party that so many Europeans (and Paul Krugman) find so vulgar. But it's worth noting what the fruits of social democracy—a world in which, as Kipling once wrote, "all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins"—really are. And in the wake of the U.K. riots, the rest of his prophecy also bears repeating:
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
segunda-feira, agosto 15, 2011
A próxima bolha
Paulo Guedes, O Globo
A crise política em Washington, o vácuo na liderança presidencial e os choques entre republicanos e democratas foram o disparo para um mergulho sincronizado das bolsas em escala planetária.
Abaixo da superfície, em águas profundas, o vertiginoso colapso dos preços das ações em uma pequena janela de tempo era o reflexo de uma deterioração dos fundamentos na economia mundial. Pois prossegue a desaceleração do crescimento global. Permanecem elevadas as taxas de desemprego nos países avançados. E os gigantes emergentes, Brasil, China e Índia, subiram os juros para frear a inflação.
Com os mercados em pânico pela queda nas bolsas e pelo aumento dos prêmios de risco soberano dos dois lados do Atlântico, foi providencial a reunião de terça-feira da semana passada do Comitê de Operações de Mercado Aberto do banco central americano, o Federal Reserve (Fed). Seu presidente, Ben Bernanke, anunciou que as taxas de juros sob seu controle continuarão próximas de zero pelo menos até meados de 2013.
Essa perspectiva de juros baixos anunciada para um longo período de tempo futuro é sempre um fenômeno inebriante. E funcionou mais uma vez, interrompendo e revertendo a queda fulminante dos mercados acionários globais. O problema é que age como uma droga fornecida pelo banco central para realimentar o vício do dinheiro barato. “Vou dar outra dose de uísque para a bolsa”, dizia Benjamin Strong, presidente do Fed de Nova York, ao reduzir mais uma vez os juros em julho de 1927, um pouco antes da Grande Depressão.
A expansão excessiva de crédito esteve sempre por trás das maiores crises financeiras da história moderna: o crash de 1929 e a Grande Depressão dos anos 1930 nos Estados Unidos, o crash de 1989 e duas décadas de estagnação no Japão, e agora esta gigantesca crise, após o “big bang” da liquidez global no período 2003-2007. Em 2008, implodiram os bancos. E, em 2010-2011, os governos que os socorreram.
Assistimos aos desdobramentos financeiros de um mesmo fenômeno: tentativas frustradas de evitar artificialmente o fim de um longo ciclo de crescimento. A munição do Fed está acabando. Mas há sinais de que vai afundar atirando. Sua política de dinheiro barato no momento em que o tema do desaquecimento global captura a psicologia dos investidores alimenta a próxima bolha: a dos títulos públicos americanos.
A crise política em Washington, o vácuo na liderança presidencial e os choques entre republicanos e democratas foram o disparo para um mergulho sincronizado das bolsas em escala planetária.
Abaixo da superfície, em águas profundas, o vertiginoso colapso dos preços das ações em uma pequena janela de tempo era o reflexo de uma deterioração dos fundamentos na economia mundial. Pois prossegue a desaceleração do crescimento global. Permanecem elevadas as taxas de desemprego nos países avançados. E os gigantes emergentes, Brasil, China e Índia, subiram os juros para frear a inflação.
Com os mercados em pânico pela queda nas bolsas e pelo aumento dos prêmios de risco soberano dos dois lados do Atlântico, foi providencial a reunião de terça-feira da semana passada do Comitê de Operações de Mercado Aberto do banco central americano, o Federal Reserve (Fed). Seu presidente, Ben Bernanke, anunciou que as taxas de juros sob seu controle continuarão próximas de zero pelo menos até meados de 2013.
Essa perspectiva de juros baixos anunciada para um longo período de tempo futuro é sempre um fenômeno inebriante. E funcionou mais uma vez, interrompendo e revertendo a queda fulminante dos mercados acionários globais. O problema é que age como uma droga fornecida pelo banco central para realimentar o vício do dinheiro barato. “Vou dar outra dose de uísque para a bolsa”, dizia Benjamin Strong, presidente do Fed de Nova York, ao reduzir mais uma vez os juros em julho de 1927, um pouco antes da Grande Depressão.
A expansão excessiva de crédito esteve sempre por trás das maiores crises financeiras da história moderna: o crash de 1929 e a Grande Depressão dos anos 1930 nos Estados Unidos, o crash de 1989 e duas décadas de estagnação no Japão, e agora esta gigantesca crise, após o “big bang” da liquidez global no período 2003-2007. Em 2008, implodiram os bancos. E, em 2010-2011, os governos que os socorreram.
Assistimos aos desdobramentos financeiros de um mesmo fenômeno: tentativas frustradas de evitar artificialmente o fim de um longo ciclo de crescimento. A munição do Fed está acabando. Mas há sinais de que vai afundar atirando. Sua política de dinheiro barato no momento em que o tema do desaquecimento global captura a psicologia dos investidores alimenta a próxima bolha: a dos títulos públicos americanos.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)