A História do Default na Argentina.

O instituto Ludwig von Mises faz uma explicação do default argentino que ocorreu ontem recontando um pouco da história econômica do país desde a década de 90.

Ficou uma boa explicação, apesar de bastante limitada, faltar falar, por exemplo, da política fiscal do país. Leiam parte do texto abaixo. Cliquem no link acima para texto completo.

How Argentina Became a Bad Debtor

An understanding of the Argentine situation requires historical context.

At the beginning of the 1990s, Argentina implemented the Convertibility Law as a measure to restrain the central bank and put an end to the hyperinflation that took place in the late 1980s. This law set the exchange rate at one peso per US dollar and stated that the central bank could only issue pesos in fixed relation to the amount of US dollars that entered the country. The Convertibility Law was, then, more than just a fixed-exchange rate scheme. It was legislation that made the central bank a currency board where pesos were convertible to dollars at a “one to one” ratio. However, because the central bank had some flexibility to issue pesos with respect to the inflow of US dollars, it is better described as a “heterodox” rather than “orthodox,” currency board.

Still, under this scheme, Argentina could not monetize its deficit as it did in the 1980s under the government of Ricardo Alfonsín. It was the monetization of debt that produced the high inflation that ended in hyperinflation. Due to the Convertibility Law during the 1990s, Carlos Menem’s government could not finance the fiscal deficit with newly created money. So, rather than reduce the deficit, Menem changed the way it was financed from a money-issuance scheme to a foreign-debt scheme. The foreign debt was in US dollars and this allowed the central bank to issue the corresponding pesos.

The debt issued during the 1990s took place in an Argentina that had already defaulted on its debt six times since its independence from Spain in 1816 (arguably, one-third of Argentine history has taken place in a state of default), while Argentina also exhibited questionable institutional protection of contracts and property rights. With domestic savings destroyed after years of high inflation in the 1980s (and previous decades), Argentina had to turn to international funds to finance its deficit. And because of the lack of creditworthiness, Argentina had to “import” legal credibility by issuing its bonds under New York jurisdiction. Should there be a dispute with creditors, Argentina stated it would accept the ruling of New York courts.

Many opponents of the ruling today claim that Argentina’s creditors have conspired to take away Argentine sovereignty, but the responsibility lies with the Argentine government itself, which has established a long record of unreliability in paying its debts.

The Road to the Latest Default

These New York-issued bonds of the 1990s had two other important features besides being issued under New York legal jurisdiction. The incorporation of the paripassu clause and the absence of the collective action clause. The paripassu clause holds that Argentina agrees to treat all creditors on equal terms (especially regarding payments of coupons and capital). The collective action clause states that in the case of a debt restructuring, if a certain percentage of creditors accept the debt swap, then creditors who turn down the offer (the “holdouts”) automatically must accept the new bonds. However, when Argentina defaulted on its bonds at the end of 2001, it did so with bonds that included the paripassu clause but which did not require collective action by creditors.

Under the contract that Argentina itself offered to its creditors, which did not include the collective action clause, any creditor is entitled to receive 100 percent of the bonus even if 99.9 percent of the creditors decided to enter a debt swap. And this is precisely what happened with the 2001 default. When Argentina offered new bonds to its creditors following the default, the “holdouts” let Argentina know that under the contract of Argentine bonds, they still have the right to receive 100 percent of the bonds under “equality of conditions” (paripassu) with those who accepted the restructuring. That is, Argentina cannot pay the “holdins” without paying the “holdouts” according to the terms of the debt.

The governments of Nestor Kirchner and Cristina Kirchner, however, in another sign of their contempt for institutions, decided to ignore the holdouts to the point of erasing them as creditors in their official reports (one of the reasons for which the level of debt on GDP looks lower in official statistics than is truly the case).

It could be said that Judge Griesa had to do little more than read the contract that Argentina offered its creditors. In spite of this, much has been said in Argentina (and abroad) about how Judge Griesa’s ruling damages the legal security of sovereign bonds and debt restructuring.

The problem is not Judge Griesa’s ruling. The problem is that Argentina had decided to once again prefer deficits and unrestrained government spending to paying its obligations. Griesa’s ruling suggests that a default cannot be used as a political tool to ignore contracts at politician’s convenience. In fact, countries with emerging economies should thank Judge Griesa’s ruling since this allows them to borrow at lower rates given that many of these countries are either unable or unwilling to offer credible legal protection to their own creditors. A ruling favorable to Argentina’s government would have allowed a government to violate its own contracts, making it even harder for poor countries to access capital.

(Agradeço a indicação do texto do Ludwig vin Mises ao site Zero Hedge)

Desigualdade Econômica da China: 1% detém 33% da riqueza!

Eu ia colocar no título, ingenuamente: Desigualdade na Comunista China, mas se tem uma coisa que a China não é, é comunista, como exceção das políticas comunistas de repressão à religião e à democracia.

A China pratica um capitalismo selvagem determinado por um estado corrupto. E este modelo gera os vencedores e os perdedores. Os vencedores têm parcela cada vez maior da renda. Vejam  texto do China. Org.

1% of Chinese own one-third of national wealth

About one percent of Chinese households own one-third of the nation's wealth, raising concerns about income inequality in the world's most populous country, according to a study by Peking University.

Chinese households on average had a net worth of 439,000 yuan (about 71,000 U.S. dollars) in 2012, up 17 percent from the 2010 level, the university's Institute of Social Science Survey said Friday in its latest report on China's livelihood development.

However, income inequality rose rapidly during the period, the report said, as the top one percent of Chinese households held more than one-third of the nation's wealth, while 25 percent of households at the bottom owned only 10 percent of the country's property value.

The researchers based their main analysis on 2012 data from the China Family Panel Studies, a large-scale survey project conducted by the institute.

The report showed about 74.7 percent of Chinese household wealth came from owning real estate.

(Agradeço o texto do China.org ao site Zero Hedge)

2 Vídeos: Veja o que Israel pensa sobre o Conflito com Hamas.

Bom, o que menos se ouve nas reportagens sobre o conflito entre Israel e o Hamas é a posição de Israel, por incrível que pareça, um vez que Israel é única verdadeira democracia na região.

Aqui vão dois vídeos que podem ajudar a entender a posição. O primeiro vídeo é de uma entrevista de hoje da Fox News com  o próprio primeiro ministro Benjamin Netanyahu, que relata o que Israel pensa sobre o Hamas e sobre questões tão comentadas nos jornais, como o bloqueio econômico que Israel pratica contra a Faixa de Gaza e sobre as mortes de centenas de palestinos.

O outro vídeo é uma posição que se pode encontrar entre os judeus que defendem Israel e atacam até outros judeus nos Estados Unidos que defendem a Palestina e votaram em Obama, um presidente que continua mandando milhões para o Hamas mesmo o Hamas sendo considerado um grupo terrorista pelo próprio Estados Unidos.









(Agradeço o primeiro vídeo ao site Weasel Zippers, o segundo eu recebi por email do David Horowitz Freedom Center que está arrecadando recursos para passar o vídeo para um público mais amplo)

Dilbert: Por que um Economista tende a ser Otimista?

O economista da tirinha do Dilbert resolveu trazer más notícias. Mandaram ele se calar. Em geral, acontece o mesmo em bancos e sites do mercado financeiro, economistas procuram ser otimistas para não serem estigmatizados. Quantos elogiaram as políticas econômicas do Obama que resultaram na pior recuperação da história dos Estados Unidos? E hoje depois de 5 anos dessa política quando o PIB de 2014 será menor do que de 2013, alguns se contradizem (mesmo um revista inteira como a The Economist) e começam a dizer que "o modelo não funcionou", mas quantos pedem uma reversão total das políticas de Obama e dizem que levarão a destruição econômica americana? Sempre procuram algo positivo para dizer.

Quantos querem levar pessimismo ao chefe?

O pessimista é sempre mais fácil de ser atacado pois os efeitos malignos não ocorrem de imediato nem ao mesmo tempo, exigem um prazo considerável.

Isto não ocorre apenas entre os economistas, os profetas que pediam a volta na crença em Deus no Antigo Testamento, quando o povo de Israel adorava deuses pagãos, foram odiados. Quando teólogos ficam assustados com algumas declarações do Papa Francisco que afrontam a Doutrina Católica, logo aparece alguém para pedir que apenas amemos o Papa.

Se você em 1848 lesse o Manifesto Comunista de Marx e Engels e dissesse que o livro incentivaria a morte de milhões de pessoas e a destruição de países inteiros?

Os caras iriam dizer que você é completamente alucinado, pois o Manifesto queria era o bem da humanidade.


(Agradeço a tirinha ao site Monty Pelery's World)

Quem é Contra Israel? Resposta: Esquerdista, Jovem com Baixa Formação Educacional

Pesquisa Gallup feita nos Estados Unidos mostra que os americanos em geral apoiam as ações de Israel. Mas quando divide-se a pesquisa por sexo, idade, cor da pele e nível educacional, vemos que aqueles que mais detestam Israel são mulheres, jovens, não brancos, pouco educados e esquerdistas (eleitores do partido Democrata). Vejam acima.

Entre os eleitores dos partidos, aqueles que voltam no partido Democrata são contra Israel em sua maioria, enquanto os eleitores do partido Republicano apoiam Israel.

Diz a reportagem sobre o assunto:

According to Gallup´s internals, self-identifying Republicans are the primary reason Israel’s actions attract plurality support in this poll.  GOP-leaners back Israel’s actions by a whopping 44-point margin; the numbers turn upside-down among independents (-10), and especially Democrats (-16).  The cohorts least likely to label Israel’s attacks against Hamas as “justified” are young people (-26), non-whites (-24), women (-11), and people with a high school education or less (-11) — namely, the Democratic coalition. 

Interessante, mas reflete o que já se sabe, o pouco conhecimento tende a levar a julgamentos ligeiros.

Vejam outros dados clicando aqui.


(Agradeço a pesquisa ao site Weasel Zippers)

Onde está o Ouro do Vaticano?

O Banco do Vaticano (formalmente denominado Instituto para Obras Religiosas - IOR) divulgou seu relatório financeiro de 2013. O lucro caiu muito em relação a 2012, de 86,6 milhões de euros para apenas US$ 2,9 milhões de euros.

Certa vez eu li que o orçamento do Vaticano é menor do que grandes universidades do mundo, como Oxford e Cambridge, no Reino Unido. Mas as obrigações são imensamente maiores. A Igreja Católica é a maior instituição de caridade do planeta. E ela não pode vender muitos dos seus ativos, pois eles carregam um valor acima do financeiro. Pensem no valor de obras de arte que a Igreja dispõe.

O site Catholic Herald traz algumas curiosidades descritas no relatório. Por exemplo, o Vaticano deixa a maior parte do seu ouro estocado no Banco Central dos Estados Unidos, mas 99% dos investimentos é feito em fundos que têm base na Europa. E 1% de fundos dos Estados Unidos.

Leiam texto do Catholic Herald e o relatório do IOR. Abaixo o Balancete do IOR.

Pesquisa: Socialismo Torna Povo Mais Trapaceiro

O site Business Insider descreveu uma pesquisa feita por Laes Hornuf (Universidade de Munique), Dan Ariely, Ximena García-Rada e Heather Mann (Universidade de Duke) que mostrou que os alemães que viveram sob o jugo do socialismo tendem a trapacear duas vezes mais do que aqueles que vivem sob o capitalismo.

A pesquisa é simples. A pessoa joga um dado 40 vezes e ganha quem conseguir maior valor na soma dos resultados. A pessoa pode escolher que lado do dado (de cima ou de baixo) vai escolher para descrever o resultado de cada jogada. Mas ela não precisa dizer para ninguém que lado escolheu. Vai anotando os resultados de cada lado a cada jogada.  O jogador tem incentivo para trapacear dizendo que escolheu um lado quando na verdade escolheu o outro.

O resultado mostrou resultados bem mais altos do que se esperava se fosse jogado honestamente. Então muita gente trapaceou.

Acontece que ao ver o perfil de cada jogador, observou-se que quanto mais tempo a pessoa passou sob o jugo do socialismo mais ela trapaceia. E que aqueles que viveram no lado socialista trapacearam duas vezes mais do que aqueles do lado capitalista.

Muito interessante.

Mas eu tenho lá minhas dúvidas se o efeito é só do socialismo. Pessoas mais pobres, mais necessitadas, tendem a relaxar mais na moral, observei isso na minha própria família.

Mas também é verdade que o socialismo desestimula o esforço pessoal, destrói o mérito, destrói a importância do trabalho.

A pesquisa pode ser reproduzida no Brasil. Nós brasileiros por vezes exaltamos o malandro, exaltamos o trapaceiro, aquele "que se dá bem", tendo a acha que o resultado dos dados no Brasil seriam ainda maiores. Será?


(Agradeço a pesquisa ao site Pew Sitter)

Vídeo: Obama - Inúmeros Discursos em 1 minuto.

Político é realmente antes de tudo um artista. Maquiavel, que aconselhou líderes a apenas "parecerem" bonzinhos, leais e religiosos, conseguiu dominar totalmente a cabeça de pessoas que pensam em "servir ao público" desde o século 16. Quantos políticos idolatram Maquiavel diariamente com suas performances?

Vejam Obama sempre parecendo feliz e dizer coisas inéditas inúmeros vezes.

S&P desafiou os Estados Unidos. Pagará pelo menos US$ 1 bilhão por isso.

Em 2011, a Standard and Poor´s (S4&P_ vendo a performance ruim da economia americana resolveu fazer downgrade (piorar o grau de risco) dos Estados Unidos. E aí, o governo americano sob Obama reagiu como reagiria um república de banana, resolveu processar a S&P acusando-a de maus procedimentos quando fornece as análises créditos.

A Advocacia Geral dos Estados Unidos quer que a S&P pague US$ 5 bilhões de dólares. A S&P, para evitar problemas de imagem na luta contra o governo, sugeriu ontem pagar US$ 1 bilhão para acabar o processo.

Minha tese de doutorado é sobre agências de rating (S&P, Moody´s e Fitch), publiquei em no Journal of Risk Finance nos Estados Unidos (aliás ontem, talvez por conta da notícia, minha tese foi muito procurada no Acadmeia.edu). Eu realmente acho que o trabalho destas agências é obscuro, cheio de erros e possivelmente muita corrupção. Mas a ação dos Estados Unidos foi ridícula. Tenho certeza que as acusações contra a S&P podem ser feitas para as outras agências, mas o governo infantil de Obama queria mostrar que não aceita o downgrade.

Enquanto isso, a economia americana continua se arrastando, deve crescer menos em 2014 do que em 2013.

(Agradeço a indicação da notícia ao site Zero Hedge)

"Todos os Modelos Econômicos estão Errados. Alguns são Úteis."

Excelente artigo de Barry Ritholtz sobre modelos econômicos, publicado no site da Bloomberg. Ele até usa as previsões para Copa do Mundo para ilustrar seu texto. Importante que todos os economistas lessem este artigo.

Vou colocar aqui parte do texto de Ritholtz.

The Farce of World Cup and Investment Models 

2 JUL 16, 2014 8:17 AM EDT

By Barry Ritholtz

"All models are wrong; some are useful." -- George E. P. Box

The quote above comes from George Box. He was a brilliant statistician and professor, who thought long and hard about the use and misuse of statistics.

I was reminded of Box this weekend while watching the thrilling World Cup final between Germany and Argentina. (If you didn’t find Germany's 1-0 win thrilling, that simply means you don't understand soccer). From Goldman Sachs to fivethirtyeight, just about every major modeler with the temerity to forecast the outcome of the Cupgot it wrong. Not merely wrong, but wildly so. Give credit toMacquarie for choosing Germany to win (me too!), but getting almost everything else wrong. (I did even worse).

There are trillions of dollars invested based on models. Many of the world’s biggest hedge funds, pension funds and foundations are highly dependent upon some form of modeling to put their capital to work. What does it say about the world of investing that nearly all of these folks in the business of modeling markets and economies were so far afield when they tried to predict the outcome of the Word Cup? I believe it is more than just a matter of sports being different from investing.

....

If you are asking that question, then you don't understand the purpose and construction of statistical models. Allow me to clarify:All models are by definition wrong.

Models are only approximations. They are a numerical depiction of a tiny slice of a complex universe. Perhaps a better perspective can be had if investors, strategists and economists began by asking: "How wrong is this model?"

Over the years, I have learned a few things about models. I offer the following observations for your consideration:

• The Illusion of precision: Models are imprecise. Whenever I see a forecast written out to two decimal places, I always think of the old joke: Economists like to use decimals to the hundredths to prove they have a sense of humor. But it also makes me wonder if there is a misunderstanding of the limitations of the data.

• Direction and magnitude matter more: Forget the exact numbers, and instead concentrate on these two elements. When reviewing the output of any model, look at it over time. Does it get the general direction correct? Are the magnitude measures more or less in line with what we see in the real world? Looked at this way, the nonfarm payroll reports are much better indicators for the job market than people give them credit for.

• Models are of limited utility: Here we get to the core of the problem: They can only do so much. We run into issues when we think they are going to solve an especially complex problem. I have heard from former Federal Reserve analysts that if the central bank can't model something, then it doesn't exist. I shudder to think how absurd that viewpoint is and its implications for policy.

• Context can be problematic: This is more troubling than it looks. What I mean by this is that forcing everything into an intellectual or ideological framework may create further errors. Once everything is viewed through an imperfect lens -- and they are all imperfect -- the output will be similarly imperfect.

• Narrative leads to errors: This is the corollary of the context issue. Everything seems to be part of a story, and how that story is told often leads to critical errors. Phrases with a mathematical component to them -- stall speed, muddle through, Minsky moment, escape velocity, etc. -- can lead to lead to rich tales filled with emotional resonance. In model creation, this can be a disaster.

• Confusing correlation with causation: The oldest statistical foible in the book. Look no further than the Fed’s obsession with the wealth effect -- consumers spend more because they either are, or perceive themselves to be, better off -- for a classic correlation error.

A Desigualdade de Renda é Pior do que se Imagina

ler, Carnegie

Philip Vermeulen, do Banco Central Europeu, escreveu que as famílias ricas americanas detém mais riqueza do que se imagina. Normalmente, imagina-se que os 1% mais ricos detém 305 da riqueza do país, mas na verdade isto seria por volta de 35 a 37% da riqueza do país. Isto ocorre, segundo Vermeulen, porque os ricos não revelam tudo que têm. Ora me Deus, onde no mundo os riscos revelam tudo que têm, aliás, não só os ricos, as pessoas costuma esconder todos seus ganhos, só revelam quando precisam e não para pesquisadores ou para o governo.

Além disso, o capitalismo tende a concentrar renda, isto é uma verdade. O livre mercado não existe, nem nunca existiu, mesmo porque o capitalista se alinha com o governo. Eu já falei aqui no blog de uma série do History Channel sobre como os grandes capitalistas americanos (Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan) cresceram. Eles começam trabalhando muito, ganham dinheiro, daí começam a destruir a concorrência impiedosamente, e são alinhados com o governo.

A Bloomberg escreve hoje sobre o trabalho de Vermeulen. E o Trabalho de Vermeulen está aberto na internet.

Vídeo: A Europa está Morrendo.

Emmanuel Tood é um celebrado antropologista francês. No vídeo, abaixo ele diz que a Europa é um continente que está morrendo demograficamente e culturalmente. Como costuma ser, um francês não fala bem o inglês, mas dá para entender.

Eu não concordo, no entanto, com a ênfase que ele dá na "Anglosfera", grupo de países de formação britânica (Estados Unidos, Nova Zelândia, Austrália, Canadá e, claro, Reino Unido). A Anglosfera tem terríveis problemas demográficos e culturais. Por exemplo, há alguns dias eu li que havia mais britânico se "alistando" para ser terrorista na Síria do que se alistando no exército britânico.

É verdade que a Europa está morrendo, mas também a morte também é evidente para os Estados Unidos e Reino Unido. Para mim por culpa do abandono da valorização das próprias culturas e pela exaltação à morte (aborto).






(Agradeço a indicação do vídeo ao blog de Daniel Hannan do The Telegraph)

Aprovação do Obama entre as Religiões. Muçulmanos e Judeus juntos por Obama.

Interessante pesquisa Gallup mostra que muçulmanos são o grupo religioso que mais aprova o governo Obama, seguido de não-cristãos e judeus! Interessante o caso dos judeus, Obama despreza completamente Israel, mas como os americanos dizem: os judeus que vivem nos Estados Unidos defendem a Palestina.

Quem mais desaprova Obama são os mórmons. A maioria dos católicos, 51%, desaprova o governo Obama, mas os protestantes detestam mais Obama.

A tendência tem sido de queda na popularidade de Obama entre os cristãos (apesar de eu não considerar os mórmons como cristãos). Os católicos seguem mais ou menos a tendência dos americanos de forma geral.

Enquanto, os muçulmanos sempre apoiaram mais Obama e estão apoiando ainda mais agora recentemente.

Vejam a pesquisa clicando aqui.


(Agradeço a indicação da pesquisa ao site Drudge Report)

Vídeo - Restaurante do Tim: Lanches...Abraços e Celebração da Vida

E ele dança antes de abrir o restaurante.

Bom, o vídeo não precisa de tradução. Sensacional.






(Agradeço o vídeo ao site Creative Minority Report)

Hamlet de Shakespeare: o Homem acima de Deus ou o Homem está a serviço de Deus?

Dr. Mitchel Kalpakgian escreveu um excelente artigo sobre a luta do bem e do mal na vida humana, usando o Hamlet de Shakeaspeare. Eu acho inclusive que o texto serve para ilustrar a teoria cristã de guerra justa.

Vou colocar aqui parte do artigo, leiam o texto completo clicando no link.

On Shakespeare’s Hamlet

MITCHELL KALPAKGIAN

In the cosmic struggle between good and evil, Shakespeare presents the relentless conflict between two philosophies that shape the human condition. The philosophy of Claudius, the usurping tyrant who secretly poisoned his brother King Hamlet and married his wife Queen Gertrude, assumes that might is right, man is a god, and the end justifies the means. The philosophy of Hamlet, the noble prince of Denmark, acknowledges that justice is divine and eternal in origin, that man is the servant and creature of God, and that one cannot do evil to achieve good. Claudius has no more qualms about killing Hamlet than in murdering the king. Suspicious that Hamlet knows the truth about the foul murder and wary by the danger Hamlet poses, Claudius schemes to send Hamlet to England under the pretext of a change of scenery to cure him of melancholy over his father’s death. Traveling with two so-called former friends from the university, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet discovers a packet of letters ordering his execution in England. Claudius, the master Machiavellian, plots, lies, and kills with the brutality of the lion and the cunning of the fox. He is the godlike arbiter of life and death, and he is determined to rape Fortune for his selfish ambitions.

Sensing that “something’s rotten in the state of Denmark” and that his uncle’s hasty marriage to his mother a month after the funeral hints of foul play, Hamlet’s conscience urges him to seek justice and avenge the death of his father. King Hamlet’s ghost keeps appearing to exhort the prince to do his moral duty. Hamlet, however, cannot merely trust the voice of the ghost, especially if it is a not an “honest” ghost but a demon from hell. Hamlet cannot wantonly kill Claudius at the slightest opportunity even though such a moment presents itself when the king appears contrite and in prayer. Hamlet cannot do evil to achieve good. He cannot assassinate the king, blindly trust the voice of the ghost, or commit suicide. Hamlet’s Catholic conscience will not be violated. Revenge and despair are sins.

These immoral acts of revenge, rash judgment, and “self-slaughter” violate Christian teaching and debase Hamlet. In a quandary of self-examination and introspection Hamlet ponders the moral crisis he suffers....

In the inevitable clash between these two world views, Claudius assumes he wields absolute control and holds Hamlet’s life in his hands. Even though his first artful plot to have Hamlet executed in England is foiled by Hamlet’s sleeplessness during the night when he awakes and “rashly” opens the packets with the order for his death (“And praised be rashness for it”), Claudius devises two other stratagems to eliminate Hamlet. For the diversion of the court he proposes a dueling match between Hamlet and Laertes, a contest in which Laertes’ rapier is poisoned at the tip to deal a fatal blow from even the slightest scratch. Even more deviously Claudius also puts poison in the chalice of Hamlet’s cup that he will drink for refreshment. For all his imaginary omniscience and infallibility Claudius, however, is not in total control of events despite his Machiavellian boldness and craftiness. In the skirmish between the two fencers, Laertes and Hamlet drop their swords and accidentally take the other’s rapier. During the intermission Queen Gertrude randomly picks the poisoned chalice by mistake and begins drinking. In the aftermath of these unforeseen accidents and surprises, it is not only Hamlet who dies but also Claudius, Laertes, and Gertrude as Claudius’ plots ensnare him. The king whose lethal weapon is poison is “hoist[ed] by his own petard.” The scheming Claudius discovers that might is not right, man is not god, man does not dictate the future, and the end does not justify the means.

...

When man acts with moral courage and seeks justice rather than revenge and when he suffers injustices rather than inflicting evil, he sees the hand of God. Because Hamlet miraculously escaped from death on the ship, he fearlessly returns to Denmark and boldly accepts Claudius’s proposal for the fencing match, despite Horatio’s warning of possible treachery (“You will lose, my lord”). In his hatred of evil and in his trust in Divine Providence, Hamlet does not fear death as he enters the fencing match: “We defy augury. There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be not now, ‘tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all.” At the end of the play Hamlet is no longer reacting to events, passively suffering misfortunes, or submitting to despair but acting against them like the valiant prince he is—man created in God’s image, not man as God or man as nothing but the true Christian image of man Hamlet describes in his famous words: “What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel.”

A Otimista The Economist quer outro Bretton Woods.

A The Economist lembrou os 70 anos dos acordos de Bretton Woods. A revista reclamou das dificuldades de se mudar a estrutura de votos das instituições do FMI e do Banco Mundial, especialmente por não reconhecer o poder da China. Reclamou também que o Congresso americano não permite maior abertura comercial com a China. Enfim, disse que o mundo precisa de um novo Bretton Woods, dizendo que Keynes aprovaria a maior abertura comercial.

É um texto super otimista, não reconhece as dificuldades das economias americanas e chinesas, com seus problemas econômicos e políticos, não reconhece as fragilidades dos BRICS (Brasil, Rússia, Índia, China e África do Sul). Um texto realmente que mais parece um panfleto.

Vejamos parte do texto da The Economist.

The 70-year itch

... Despite some flaws, the Bretton Woods agreements, signed 70 years ago this month, helped usher in a long and relatively peaceful period of economic growth.

Yet today’s pre-eminent powers seem to have forgotten this lesson. America and Europe have failed to strengthen and reform the offspring of Bretton Woods, the IMF and the World Bank; they have been sluggish in providing a bigger role for China in these institutions (it still has less voting power than the Benelux countries). Meanwhile, China, like America a century ago, flexes its muscles close to home but outsources global leadership to others. The combination could lead to another dangerous, rudderless spell for the world economy.

...

China has taken the hint. Its interest in the World Bank and IMF, always half-hearted, is waning. Instead, China’s leaders are working to build a separate system. At a summit later this month the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are expected to agree to create a $50 billion “BRICS” development bank and consider a BRICS contingency fund modelled on the IMF. China also plans to create an Asian infrastructure bank that will rival the Asian Development Bank, a regional lender dominated by Japan.

Like the West’s regional trade deals, China’s institution-building looks benign in isolation. Why not invest in underdeveloped countries? Yet its flurry of initiatives, which conspicuously excludes rich countries, may signal a strategic shift. Rather than take more responsibility within the existing system, China seems to be creating a rival one.

Not seeing the Woods for the trees

If John Maynard Keynes were alive, he would sigh not just at the risks in all this economic nationalism but also the huge missed opportunity. Freer trade through multilateral deals would help the world economy and reduce the allure of mercantilist policies that invite retaliation. Or imagine what would happen if the West and China worked together to liberalise the latter’s capital account: China’s financial markets would become less distorted, while the emergence of the yuan as a global reserve currency would ease Western fears about their currencies’ overvaluation. Perhaps it is time to send another group of dignitaries to New Hampshire.

Obama é o presidente pior avaliado desde a Segunda Guerra. Pior que Bush (!)

E pior, os americanos estão com remorso por ter votado nele, dizem que Mitt Romney (que concorreu contra Obama nas últimas eleições) teria sido melhor.

O Hope and Change tornou-se uma desgraça para os americanos.

Bom, eu disse que Obama seria um desastre na primeira eleição dele.

Vejam texto do Washington Times:

Hands down Obama is the worst president since WWII: poll

Poll after poll shows President Obama’s approval rating dipping recently, and one new Quinnipiac University Poll finds that voters say Mitt Romney would have been a better choice in 2012.

With Mr. Obama deploying military troops to Iraq, failing to find compromise with Congress and seeing major defeats in the Supreme Court, voters continue to sour on him.

Quinnipiac found 45 percent of voters say the country would have been better off if Mr. Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, had been elected, while just 38 percent say Mr. Obama remains a better choice. Even Democrats aren’t so sure — just 74 percent of them told the pollsters Mr. Obama was clearly the better pick in the last election.

Voters also rate him the worst president since World War II, topping even his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who had left office with terrible ratings.

“Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

A Zogby Analytics Poll released Wednesday also found Mr. Obama slipping — in that survey, to 44 percent approval, while his disapproval leapt 4 percentage points from last month to reach 54 percent.

Nearly half of voters told the Zogby poll that Mr. Obama is “unable to lead the country.”

(Agradeço o texto do Washington Tomes ao site Zero Hedge)

Catecismo para Empresários e Investidores.

Foi lançado recentemente o livro "A Catechism for Business", para que os empresários não deixem sua fé fora da empresa. O excelente jornal National Catholic Register fez uma análise do livro e entrevistou o editor Andrew Abela. Vou colocar aqui parte do texto do jornal.

Hidden Treasure for Catholic Business

What if we had a resource to use in business, drawn from relevant Catholic social teaching, to help us navigate the difficult moral and ethical challenges we face each day in the workplace? Look no further than the excellent A Catechism for Business, written by Andrew Abela and Joseph Capizzi.

Many leaders who describe themselves as having faith of some kind are often willing to leave their faith at the door of their workplaces. Often, this stems from a misconception about what "faith at work" really is — or it could stem from a lack of knowledge of how to actually apply our faith at work.

The Catholic Church has a wonderful (yet often-difficult-to-find) trove of information and teaching to share in the areas of business and economics to help busy executives navigate difficult moral questions.

A Catechism for Business brings to light and explains what the Church has to offer.

A Catechism for Business presents the teachings of the Catholic Church as they relate to more than 100 specific and challenging moral questions that have been asked by business leaders. The authors have assembled the relevant quotations from recent Catholic social teaching as responses to these questions. Questions and answers are grouped under major topics such as marketing, investment and finance.

Where the Church has offered definitive answers, A Catechism for Business provides them. When the Church has not, the book presents guidelines for reflection and insights into what we should consider doing in given situations.

The book’s easy-to-use approach invites quick reference for tough questions and serves as a basis for reflection and deeper study in the rich tradition of Catholic social doctrine.

...

If you are a Catholic leader looking to navigate the swamp of modern-day business, pick up a copy of A Catechism for Business and take possibly your first steps towards a more integrated Catholic life, as my conversation with Abela illustrates: