segunda-feira, 26 de dezembro de 2011
domingo, 25 de dezembro de 2011
sexta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 2011
O que er liberal?
Long before our time, the word liberal meant: leave society alone to manage itself. In economics, it meant laissez-faire and private property. In government, it meant the rule of law. In civic life, it meant more liberty. Freedom was the watchword, the solution to whatever ailed the social order.
Its achievements are chronicled in the pages of this fantastic book, edited by Alan Bullock and Maurice Shock, published first in 1957, in the words of the champions of liberalism in England from the 18th century and forward. Liberalism crushed protectionism. It achieved absolute security of private property, civil liberties for women and Jews, the end of slavery, the establishment of the freedom of association and religion, the end of mercantilism and the institutionalization of free trade, the end of torture and cruelty in penal laws, the hard-core opposition to imperialism, the celebration of the merchant class, the heralding of individualism.
Liberalism’s achievements are magnificent and sweeping. Reading through this volume with its orations and declarations, you can feel your heart racing with excitement. The statism of old was being swept away. In the minds of these great figures, there could never be too much liberty.
And yet the book also documents the change that began to overtake liberalism in the late 19th century, all resulting from what Hans Hoppe has called the great failing of liberalism: its belief that the state could itself be made liberal, benign, and even part of the structure of society itself.
And so you begin to detect a change in the narrative, all based on the myth of the possibility of good government. The first sector to fall is education, as we might expect. Then we have slippage in the area of foreign policy, stemming from the view that the state itself could become the liberator of peoples. World War I then changed everything and liberalism lost its anti-statist core and abandoned laissez-faire in economics.
The book ends with Keynes’s famous essay calling for an end to individualism. “Progress lies in the growth and the recognition of semi-autonomous bodies within the State-bodies whose criterion of action within their own field is solely the public good as they understand it.” He is critical of socialism because it is too enamored with the idea of freedom!
In any case, despite the ending, this is a wonderful collection with great lessons to teach us today. With its focus on English history, it has much to teach Americans about their own history.
Its achievements are chronicled in the pages of this fantastic book, edited by Alan Bullock and Maurice Shock, published first in 1957, in the words of the champions of liberalism in England from the 18th century and forward. Liberalism crushed protectionism. It achieved absolute security of private property, civil liberties for women and Jews, the end of slavery, the establishment of the freedom of association and religion, the end of mercantilism and the institutionalization of free trade, the end of torture and cruelty in penal laws, the hard-core opposition to imperialism, the celebration of the merchant class, the heralding of individualism.
Liberalism’s achievements are magnificent and sweeping. Reading through this volume with its orations and declarations, you can feel your heart racing with excitement. The statism of old was being swept away. In the minds of these great figures, there could never be too much liberty.
And yet the book also documents the change that began to overtake liberalism in the late 19th century, all resulting from what Hans Hoppe has called the great failing of liberalism: its belief that the state could itself be made liberal, benign, and even part of the structure of society itself.
And so you begin to detect a change in the narrative, all based on the myth of the possibility of good government. The first sector to fall is education, as we might expect. Then we have slippage in the area of foreign policy, stemming from the view that the state itself could become the liberator of peoples. World War I then changed everything and liberalism lost its anti-statist core and abandoned laissez-faire in economics.
The book ends with Keynes’s famous essay calling for an end to individualism. “Progress lies in the growth and the recognition of semi-autonomous bodies within the State-bodies whose criterion of action within their own field is solely the public good as they understand it.” He is critical of socialism because it is too enamored with the idea of freedom!
In any case, despite the ending, this is a wonderful collection with great lessons to teach us today. With its focus on English history, it has much to teach Americans about their own history.
O que er liberal?
Long before our time, the word liberal meant: leave society alone to manage itself. In economics, it meant laissez-faire and private property. In government, it meant the rule of law. In civic life, it meant more liberty. Freedom was the watchword, the solution to whatever ailed the social order.
Its achievements are chronicled in the pages of this fantastic book, edited by Alan Bullock and Maurice Shock, published first in 1957, in the words of the champions of liberalism in England from the 18th century and forward. Liberalism crushed protectionism. It achieved absolute security of private property, civil liberties for women and Jews, the end of slavery, the establishment of the freedom of association and religion, the end of mercantilism and the institutionalization of free trade, the end of torture and cruelty in penal laws, the hard-core opposition to imperialism, the celebration of the merchant class, the heralding of individualism.
Liberalism’s achievements are magnificent and sweeping. Reading through this volume with its orations and declarations, you can feel your heart racing with excitement. The statism of old was being swept away. In the minds of these great figures, there could never be too much liberty.
And yet the book also documents the change that began to overtake liberalism in the late 19th century, all resulting from what Hans Hoppe has called the great failing of liberalism: its belief that the state could itself be made liberal, benign, and even part of the structure of society itself.
And so you begin to detect a change in the narrative, all based on the myth of the possibility of good government. The first sector to fall is education, as we might expect. Then we have slippage in the area of foreign policy, stemming from the view that the state itself could become the liberator of peoples. World War I then changed everything and liberalism lost its anti-statist core and abandoned laissez-faire in economics.
The book ends with Keynes’s famous essay calling for an end to individualism. “Progress lies in the growth and the recognition of semi-autonomous bodies within the State-bodies whose criterion of action within their own field is solely the public good as they understand it.” He is critical of socialism because it is too enamored with the idea of freedom!
In any case, despite the ending, this is a wonderful collection with great lessons to teach us today. With its focus on English history, it has much to teach Americans about their own history.
Its achievements are chronicled in the pages of this fantastic book, edited by Alan Bullock and Maurice Shock, published first in 1957, in the words of the champions of liberalism in England from the 18th century and forward. Liberalism crushed protectionism. It achieved absolute security of private property, civil liberties for women and Jews, the end of slavery, the establishment of the freedom of association and religion, the end of mercantilism and the institutionalization of free trade, the end of torture and cruelty in penal laws, the hard-core opposition to imperialism, the celebration of the merchant class, the heralding of individualism.
Liberalism’s achievements are magnificent and sweeping. Reading through this volume with its orations and declarations, you can feel your heart racing with excitement. The statism of old was being swept away. In the minds of these great figures, there could never be too much liberty.
And yet the book also documents the change that began to overtake liberalism in the late 19th century, all resulting from what Hans Hoppe has called the great failing of liberalism: its belief that the state could itself be made liberal, benign, and even part of the structure of society itself.
And so you begin to detect a change in the narrative, all based on the myth of the possibility of good government. The first sector to fall is education, as we might expect. Then we have slippage in the area of foreign policy, stemming from the view that the state itself could become the liberator of peoples. World War I then changed everything and liberalism lost its anti-statist core and abandoned laissez-faire in economics.
The book ends with Keynes’s famous essay calling for an end to individualism. “Progress lies in the growth and the recognition of semi-autonomous bodies within the State-bodies whose criterion of action within their own field is solely the public good as they understand it.” He is critical of socialism because it is too enamored with the idea of freedom!
In any case, despite the ending, this is a wonderful collection with great lessons to teach us today. With its focus on English history, it has much to teach Americans about their own history.
segunda-feira, 19 de dezembro de 2011
sexta-feira, 16 de dezembro de 2011
Fw: Geisel e Lula
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 2:56 AM
Subject: Geisel e Lula
URL: http://rodrigoconstantino.blogspot.com/2011/12/geisel-e-lula.html
Carlos Alberto Sardenberg, O GLOBO
Não foi por acaso que parte da esquerda brasileira encantou-se com a política econômica do presidente Ernesto Geisel, na década de 70. O general, que trazia uma bronca dos americanos, tinha uma visão muito ao gosto da chamada ala desenvolvimentista da América Latina: o Estado comanda as atividades, investindo, financiando, subsidiando, autorizando (ou vetando) os negócios e a atuação de empresas. Mais ainda: com a força das estatais e seus bancos, o governo organiza companhias para atuar em determinadas áreas.
O presidente Geisel, claro, tinha mais poderes do que os governantes da democracia. Todos os setores importantes da economia estavam nas mãos de estatais, de modo que o controle era mais direto. Além disso, havia o AI-5. Quando o presidente dizia a um empresário ou banqueiro o que deveria fazer, a proposta, digamos assim, tinha uma força extra.
Mas Lula arranjou um modo de recuperar o modelo, no que foi apoiado e seguido por Dilma. Geisel, por exemplo, era o dono da Vale. Lula não era, mas pressionou a mineradora, impôs negócios e terminou substituindo o presidente da companhia. Geisel montou as famosas companhias da área petroquímica, tripartites, constituídas por uma empresa estrangeira, uma nacional privada e uma estatal, na base do um terço cada. Aliás, convém notar: não faltaram multinacionais interessadas. O capital não se move por ideologia, mas por... dinheiro. Devia ser um bom negócio entrar num país sem competição, com apoio de um governo local que não devia satisfações ao Legislativo, ao Judiciário ou à imprensa.
Do mesmo modo, as multinacionais do petróleo, hoje, vão topar (ou não) o novo modelo de exploração do pré-sal não por motivos políticos, mas pela possibilidade de ganhar (ou não) dinheiro.
Lula, no regime democrático, substituiu o AI-5 pela ampla base partidária, cooptada e/ou comprada com vantagens e cargos. Na economia, sobraram instrumentos poderosos, como os bancos públicos, especialmente o braço armado de empréstimos especiais do BNDES. Além disso, em um país de carga tributária tão elevada, qualquer redução dá uma vantagem enorme ao setor escolhido. O governo Lula-Dilma usa e abusa desse recurso.
Geisel ampliou a ação da Petrobras, levando-a à petroquímica, ao comércio externo e ao varejo dos postos de gasolina. O presidente Lula também mandou a Petrobras ampliar seus negócios e tratou de devolver à estatal parte do poder que perdera com a lei do petróleo de 1997, colocando-a como dominante no pré-sal.
Geisel tocou grandes obras, grandes projetos. Lula, idem. Não é coincidência que o petista tenha retomado usinas nucleares que constavam do Brasil Potência do general. Geisel tinha outra grande vantagem. Na época, não tinha licença ambiental, não tinha Ministério Público, nem sindicatos, nem juízes, nem ONGs para suspender obras.
Já Lula e Dilma passam o tempo todo tentando driblar esses "estorvos", mas vai tudo mais devagar. Inclusive porque a repartição do governo por critérios partidários retira eficiência da administração, abre espaço para a corrupção.
O governo Geisel deixou uma ampla coleção de cemitérios fiscais e empresariais. Sua presidência beneficiou-se da estabilidade promovida pelas reformas da dupla Bulhões/Roberto Campos, no governo Castello Branco, e de uma conjuntura mundial favorável. Enquanto o Brasil conseguiu financiamento externo, com os bancos internacionais passando para os países em desenvolvimento os petrodólares, a juros baratos, o modelo ficou de pé. Com a crise mundial dos anos 70, com inflação e recessão, consequência da alta dos preços do petróleo, de alimentos e, em seguida, do choque de juros, a fonte secou e o Brasil quebrou.
Resultaram estatais tão grandes quanto ineficientes. E empresas privadas que não resistiam à menor competição. Sem as tetas do governo, simplesmente sumiram, deixando empresários ricos e uma conta para o contribuinte.
Convém pensar nisso quando Lula e Dilma forçam os bancos públicos a ampliarem seus financiamentos. Quando levam a Petrobras e empresas privadas a investimentos provavelmente acima de suas capacidades. Ou quando o governo toca essas obras enormes, como a transposição do Rio São Francisco ou o trem-bala.
Como Geisel, Lula também herdou uma estabilidade construída pela administração anterior e se beneficiou de um ambiente internacional extremamente favorável.
O ambiente internacional está mais hostil. E já são visíveis alguns ossos de esqueletos: obras atrasadas e mais caras, investimentos ficando pelo caminho, indústrias locais protegidas (e ineficientes), gasto público elevado, desequilíbrios econômicos voltando, como a persistente inflação.
terça-feira, 6 de dezembro de 2011
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)