Happy for the Work

This is very interesting... and confirms my theory that a "life of leisure" is nothing but a fantasy and in most cases leads to disaster (think Paris Hilton).

"It is vacation season once again, giving occasion for the usual homilies about how Europeans are having a much better and healthier time of it than we are when it comes to work. You've heard it a thousand times: Americans "live to work," while Europeans "work to live."

By almost every measure, Europeans do work less and relax more than Americans. According to data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Americans work 25% more hours each year than the Norwegians or the Dutch. The average retirement age for European men is 60.5, and it's even lower for European women. Our vacations are pathetically short by comparison: The average U.S. worker takes 16 days of vacation each year, less than half that typically taken by the Germans (35 days), the French (37 days) or the Italians (42 days).

Why these differences? There are two standard explanations, neither of which casts Americans in a particularly good light. First, we are emotionally stunted. According to Time magazine, "In the puritanical version of Christianity that has always appealed to Americans, religion comes packaged with the stern message that hard work is good for the soul. Modern Europe has avoided so melancholy a lesson."

Obviously, there is a point beyond which work is excessive and lowers life quality. But within reasonable bounds, if happiness is our goal, the American formula of hard work appears to function pretty well.

Second, we are under the yoke of hard-bitten capitalism. London's Daily Telegraph reports that the heavy U.S. work effort does not result from a special affinity Americans have for work; rather, it is because we are "terrified of losing [our] jobs" in a labor environment in which workers have few of the protections Europeans enjoy.

According to either explanation of the high American work effort, we would be a lot happier if we could somehow throw off our chains--both emotionally and legally--and demand shorter work weeks, longer vacations and bulletproof tenure until our early retirements. A tidy hypothesis, to be sure--until we look at the facts.

The truth is that most Americans don't feel particularly shackled. To begin with, an amazingly high percentage of us like our jobs. Among adults who worked 10 hours a week or more in 2002, the General Social Survey (GSS) found that 89% said they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their jobs. Only 11% said they were not too satisfied or not at all satisfied.

Of course, some would argue this statistic must be hiding big differences between people with "good" jobs and those with "bad" jobs. Presidential candidate John Edwards, in an argument fit for the French, tells us that we are two nations: "One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward."

No doubt there is great job dissatisfaction among people with low incomes and little education--the folks working in factories and on farms; the people who sell you socks and serve you lunch--right? Wrong. There is no difference at all between those with above- and below-average incomes: nine in 10 are satisfied, as are people without college degrees. 87% of people who call themselves "working class" are satisfied.

But even if we are satisfied with our jobs, might we still be happier at the beach? Imagine asking people something like this: "If you were to get enough money to live as comfortably as you would like for the rest of your life, would you continue to work or would you stop working?" Certainly a high percentage would answer in the affirmative? Wrong again: In 2002, the GSS found that number to be less than a third of all workers. And once again, there is no difference between those at different levels of income or education. 69% of working class folks say they would keep working even if they didn't have to.

For most Americans, work is a rock-solid source of life happiness. Happy people work more hours each week than unhappy people, and work more in their free time as well. Even more tellingly, people with more hours per day to relax outside their jobs are not any happier than those who have less non-work time. In short, the idea that our heavy workloads are lowering our happiness is twaddle.

Obviously, there is a point beyond which work is excessive and lowers life quality. But within reasonable bounds, if happiness is our goal, the American formula of hard work appears to function pretty well.

This may be one reason why Americans tend to score better than Europeans on most happiness surveys. For example, according to the 2002 International Social Survey Programme across 35 countries, 56% of Americans are "completely happy" or "very happy" with their lives, versus 44% of Danes (often cited in surveys as the happiest Europeans), 35% of the French and 31% of Germans. Those sweet five-week vacations and 35-hour workweeks don't seem to be stimulating all that much félicité. A good old-fashioned 50-hour week might be a better option.

The bottom line is that this year, I will not flinch at any mocking European glance as I write emails from the beach--or skip the beach entirely. For I am happy."

Water for the World

A $3 gadget that promises to quench a user's thirst for a year without spare parts, electricity or maintenance.

Ah, crazy business men ruining the world yet again with their insane contraptions. 400 thousand children saved by a straw. Beat that UN!

Still you hear loons saying that the world is going down the drain (no pun). Even worse, some people still don’t undertand the power of technological advances.

I always think to myself how some of the “big problems” we have today will look pretty ridiculous in the near future (let’s say 50 years from now). The issues with potable water, for instance. Once we convert sea water to drinkable water, the problem goes away immediately. I can even hear my grandson saying “Didn’t they know that three quarters of the planet is covered by water?”

(After writing this I actually found out that such devices actually already exist. So we might get there way before 50 years from now).

The power of tinkering

Interesting idea (see complete article here)

"You Can't Predict Who Will Change The World

Before the discovery of Australia, Europeans thought that all swans were white, and it would have been considered completely unreasonable to imagine swans of any other color. The first sighting of a black swan in Australia, where black swans are, in fact, rather common, shattered that notion. The moral of this story is that there are exceptions out there, hidden away from our eyes and imagination, waiting to be discovered by complete accident. What I call a "Black Swan" is an exceptional unpredictable event that, unlike the bird, carries a huge impact.

It's impossible for the editors of Forbes.com to predict who will change the world, because major changes are Black Swans, the result of accidents and luck. But we do know who society's winners will be: those who are prepared to face Black Swans, to be exposed to them, to recognize them when they show up and to rigorously exploit them.

...

If the success rate of directed research is very low, though, it is true that the more we search, the more likely we are to find things "by accident," outside the original plan. Only a disproportionately minute number of discoveries traditionally came from directed academic research. What academia seems more masterful at is public relations and fundraising.

...

America's primary export, it appears, is trial-and-error, and the innovative knowledge attained in such a way. Trial-and-error has error in it; and most top-down traditional rational and academic environments do not like the fallibility of "error" and the embarrassment of not quite knowing where they're going. The U.S. fosters entrepreneurs and creators, not exam-takers, bureaucrats or, worse, deluded economists. So the perceived weakness of the American pupil in conventional studies is where his or her very strength may lie. The American system of trial and error produces doers: Black Swan-hunting, dream-chasing entrepreneurs, with a tolerance for a certain class of risk-taking and for making plenty of small errors on the road to success or knowledge. This environment also attracts aggressive tinkering foreigners like this author.

Globalization allowed the U.S. to specialize in the creative aspect of things, the risk-taking production of concepts and ideas--that is, the scalable part of production, in which more income can be generated from the same fixed assets through innovation. By exporting jobs, the U.S. has outsourced the less scalable and more linear components of production, assigning them to the citizens of more mathematical and culturally rigid states, who are happy to be paid by the hour to work on other people's ideas.

...

The current discourse in economics, for example, is antiquated. American undirected free-enterprise works because it aggressively allows us to capture the randomness of the environment--the cheap Black Swans. This works not just because of competition, and even less because of material incentives. Neither the followers of Adam Smith nor those of Karl Marx seem to be conscious of the prevalence and effect of wild randomness. They are too bathed in enlightenment-style cause-and-effect and cannot accept that skills and payoffs may have nothing to do with one another. Nor can they swallow the argument that it is not necessarily the better technology that wins, but rather, the luckiest one. And, sadly, even those who accept this fundamental uncertainty often fail to see that it is a good thing.

Random tinkering is the path to success. And fortunately, we are increasingly learning to practice it without knowing it--thanks to overconfident entrepreneurs, naive investors, greedy investment bankers, confused scientists and aggressive venture capitalists brought together by the free-market system.

We need more tinkering: Uninhibited, aggressive, proud tinkering. We need to make our own luck. We can be scared and worried about the future, or we can look at it as a collection of happy surprises that lie outside the path of our imagination.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is an applied statistician and derivatives trader-turned-philosopher, and author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable."

No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart

This MR post about this “No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart” book is really great.

It’s interesting that every time you look deep enough on these theories around “market imperfections” you end up falling into some great, brilliant bureaucrat sitting in a desk making decisions for everybody else.

Something else that fascinates me is this idea that all these forms of herding are illogical. The fact that you buy at Wal-Mart because your neighbor does makes total sense to me. The part that is always missing in the analysis is that this is just one among many factors, and it has a subjective importance to different people. The questions should be: Would you continue to shop at Wal-Mart if you didn’t like it just because your neighbor continues to do so?

Something else that always makes me laugh is how these “managed” economic theories end up going back to morals. Something that lefties hate in the social arena. They actually have the same ideals about “going back to the good old times” that extreme conservatives have on the social issues.

People say the extremes tend to be similar but I’d argue that the idea that you can control your economy in some moral way is inevitably extremist.

The irony of the book title is almost overwhelming. Nobody really makes you shop at Wal-Mart. And the author would really like to change that.

Voluntourism

Ah, these crazy selfish Americans and their imperialistic ideas.

Who are they to try to help other people? What if people don’t want to have bathrooms inside the house? How about that uh?

Don’t these people know that this is all part of their plan to conquer the world?

Michael Moore needs to make a mockumentary about this. ASAP!

If I Were King

From the series “10 simple rules that would make the world a better place”:

1 – Everyone would pay the same flat tax. This would include income and stocks/saving earnings. Maximum would never be over 20%. Only exception would be for all levels of politicians, who would pay 30% more than everybody else.

2- Social security and free health care for anyone below the poverty line. No benefits at all for everybody else. Everyone would contribute an extra fixed percentage (1%) of their income for this social fund.

3- Government budgets in all levels are limited to spend 90% of tax income. The remaining 10% would be used to pay exclusively: unemployment insurance (which includes basic health insurance) up to 1 year as long as proof of job search is provided. The only exception would be times of war.

4 – Abortion would be completely legal. The only requirement is that these women would have to get their tubes tied at the same time (except when there is a clear danger to the mother’s life, baby’s life or rape was involved).

5 – Every prisoner would be forced to work in government projects. Each day of work would cut sentences in half day. Life prisoners would work anyway.

6 – All import tariffs would be limited to 10%.

7 – In order to carry a gun, people would have to go through a preparatory course and test (think driver’s school for guns). The license would need to be renewed every 2 years. Buying a gun to keep at home would remain legal without extra requirements.

8 – Drug consumption in public places would get you fines. Very expensive ones. Drug trafficking would continue to be punished by jail time.

9 – The US would route all its international aid through NATO instead of the UN. Only NATO members would be eligible receivers.

10 – Politicians would have to register a plan of government during the first 2 months of the campaign (or at least 6 months before election). This plan would be legally binding.

Everything that goes around comes around

"There are numbers that help put Warren Buffett's remarkable $43.6 billion charitable pledge of 2006 in perspective:
- It's close to the GDP of Slovakia.
- It's about the market value of McDonald's.

And one comparative figure is especially relevant as we present our annual list of the top donors in the United States: Buffett's boffo moment nearly equals the total donations recorded in the Slate 60 for the previous six years combined—$44.9 billion."

See The 2006 Slate 60 - The 60 largest American charitable contributions of the last year.

Also, check out this Bill Gates interview with Charlie Rose.

Goddamn capitalists.

Yes, we have populists too

First, the facts:
Ford Motors hit by record $12.7 billion loss in 2006.
Exxon Mobil Posts U.S. Record Annual Profit - $39.5 Billion

---x---

Anyone who lives in the US can tell you why Ford is losing money: Because cars from other companies are better. It is that simple, and since Honda and Toyota have now several plants in the US that “unfair competition” excuse used in the 80s is kind of fading out.

How about Exxon? Do people really understand why they are making that much money? I don’t think so. Most important, people don’t understand who gets that profit.

I couldn’t find the numbers for 2006, but for 2005 (when profits were 36 billion)Exxon Mobil paid $7.2 billion in dividends to shareholders, and $18.2 billion in stock buybacks. Besides that, Exxon Mobile employs more than 100 thousand people.

It is also true that Exxon’s executives get a lot of money (Lee Raymond got a $400 million pay off) but to think that 39 billion just went into the pockets of a few fat cats is really a fantasy. Exxon is a public company and its stock is part of a lot of retirement funds.

---x---

You would think that Americans are actually be happy that a local company is at least making money in the energy business, since most of the oil revenues end up in the hands of some anti-American dictator anyway.

You would also think that if the government had anything to say about these two companies, Ford would be the focus. After all, isn’t it the government's job to help people in trouble?

Ah, not exactly.

Here is what Hillary said a few days ago:

"I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence."

What better way to improve our energy situation than take all incentives from energy companies right?

By the way: Exxon’s exploration and capital expenses for 2006 were $177 billion, an increase of $2.8 billion over the 2004 total. The company also projects it will average about $20 billion in capital expenditures through 2010, and has some 60 projects lined up during that time.

That's a lot more than the 39 billion Hillary wants to steal.

---x---

Here is the last piece of information:

US Budget to Reach $2.9 Trillion.

That is almost 79 times Exxon’s profit, and of course, it is at the end dependent on the big chunk of revenue coming from the taxes on all those oil profits.

Man, I really hate these little games people play.

Losing the Global race – Mercantilist style

Using Google Gapminder

The graph above shows that in 1975 these countries had the following income per capita / life expectancy:

Costa Rica	US$5.790	70y
Brazil	US$5.502	61y
South Korea	US$3.722	64y
Chile	US$3.542	66y
Malaysia	US$2.954	64y

Now moving to 2004, the numbers were:

South Korea	US$18.840(406%)	77y(+13y)
Chile	US$9.993(182%)	78y(+12y)
Malaysia	US$9.444(219%)	73y(+9y)
Costa Rica	US$8.714(50%)	79y(+9y)
Brazil	US$7.531(36%)	71y(+10y)

---x---

Some didn’t like my previous posts about how imports are so expensive in Brazil when compared to the rest of the world. Same old.

I even know what they will say about the data above:
“Ah, but these countries were protectionists too! They had big government programs that helped their industries! Asian countries are financing the US debt! Chile had a dictator! Why do people need an iPod anyway? This is really unfair!”

Like every fallacy, this kind of thought has some truth in it. Yes, every single country in the world has some level of protectionism. Yes, some of these countries (Korea and Malaysia especially) had big government programs that subsidized some industries.

SO DID BRAZIL!

Why their programs succeeded and ours failed is an interesting historic discussion. But in my mind, the real important question is why these countries are still growing NOW and we are not.

---x---

The mercantilists thought that the wealth of a country was defined by the amount of gold they held. If you ran a trade deficit, your country was getting poorer. It was that simple.

Capitalism on the other hand, is all about specialization. You import things other countries produce for a cheaper price so you can produce other things and export those at a cheaper price. Not so simple, but it does work.

The only explanation I find to these protectionists policies that still linger in Brazil is that the government still works under the mercantilist paradigm: exports are good, imports are evil.

After all, what industry is Brazil protecting by making an iPod cost so much?

---x---

Back to the iPod index, here is the price for the countries I mentioned above:

Brazil	US$ 327.71
Costa Rica	US$ 251.00
Chile	US$ 210.92
Malaysia	US$ 199.62
South Korea	US$ 176,17

Is it just coincidence?

"The Speech"

"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer, and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead."

Too bad he is not around anymore...

More here.

Hey jealousy

This article from the “Naked Economist” mentions a study showing that people would prefer to earn 100k while everybody else earned 85k instead of making 110k while everybody else makes 200k.

Now, I don’t know whether the study is for real or serious, but assuming it is, what should we make of that?

Is this something we should seriously respect and consequently apply to our economic policy?

It is interesting to consider that this study doesn’t really show that people value equality. They value being on the top. I would bet big time that the same people that preferred a smaller income just to be on top would prefer a large income difference instead of a small one as long as they were the ones on the positive side.

But what if a study really showed that people prefer a “smaller pie” as long as there is more equality. Should we consider that really a final proof that income inequality is the devil and socialism is the only way?

For me that would be the same as considering rape something legal nowadays just because our ancestors did so.

It is undeniable that a “bigger pie” means more money for hospitals, schools, research, infrastructure, etc. That is, a bigger pie will make the society as a whole to be more advanced.

So should we sacrifice society just because we have this instinct of equality? Aren’t we supposed to be a rational race?

Should we let envy dictate our economic policy?

The middle-class

Here is another article that shows the odd disparity between what people think about the overall economy and their own financial situation:

"...
- Although only 32 percent rate the overall economy as "excellent" or "good," 52 percent judge their personal situation as excellent or good (35 percent said "fair" and 13 percent "poor").

- Most Americans (60 to 37 percent) think their own living standards are rising; parents of children under 18 overwhelmingly (54 to 24 percent) think the same will be true for their children.

- Almost 70 percent of Americans say they've attained or will attain the "American Dream," as they define it. More than half say success comes from a good education and hard work, not from connections (18 percent) or being born wealthy (13 percent)."

---x---

One of my "hobbies" is to listen to liberal talk shows. Most of them are garbage but some are quite entertaining. My favorite one is Thom Hartman's.

One of Thom's favorite subjects is the "war on the middle-class" being waged supposedly by Republicans. It took me a while to understand exactly what he was talking about, but I finally got it: For him, the middle-class is not an idea of bringing people out of poverty and into a decent standard of living. No sir. Middle class for Thom is another way to say income equality. If the rich are getting richer, nothing else matters. Not even if the poor are less poor.

That's a smart (and dangerous) liberal right there.

---x---

In the other side of the Atlantic, my french buddies are still not getting it. They keep taxes so high that now one of their rock stars, a guy called Johnny Hallyday, is getting his money out of France.

Now, that is one way (probably the only non-violent one) to get income equality.

Embrace the Trade Deficit (or why globalization works)

Since the 2001 recession, the U.S. economy has created 9.3 million new jobs, compared with 360,000 in Japan and 1.1 million in the euro zone excluding Spain. This despite our trade deficit and their trade surpluses. Like the U.S., Spain (3.6 million new jobs) and the U.K. (1.3 million new jobs) ran trade deficits and created jobs rapidly in this five-year period. Wages are rising solidly in these three. The economics is clear (for once) that a liberal trading environment allows more jobs with higher wages as people specialize.

More here.

A good lesson

So, we’ve been hit by a huge windstorm Thursday night. On Friday there were a total of 1.5 million homes and businesses without power. Wind gusted to 113 mph near Mount Rainier and to a record 69 mph at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. So far 14 deaths are blamed on the storm.

We were without power for 4 days. During the night it got really cold inside the house since outside temperatures were in the middle 20s (around -4 C). There were no gas stations open. My car’s tank was less than ¼ full, so I could not go very far. All traffic lights were not working, so it took a long time to drive anywhere. On Friday, my phone line stopped working. Cell phones did not work at all, and the batteries were all out on Saturday in any case.

There were no warnings on Thursday from the weather services. Just the usual stuff about a “storm”, the kind of warning you get twice every month. There were no extra police on the streets. No government vans looking for people that were freezing inside their houses or for old people who starved after the food in the fridge went bad.

I live in King County, one of the richest counties in the country. The State Government just reported an operational surplus of 1.4 Billion dollars.

Virtually all parts of government here are democrat. From the city counsel to the mayor to the governor and senators, everybody is a blue "for the people" Dem.

Still, if you analyze what has happened here you will conclude that this was a pretty much like Katrina. The only real difference was that the winds here were a little weaker and there were no levies to break. That’s it.

Now, you won’t see the newspapers talking about all of this. After all, only 14 people died. Also, and most important, King county is mostly white and rich. Government doesn’t need to help these people, right?

However, government guarantees that it is here to help. They surely eat some nice chunk of people’s income. They build big agencies and say that the reason the county is rich is exactly because the government is so strong.

The truth is that the government didn’t help because it couldn’t. First of all, it can’t even predict these things. Second, it doesn’t scale. The daily needs of a citizen are so much smaller than the needs of that same citizen during a crisis that is simply impossible to keep an infrastructure capable of helping everybody (or something close to the majority) during such times.

What happened in New Orleans should have been a warning. Not about the incompetency and slowness of government (which are inherent and should be expected) but about this crazy notion that people could actually bet their own lives on their government!

This may sound obvious to many but is not what the press and the government wants you to think. I believe, honest to god, that this is a very important point. It is CRUCIAL that people understand that they need to depend only on themselves. The biggest the disaster, the clearer this should be.

Capitalist Manifesto

Interessante essa reportagem da Newsweek sobre o "renascimento" do capitalismo na Europa. Sometimes os americanos se esquecem que mesmo os democratas daqui não são páreo para o bando que domina a Europa há tantas décadas.

Ainda há esperança.

Esses capitalistas...

Buffett donates $37 billion to charity.

Isso significa que a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation vai basicamente duplicar.

E um aspecto importante que nem todos entendem sobre essa mudança de empregos do Bill Gates, é que ele não está querendo simplesmente ficar fazendo photo ops e simplesmente distribuir dinheiro aos pobres. Ele quer descobrir maneiras eficientes de ajudar essas pessoas a sair da pobreza, assim como o objetivo da Microsoft era "colocar um computador em cada casa".

If anyone can do it...

Individualismo, esse monstro

Artigo fantástico esse do Le Monde.

Como bom cidadão solidário, aqui vai o texto para vocês pobres irmãos injusticados que não podem ler o conteúdo pago:

"Vitória do neoliberalismo torna virtude o que era visto como um defeito: o individualismo

Análise: França solidária x França liberal - o país está dividido entre os defensores de um projeto coletivo e do interesse geral, e os expoentes do individualismo neoliberal e do "cada um por si"

Jean-Louis Andreani
Em Paris

Esperança coletiva, solidariedade social e política...

Essas palavras eram as mais utilizadas em maio e junho de 1936 (quando a Frente Popular, uma coalizão dos partidos de esquerda então no poder, instituiu muitas leis trabalhistas, tais como a das férias remuneradas). Setenta anos depois deste "belo verão", o contraste é espantoso entre a França da Frente Popular, por vezes ingênua com o seu entusiasmo excessivo, em particular no plano internacional, e aquela do verão que está começando: não há mais nenhum projeto coletivo, instaurou-se uma angústia social multiforme, enquanto a solidariedade está em frangalhos diante dos avanços de uma verdadeira ideologia do individualismo.

De fato, uma nova linha divisória veio se sobrepor às diversas fraturas que já tomaram conta do país, para desenhar duas Franças: a da solidariedade, e aquela do "indivíduo-rei", que por vezes vem a ser a do cada um por si.

Vale reconhecer que, no âmbito da população, a generosidade e o cuidado com os outros sempre se opuseram ao egoísmo e à indiferença. Mas a vitória das idéias neoliberais, a partir dos anos 80, proporcionou ao individualismo uma justificativa política e econômica.

Combinada com o fim das grandes esperanças coletivas das quais se alimentava a esquerda, a consagração do neoliberalismo transformou numa virtude aquilo que era anteriormente considerado como um defeito francês. Simultaneamente, o advento de uma sociedade cujos valores essenciais são o indivíduo e o dinheiro fortaleceu ou recriou a necessidade de solidariedade entre aqueles que ficam entristecidos com esta evolução num plano humano ou que a recusam de um ponto de vista político.

De um lado, portanto, temos uma França seduzida pelas idéias liberais. Para ela, o indivíduo é o conceito essencial, a concorrência o melhor regulador da sociedade, a lei do mercado uma regra intangível e salutar. A defesa das conquistas sociais, a recusa do crescimento das desigualdades, ou ainda a intervenção da potência pública na economia, acabaram sendo marcadas pelo selo do "arcaísmo", ou, até mesmo, do "partidarismo oculto do comunismo".

O princípio de precaução (segundo o qual medidas precisam ser tomadas quando existem razões suficientes para acreditar que uma atividade ou um produto pode causar danos à saúde ou ao meio-ambiente), que está inscrito na Constituição, não passa de um sinal de cautela excessiva e de recusa do progresso. Com isso, uma certa indiferença para com os outros, fora do circulo familiar e das relações privadas, é com freqüência o corolário dessas idéias, mesmo se ela não é confessa ou assumida.

Do outro lado, a França solidária revolta-se contra a exclusão; fica indignada com as desigualdades que existem tanto na França como no resto do mundo; defende os serviços públicos "à francesa"; recusa a preeminência econômica das idéias liberais, agita-se no âmbito daquilo que de vez em quando vem tomando as aparências de uma "contra-sociedade" nostálgica dos grandes movimentos do passado. Não raro esses militantes da solidariedade se sentem decepcionados com a política, na qual eles não mais encontram o que procuram para satisfazer sua vontade de engajamento coletivo.

O crescimento avassalador desta necessidade de solidariedade é perceptível de diversas maneiras. Assim, em 21 de maio, dezenas de milhares de pessoas manifestaram em Paris com música e debaixo da chuva, tendo como única palavra de ordem a solidariedade internacional para com os países do Sul duramente atingidos pela pandemia de Aids. Da mesma forma, pela primeira vez, a editora Autrement publica um "guia da solidariedade" chamado a se tornar anual --"Ensemble, Initiatives solidaires en France, Guide 2006" ("Juntos, iniciativas solidárias na França, Guia 2006", editora Autrement, 320 pág., 18 euros).

A discrepância volta a ser encontrada em relação à concepção da Europa, das relações internacionais, etc. Ela se reproduz nas forças políticas, sociais, na Igreja. Sem estarem engajados à esquerda, alguns cristãos recusam uma doutrina que deixa os mais fracos "à beira do caminho". Nas periferias, eleitos de direita sabem que apenas uma forte solidariedade dos habitantes entre eles e do país com elas poderia permitir às suas comunas saírem da situação de crise e do marasmo.

Ainda no campo da direita, alguns eleitos locais constatam os danos sociais provocados pelo aumento dos preços no setor imobiliário e lamentam que apenas o mercado governe o acesso à moradia. Inversamente, uma parte da esquerda moderada mostra-se sensível ao canto das sereias liberais. En particular, este é o caso da "esquerda caviar", conforme sublinha Laurent Joffrin no seu livro, "História da Esquerda Caviar" (editora Robert Laffont).

A fratura
A fratura/ruptura entre essas duas Franças talvez seja mais profunda do que aquela que opunha a direita e a esquerda durante os anos 60 e 70. Na época, ambas agiam em nome do interesse geral, mesmo se os dois campos tinham uma idéia diferente do que esse interesse vinha a ser.

Hoje, os liberais os mais radicais, ou os mais sinceros, contestam a própria existência deste interesse geral. Eles escoram sua concepção nos princípios de Adam Smith, um economista escocês do século 18, segundo o qual a situação mais adequada para todos resulta do livre jogo da busca, por parte de cada um, do seu interesse pessoal.

O pai do liberalismo econômico morreu em 1790, um ano depois do início da Revolução francesa, que fundamentou justamente uma filosofia política inversa: desde 1789, toda a história política da França foi construída em função da idéia de que o Estado republicano representa e defende um interesse geral que não resulta da soma dos interesses particulares.

Ora, os neoliberais os mais radicais, dentro da linhagem dos postulados fundamentais do thatcherismo (definidos por Margaret Thatcher, que foi primeira-ministra do Reino-Unido de 1979 a 1990), preferem ficar excluídos deste consenso.

Assim, um site na Internet intitulado "A página liberal, a atualidade dentro de uma visão liberal", publica um texto cujo autor, Georges Lane, sublinha: "Aos olhos da classe política e dos meios de comunicação, é considerada ultra-liberal toda pessoa que raciocina a partir do ser humano (...) e não a partir do conceito vago de "sociedade", toda pessoa que sustenta que o ser humano (...) age em função do seu interesse pessoal e não levando em conta um suposto interesse geral".

Este texto remete ao de um outro autor, que expõe suas idéias, entre outros, no site do Instituto Hayek, o qual goza de uma audiência importante. Sob o título "A Raposa no Galinheiro", François Guillaumat sustenta que "a opção de não interferir na vida política, econômica e social" não sacrifica (...) o interesse "da sociedade aos interesses particulares", uma vez que "só existe um interesse (...) para seres vivos individuais". Este texto afirma também que todo "poder político se baseia em última instância no poder de prejudicar, na capacidade de destruição".

Vale reconhecer que o extremismo que esses textos expressam não é compartilhado pelo conjunto dos liberais franceses. Mas o questionamento do papel do Estado, e até mesmo da ação política em si, a visão muito individualista da sociedade, são efetivamente a fonte da sua abordagem.

É difícil dimensionar ao certo a importância relativa das duas Franças, a solidária e a liberal. Em todo caso, é certo que elas não mais se entendem e que elas conversam cada vez menos entre elas. O seu principal ponto de encontro talvez seja a apropriação das novas tecnologias no manuseio das quais, por meio de utilizações diferentes, as duas são exímias. É muito pouco para alimentar a coesão de um corpo social."

Enquanto isso, na terra dos montros desiguais e gananciosos, o homem mais rico do mundo vai se aposentar para poder dedicar mais tempo a sua fundação. Ele já disse que o plano é doar 95% da sua fortuna.

Ah, a realidade, essa destruidora de sonhos.

5 coisas que eu não entendo

1 - Ateus (de blogueiros à cientistas) que se preocupam com qualquer religião.

2 - Porque arquitetos brasileiros famosos são sempre comunistas pré-históricos?

3 - As diversas maneiras em que celebridades milionárias tentam fazer a vida de seus filhos mais difícil.

4 - Apple rodando Windows (acho que ninguém, nem mesmo as 2 empresas, sabem exatemente quem se vai se beneficiar com isso).

5 - Quem ainda não entendeu que o Irã quer briga de qualquer jeito.

O futuro do capitalismo

Outro dia um dos meus economistas preferidos disse em uma entrevista que a tendência é que o tamanho dos governos pelo mundo aumente. A lógica é simples: Os enormes benefícios da globalização, juntamente com a melhora da macro economia mundial no geral (inflação sob controle e contas mais em ordem) criam menos pressão interna e externa para ajustes.

O que acontece atualmente nos EUA é um bom exemplo. O Bush continua gastando cada vez mais, e não existe expectativa de melhora em vista. Vale lembrar para o pessoal que adora números absolutos, que os EUA são ao mesmo tempo o maior pais capitalista e socialista do mundo: Em nenhum outro país a iniciativa privada produz mais, mas nenhum outro governo gasta mais que o americano. Claro que quando se olha o que realmente interessa, que é a proporção do PIB, os EUA ainda estão alguns degraus abaixo da Europa, mas mesmo assim a situação não é muito animadora. Só no periodo entre 2000 e 2005, por exemplo, o número de pessoas recebendo benefícios dos 25 maiores programas do governo americano cresceu em média 17% enquanto a população no mesmo período cresceu 5%. Esse é o maior aumento dos últimos 40 anos.

Infelizmente, isso só deve mudar quando a próxima recessão chegar.

--x--

A briga pelo capitalismo é ingrata. O único motivo pelo qual o comunismo não venceu a briga ideológica do século XX foi a total e completa inviabilidade do sistema. Se a vontade do povo fosse realmente mais forte que a lógica, estariamos todos na fila do pão e dirigindo Ladas.

A vitória do capitalismo nunca foi completa. Mesmo aqui nos EUA, supostamente o maior símbolo da prosperidade e eficiência do sistema, uma enorme parte das pessoas está sempre "em busca de alternativas" e não tem o menor problema em abusar do sistema.

Talvez o Tyler tenha razão, e tudo isso seja um reflexo dessa preferência das pessoas por estabilidade. Talvez ainda não tenhamos realmente entendido como funciona o Homo economicus, e no fim das contas esse sistema meia boca de booms and bursts seja a única solução.

--x--

Eu não sou economista, e não posso oferecer uma explicação técnica para a minha opinião. Mas mesmo assim lá vai: Eu ainda acredito que exista lugar para um sistema mais capitalista que o atual.

Acho que com o aumento da globalização, certas forças se tornaram simplesmente incontroláveis. Governos terão cada vez menos controle sobre entradas e saidas. Empresas virtuais, que podem usar com eficiência os paraisos fiscais vão se tornar cada vez mais comuns. O acesso a educação aumentará e numa economia cada vez mais baseada em serviços, fica mais fácil o "voto com os pés", isto é, as pessoas se mudaram para aonde o emprego está e cortaram o poder dos governos pela raiz.

Hey, os capitalistas também sonham.

Mais dados sobre o império

Todo esse dinheiro gasto com educação mostra a clara intenção de dominar o mundo...



Percebam como a situação piora depois que Bush sobe ao poder!


Isso mostra porque a globalização é uma farsa. Tendo o melhor sistema de educação do mundo fica fácil!

Esses malditos imperialistas...

(Para quem quiser saber minha opinião de verdade sobre a educação estatal daqui, leia este post)