Safety nets and other moral hazards

Review by John Plender

Published: September 23 2007 19:48 | Last updated: September 23 2007 19:48

By Jean-Charles Rochet
Princeton University Press, $50

In the midst of the worst financial hurricane for decades, a book that asks why there are so many banking crises looks more than timely. That said, the current decade has been marked by fewer such upheavals than the period between the mid-1970s and the millennium, which had to cope with shocks stemming from the breakdown of the Bretton Woods exchange rate system and a global trend towards financial deregulation.

The consensus among central bankers before the interbank market seized up last August was that while financial crises had become less frequent in the 21st century, their impact would probably be exceptionally severe when they happened. For once, the consensus was right.

Crises are endemic because commercial banking is fundamentally unstable. This reflects the fact that deposits, which can be withdrawn on demand, are used to finance illiquid loans. The snag is that if everyone asks for their money at the same time in a bank run, even solvent banks will fail.

Until the Northern Rock saga, it was assumed that deposit insurance had eliminated the risk of a 19th-century-style run in which panicky depositors queued to retrieve money. Most recent runs have been “silent”, with the damage done by financial institutions that fail to renew short-term IOUs such as certificates of deposit.

The other means to stabilise unstable banking systems involves the central bank acting as lender of last resort where the collapse of a bank would pose a threat to the whole financial system through contagion. Since the mid-19th century, central bankers have increasingly followed Walter Bagehot’s doctrine that they should lend in a crisis on good collateral to solvent banks, while making clear their willingness to lend without limits to pre-empt contagion.

Yet in most bank bail-outs, illiquid banks turn out to be insolvent. Last-resort lending, like deposit insurance, introduces moral hazard to the system. The existence of a safety net reduces incentives to monitor and discipline risk-taking managers. This in turn has given rise to banking regulation and supervision. Yet in spite of a huge regulatory infrastructure that now operates at the international level via the Basel Accord, crises keep coming.

Among economists’ explanations are moral hazard, ill-judged capital adequacy rules and the incompetence of supervisors. Jean-Charles Rochet, a leading authority on banking, argues the real problem lies with politicians who too often insist on rescuing insolvent banks for short-term reasons of their own. He also highlights the dangers of failing to impose timely corrective measures at ailing banks and the perverse incentives that arise if shareholders and managers are not expropriated in the event of failure – a point highly relevant to the nationalisation of Northern Rock.

The author questions the efficacy of market solutions here. Investors and markets behave erratically in crises and, if people assume that the government will intervene, the market cannot work. He has no time for central bankers who resort to “constructive ambiguity” over whether they will bail out banks. This remedy for moral hazard does not lend itself to accountability.

His preferred solution to the core political issue is to ensure the independence and accountability of bank supervisors along the lines that now apply to monetary policymakers. Rochet would like to see more weight given to the Basel provisions for supervision and market discipline, including explicit rules about how and when supervisors should intervene and the debt instruments to be used to promote market discipline.

This proposal would operate in a wider framework whereby banks that have large exposure to macroeconomic shocks would be denied emergency liquidity assistance from the central bank. Banks with low exposure would have access to the lender of last resort, but with capital ratios and deposit insurance premiums that increase proportionately with exposure. This is elegant, but devising rules for intervention would be hard. Even if politicians could be persuaded to grant independence to supervisors, it is hard to believe they would keep away where liquidity assistance was denied by the central bank in politically sensitive circumstances, even if retail depositors were absent from the scene.

Potential readers should be warned that much of the book is highly technical. There are odd lapses too. The author gets the name of the Bank for International Settlements wrong. Overend, Gurney, which crashed in 1866, is mis-spelt. While there are ample references in the text, there is no index. Yet whatever the verdict on the policy proposals, the book makes interesting reading in the current circumstances.

The writer is an FT columnist

By BOB DAVIS
March 3, 2008; Page A1

WASHINGTON — Imagining how John McCain, the Navy war hero, would play the role of commander in chief has been easy. Imagining how John McCain, the policy maverick, would lead as chief executive of the U.S. economy has been tougher.

In a wide-ranging interview last week, Sen. McCain offered the most-detailed account to date of his thinking on economic issues.

The all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee cast himself as a defender of the Bush tax cuts he voted against, but added caveats to a “no new taxes” vow he made on a Sunday television talk show two weeks ago.

Review Sen. McCain’s economic policies, and how he got to know what he knows.

On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully, and disowned details of a Social Security proposal on his campaign Web site.

Sen. McCain said the Federal Reserve should cut interest rates now to bolster the economy, but added that as president, he couldn’t be so explicit on monetary policy. “Presidents have to be careful so they’re not perceived as putting undue political pressure on the Fed,” he said. “So I would certainly be more careful than I am today.”

With the U.S. economy softening, he said he might have “a couple of fireside chats with the American people because of what we see in the [consumer] confidence barometers.” But he added that the most potent economic stimulus would be to assure Americans that taxes won’t go up in the future and to “call for a meaningful — and I mean meaningful — approach to simplifying the tax code so that it’s fairer and flatter.”

Sen. McCain speaking at a meeting in San Antonio in February.

Those who know him well expect that a McCain presidency would be hard to categorize — a conservative populist who acts by instinct rather than economic ideology. For businesses, that could make him hard to predict; for opponents, hard to pin down. In his 25 years in Congress, the Arizona senator has defined himself on economic issues more by his adversaries than by overarching economic principle.

“Sometimes he sees excesses in government and sometimes he sees excesses in the corporate world, and both make him sick,” says John Raidt, a longtime McCain policy aide.

As chairman or senior Republican member of the Senate Commerce Committee — which oversees old-line industries such as railroads as well as businesses such as the Internet — he has squeezed broadcasters to hand back valuable airwaves and cable companies to let consumers pay for individual channels, rather than having to buy an expensive bundle. Despite these fights, media industries now are among his biggest campaign contributors, realizing that even if he loses the presidency, he’ll still have a big say in their businesses as a lawmaker.

But his congressional assignments haven’t forced him to wrestle with broader issues of tax, monetary and Social Security policy.

Retirees’ Nest Egg

A centerpiece of a McCain presidential bid in 2000 was a plan to divert a portion of Social Security payroll taxes to fund private accounts, much as President Bush proposed unsuccessfully. Under the plan, workers could manage the money in stocks and bonds themselves to build a nest egg and, at retirement, also receive reduced Social Security payments from the government. Proponents say the combination of the nest egg and government payouts could give a retiree more than the current system, but opponents say the change would undermine the Social Security system.

MCCAIN Q&A

‘I’m always for less regulation. But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight.’

• Read excerpts from Sen. John McCain’s interview with the Wall Street Journal.

Sen. McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign Web site takes a different view, proposing “supplementing” the existing full Social Security system with personally managed accounts. Such accounts wouldn’t substitute for guaranteed payments, and they wouldn’t be financed by diverting a portion of Social Security payroll taxes.

Mr. McCain’s chief economic aide, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former head of the Congressional Budget Office, says economic circumstances forced changes concerning Social Security policy. Vast budget surpluses projected in 2000 evaporated with a recession, the Bush tax cuts and the cost of responding to Sept. 11.

As a result, the McCain campaign says the candidate intends to keep Social Security solvent by reducing the growth in benefits over the coming decades to match projected growth in payroll tax revenues. Among the options are extending the retirement age to 68 and reducing cost-of-living adjustments, but the campaign hasn’t made any final decisions.

“You can’t keep promises made to retirees,” says Mr. Holtz-Eakin, referring to the level of benefits the government is supposed to pay future retirees. “But you can pay future retirees more than current retirees.”

Asked about the apparent change in position in the interview, Sen. McCain said he hadn’t made one. “I’m totally in favor of personal savings accounts,” he says. When reminded that his Web site says something different, he says he will change the Web site. (As of Sunday night, he hadn’t.) “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it — along the lines that President Bush proposed.”

Sen. McCain says that as president he would start negotiations with Democrats to fix Social Security. The program’s trustees say by 2041, projected tax revenues will cover only three-fourths of currently promised benefits.

On the Democratic side, the two contenders have been far from clear what they would do also. Sen. Barack Obama has said he would raise the ceiling on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax to boost revenue, but he hasn’t specified the size of the tax increase. Sen. Clinton calls for personal investment accounts on top of existing Social Security, similar to what the McCain campaign Web site suggests, but she hasn’t laid out how she would fix the program’s looming insolvency.

Fine Line on Taxes

On taxes, Sen. McCain is walking a fine line between courting keep-taxes-low Republicans while insisting he is the candidate of fiscal discipline. Two weeks ago, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked him on “This Week” if he were a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to a pledge made by President George H.W. Bush, which he later broke. “No new taxes,” Sen. McCain responded. “But under circumstances would you increase taxes?” Mr. Stephanopoulos continued. “No,” Sen. McCain answered.

Asked in The Wall Street Journal interview to clarify, Sen. McCain softened that stance. “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes,” he says. “But I’m not saying I can envision a scenario where I would, OK?”

Behind the scenes, his campaign is searching for ways to pay for Sen. McCain’s tax proposals. In addition to extending the Bush tax cuts, the 71-year-old candidate would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35% to 25% at a cost to the Treasury of $100 billion a year, estimates Mr. Holtz-Eakin.

In all, his tax-cutting proposals could cost about $400 billion a year, according to estimates of the impact of different tax cuts by CBO and the McCain campaign. The cost will make it difficult for him to achieve his goal of balancing the budget by the end of his first term.

To pay for the cut in corporate tax rates, Sen. McCain is considering eliminating some corporate tax breaks listed by a bipartisan tax reform panel appointed by President Bush, who ignored its report. The panel outlined different ways to change the tax code to spur U.S. competitiveness.

Among the candidates for elimination are a 2004 break for manufacturers — written so broadly that it includes computer software makers, construction firms and architects — a low-income housing credit, and tax breaks for life-insurance companies, credit unions and exporters. Undoing those breaks would raise a maximum of around $45 billion a year, still leaving a big hole.

“There could be a fairer, flatter tax proposal that I might embrace, that you might look at the minutiae of it and say, well, that’s going to increase somebody’s taxes,” he says. “But they eliminate the inequities, the complexities, and all of the things that characterize our tax code today.”

Sen. McCain began to prepare himself for campaigning on economics late in 2005 when Mr. Holtz-Eakin and conservative Kevin Hassett, a veteran of the 2000 McCain campaign, started sending him four-page weekly briefing papers on tax reform, trade and other issues. Sen. McCain also consults with business and political leaders including Cisco Systems Inc. Chief Executive John Chambers; former Republican Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, a deficit hawk; and former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp, who hails from the deficits-don’t-matter side of the party.

Sen. McCain rarely makes a public appearance without supporters with strong business or economic pedigrees, such as former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina or Mr. Kemp. At town-hall meetings earlier in the campaign, he sometimes turned over economic questions to them.

As a presidential candidate, Sen. McCain has faced hostility from the political right because he voted against two rounds of Bush tax cuts. “I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in January. He also said the tax cuts weren’t matched by spending restraints, as he had wanted.

Now, given the worsening economic situation, he says it’s important to fight to extend the tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2010.

While other candidates were scrambling in January to put together stimulus plans to boost flagging consumer spending, he proposed long-term tax cuts which could take years to come into law. “In the shorter term, if you somehow told American businesses and families, ‘Look, you’re not going to experience a tax increase in 2010,’ I think that’s a pretty good short-term measure,” he says.

Sen. McCain also favors making corporate tax credits for research-and-development permanent and eliminating the alternative minimum tax. The AMT was designed years ago to keep the wealthy from using deductions to avoid paying taxes altogether, but, unless altered, will ensnare a growing number of middle-class taxpayers.

To show he can control spending, Sen. McCain cites his long record as a spending hawk, who battles sweetheart deals between the Pentagon and defense contractors, as well as projects that lawmakers of both parties cram into appropriations bills — “earmarks,” in budget lingo.

Congressional earmarks total $18 billion a year, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C., research group — and each has a member of Congress who will ferociously fight to keep that spending going. Mr. Holtz-Eakin, the McCain adviser, says that earmarks actually cost $60 billion a year, counting programs that started in earlier years and get funded year after year.

Another source of spending cuts eyed by the McCain campaign is a White House hit list of underperforming or redundant programs. But again, the numbers are relatively small — $18 billion annually — compared to the cost of Sen. McCain’s tax plans, and the programs include housing loans, education grants, and water projects popular with Congress.

The uncertainty involved in estimating the future costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also could make it hard for him to make his budget targets. The CBO estimates spending on the wars at about $145 billion this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Sen. McCain’s admirers say that by running for president as a spending hawk, he will tilt the politics of Washington in favor of spending restraint, in the same way George W. Bush’s promotion of tax cuts during the 2000 campaign helped him build momentum for his plan. “If he proposes [a balanced budget] and doesn’t get it, that doesn’t mean it won’t have a positive effect of having a lower series of deficits that there otherwise would be,” says Barry Anderson, a former senior budget officer during Republican and Democratic presidencies.

Taking On Industry

Another question is how Sen. McCain would regulate business. He has fought with the drug industry to allow the importation of pharmaceuticals from Canada and permit the government to negotiate over drug pricing; tangled with broadcasters to force them to hand over transmission channels so they can be used by police and fire departments and other users; and taken on the airline industry over a consumer-rights bill, among other slugfests.

But some lobbyists in industries he has targeted are sanguine, figuring Sen. McCain won’t focus much on issues such as drug importation once he has a bigger stage. One member of Sen. McCain’s health-care task force, which endorsed drug importation, was a former McCain aide, Sonya Sotak, who lobbies against drug importation in her day job as an Eli Lilly lobbyist. “I don’t impose my professional views on the senator,” she says.

During his years at the Commerce Committee, Sen. McCain became the focus of lobbying from the telecommunications and health-care industries, given his focus on those fields. Now, health professionals, lobbyists, and individuals in the computer, television and movie industries are among his largest industry contributors, says the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The law firm of Philadelphia-based Blank Rome LLP, which lobbies for cable company Comcast Corp. and drug company Abbott Laboratories, among others, is among Sen. McCain’s largest contributors. The firm’s employees have donated $188,000 to him, according to the center.

“My desire to support McCain has nothing to do with any client of my law firm,” says David Girard diCarlo, the firm’s chairman. Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, who backs Sen. Clinton, is a senior official at Blank Rome, which has raised $113,000 for the Democratic presidential candidate.

Climate Change

Sen. McCain’s biggest regulatory effort is likely to come in the field of climate change. Along with independent Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was then a Democrat, Sen. McCain introduced the earliest version of a cap-and-trade system in 2003, and the pair have refined their ideas since. Under their plan, the government sets emissions goals. Companies that can’t meet their targets must buy permits to produce carbon dioxide, either from companies that produce less CO2 than they are permitted, or from the government.

The system may require a large regulatory apparatus. In the latest McCain-Lieberman version, the government would auction off carbon-emission permits. According to Harvard economist Robert Stavins, such sales could raise $50 billion to $100 billion a year.

An Energy Department analysis says Sen. McCain’s plan raises energy prices so much that it would reduce economic growth.

“I hear this interesting argument that somehow this would cost more money to our economy,” says Sen. McCain. But, “I am absolutely convinced that innovation, technology, and using the entrepreneurship of America will come up with technologies which will save money, be a boon to our economy, and clean up our environment.” He’s unlikely to get much argument on this from his Democratic opponents; Sens. Obama and Clinton co-sponsored Sen. McCain’s legislation.

Write to Bob Davis at bob.davis@wsj.com

Por: Odemiro Fonseca

Competição comercial é o que mais mete medo aos empresários. Pois os mata mais do que recessões e guerras. E contra guerras e recessões, pouco pode o empresário fazer. Mas contra competidores, o empresário pode fazer muito.

O empresário pode dinamitar a fábrica do competidor. Ou matá-lo. É o que fazem os traficantes de drogas. Mas as conseqüências hoje e aqui são terríveis. A Justiça brasileira funciona. E socialmente pega muito mal. E atualmente dumping pode significar suicídio. Não estamos mais no Século XIX.

Antigamente o rei autorizava quem ia importar, fabricar e vender. Bastava ser amigo do rei. Mas com o Estado nação, a república e a revolução industrial, o comércio e a competição se intensificaram muito. Foi quando os empresários descobriram os políticos e acadêmicos.

Industrialização e nação criaram a idéia que o nascimento de indústrias dentro de fronteiras requeria incentivos e proteções. Logo a idéia contaminou a academia. O industrial Joseph Wharton, em 1881 fundou a Wharton School, que contratou professores cujos trabalhos resultaram em legislação protecionista. Que protegiam as indústrias dele.

Mas por essa época se começou a entender que quem dava valor a produtos e serviços eram os consumidores. Eram eles que provocavam cada vez mais competição. E que a competição não era um jogo de soma zero, mas sim central à prosperidade das nações. Era um processo civilizado de cooperação entre pessoas que não se conheciam, um processo cada vez maior de divisão do trabalho no tempo e entre regiões e nações. Proteger empresários regionais e nacionais poderia salvá-los, mas à custa do empobrecimento dos consumidores de uma nação.

Muitos empresários entenderam cedo o desafio. Em 1895, o carioca Charles Harrah Jr., presidente da Midvale Steel na Philadelphia, deu uma entrevista ao New York Times. Ele demonstrava de forma didática como as restrições às importações de insumos prejudicavam a qualidade do aço produzido nos EUA e a qualidade do material ferroviário. “Os americanos acabam com piores trens e os EUA perdem competitividade”, afirmava Harrah.

Charles Jr. deixou o Brasil com 22 anos, casado a carioca Georgina Balfour. Sua família morou 40 anos no Brasil, onde seu pai foi um notável empreendedor. De ferrovias a bondes, de estaleiros a telegrafia, de uso do vapor a técnicas de marketing, em tudo tinham sido pioneiros. O irmão mais velho, o engenheiro George Harrah morou em São Paulo onde era sócio em estradas de ferro e onde seus três filhos nasceram. Em 1884 George deixou o Brasil e logo foi para Cuba, onde construiu uma ferrovia.

O patrimonialismo brasileiro expulsou os Harrah, que voltando para Philadelphia, compraram ferrovias, companhias de bondes, bancos e a Midvale Steel. O quase presidente da Midvale era o engenheiro Frederick Taylor (aquele da chamada administração cientifica). Mas o Charles pai queria o filho na presidência e Taylor teve que sair. Mais tarde Taylor foi consultor de Joseph Wharton.

A América Latina é a única parte do mundo ocidental que é pobre. Hoje existem excelentes pesquisas que mostram ser o protecionismo a principal razão, que veio com esta outra importação que é o nacionalismo. O papel dos empresários latino-americanos é vergonhoso, quase sempre preferindo as vizinhanças do poder a prestar atenção aos consumidores. Mas o papel dos acadêmicos é muito pior, ora validando o protecionismo ora ensinando ser a competição resultado da avareza e da falta de escrúpulos dos empresários.

Aceitação da competição civilizadora não é algo intuitivo. Deve ser ensinada. Quanto mais cedo melhor, como mostra a experiência do Junior Achievement. Ajudaria muito se a entrevista do carioca Charles Harrah fosse lida pelas crianças brasileiras.

Em 1917, logo depois de George Harrah morrer em Havana, na enorme mansão que ele construíra e adorava, a ferrovia dos Harrah em Cuba foi dinamitada por um competidor, membro do congresso. A Justiça se acovardou. O caso é um clássico sobre o abuso do nacionalismo como instrumento de ação política para proteger empresários locais, que acaba se refletindo na Justiça. Em 1929 tornou-se um caso submetido a arbitramento internacional.

A América Latina ainda é uma região do mundo em que é possível “dinamitar” a fábrica de um competidor, sob o olhar complacente ou mesmo a ajuda do governo. A pobreza por aqui é uma escolha política.

(Publicado no O Globo em 26 de Fevereiro de 2008)

Por: Rodrigo Constantino
“A essência da vida é infinita e misteriosamente multiforme, e, portanto, ela não pode ser contida ou planejada, em sua completude e variabilidade, por qualquer inteligência central.” (Vaclev Havel)

O editor e economista-chefe do Financial Times, Martin Wolf, escreveu um ótimo livro sobre a globalização: Why Globalization Works. O valor do livro está na combinação de inúmeros dados importantes com uma objetividade incrível ao tratar do assunto. Em um dos capítulos, The ‘Magic’ of the Market, Wolf faz um bom resumo da teoria do funcionamento da economia de mercado. Veremos os principais pontos do autor, já que a globalização é apenas a extensão desse funcionamento para além das fronteiras nacionais.

A busca pelo lucro nos negócios é a força ativa que leva à transformação econômica, através das escolhas de investimentos e das inovações tecnológicas. A economia de mercado, como resultado disso, é a única instituição humana que gera uma ‘revolução permanente’. O exemplo citado por Wolf é o da revolução industrial, que pode ser mais bem entendida como uma revolução no uso da energia, saindo do uso da força animal para a energia inanimada: vento, água e combustíveis fósseis. A expectativa de vida na Inglaterra era de 24 anos entre 1300 e 1425, provavelmente muito próxima daquela no Império Romano. Entre 1801 e 1826, o nível já havia saltado para 41 anos, e em 1999 tinha atingido 77 anos. Entre 1820 e 1998, a população mundial se multiplicou por quase seis, e o PIB por quase 50, fazendo a renda per capita saltar quase nove vezes. Muitos encaram estes fatos como uma coisa natural, ignorando o quão extraordinária foi tal conquista. E o mais espantoso é que não havia ninguém no comando. Wolf abraça a metáfora da “mão invisível”, de Adam Smith. O auto-interesse, coordenado através do mercado, motiva as pessoas a inventar, produzir e vender todo tipo de bens, serviços e ativos.

Mas o funcionamento do mercado não ocorre sem certas características. Para um funcionamento sofisticado, é preciso resolver alguns problemas antes, como: o fluxo de informação, que deve ser livre para dar confiança naquilo que se compra; as promessas, que devem ser cumpridas, mesmo que num longo espaço de tempo; a competição, que não deve ser impedida; e os direitos de propriedade, que devem ser protegidos. Em resumo, a confiança é peça fundamental para um bom funcionamento do mercado. Se a trapaça e o roubo são encarados como normais, a sociedade não terá nada além de um tímido e subdesenvolvido mercado. Se o governo pode, de forma arbitrária, alterar as regras no meio do jogo, o mesmo problema surge.

Wolf entende que as companhias são as servas das forças do mercado, não suas mestres. Se as empresas não atendem as demandas no mercado competitivo, elas desaparecem. Logo, são os próprios consumidores que ditam as regras, que definem o que as empresas deverão fazer para sobreviver. Wolf compreende também a crucial relevância dos mercados financeiros para o bom funcionamento do mercado como um todo. São os agentes do mercado financeiro que levam os recursos daqueles que não precisam deles para aqueles que necessitam ou podem usá-los melhor. A ligação causal entre um funcionamento eficiente do sistema financeiro e o crescimento econômico, a estabilidade macroeconômica e a redução da miséria fazem com que devamos sempre buscar a manutenção do primeiro.

O tema da desigualdade não foi ignorado pelo autor. Wolf lembra que as sociedades mais desiguais foram as socialistas, incluindo a nacional-socialista na Alemanha de Hitler. A ironia, segundo ele, é que tais tiranias desiguais foram justificadas pelos horrores alegados da desigualdade capitalista. Para eliminar estas desigualdades, todo poder foi concentrado nas mãos do Estado, que inevitavelmente gerou desigualdades maiores para o benefício daqueles que o controlavam. Wolf lembra ainda que, no passado, os mais poderosos detinham um poder incrível, enquanto por mais bilhões que Gates ou Buffett tenham, eles são apenas cidadãos, empreendedores, investidores e filantropos. O mercado competitivo não elimina necessariamente a desigualdade, mas reduz seu poder. Hitler, Stalin, Fidel, Mao e Pol-Pot detinham um poder que os bilionários americanos jamais sonhariam em ter.

Por fim, uma sociedade mais rica, possível através de uma economia de mercado, permite que os indivíduos possam ser menos guiados por objetivos materiais, ao contrário do que muitos socialistas afirmam, já que isso é impossível em uma sociedade onde a maioria das pessoas vive num estado de subsistência. O maior conforto fornecido pelo capitalismo liberal pode despertar outros interesses não necessariamente motivados pelo material, diferente do que ocorre em sociedades miseráveis. Um dos maiores motivadores pela revolta irracional com a economia de mercado é a comparação de uma realidade complexa com uma sociedade de santos que jamais existiu ou existirá. A “imoralidade” atacada no capitalismo é contraposta a uma utopia, onde seres humanos abnegados se sacrificam somente em prol dos outros. Quando deixamos essa comparação de lado, pois absurda, vemos que o capitalismo liberal é não só o meio mais eficiente de se criar riqueza, como também o mais justo e moral. Devemos deixar o mercado realizar sua “mágica” em paz, sem tanta intervenção do governo.

(www.institutomillenium.org)

Por: Gustavo H. B. Franco

Nunca antes, numa crise internacional, a moeda brasileira ficou mais forte e o Brasil foi visto como um “porto seguro” para as aplicações financeiras. Essa podia ser uma das bravatas do nosso presidente: o real valendo mais que o dólar, forte como nunca, reflexo de uma economia de mercado em acelerado progresso e de um governo iluminado. Mas vamos deixar de lado o fato de que não é bem assim, como deve suspeitar o leitor, e refletir sobre uma questão filosófica mais transcendente, relativa à natureza das relações de causa e efeito no mundo da economia e da política.

Não creio que exista problema mais difícil na ciência econômica. Um helicóptero que despeja cédulas de R$ 100 em cima de uma grande capital “causará” um aumento no custo de vida na cidade? Ou vice-versa?

Antes de examinar esse e outros problemas da espécie, convém lembrar o preceito básico da lógica elementar, segundo o qual a causa vem antes do efeito. O observador atento deverá, portanto, sempre procurar acacianamente o que vem primeiro: o governo iluminado ou o progresso econômico. É claro que, na vida real, as coisas são mais complexas; nem sempre há clareza se o governo iluminado veio antes, ou muito antes, do progresso econômico. Na verdade, existem outras coisas que causam o progresso econômico e que o pesquisador pode não estar percebendo.

Pode ser que seja uma economia internacional em franca expansão, em face do surgimento da China, a causar o progresso econômico no Brasil. Nesse caso, seriam duas as causas do progresso brasileiro: o governo iluminado e a China. É possível que essas duas causas tenham pesos diferentes, ou mesmo que a China esteja causando a expansão da economia globalizada e o progresso no Brasil – e que o governo iluminado não tenha muita relevância nem para uma coisa nem para outra. É possível mesmo que o governo não seja iluminado e que o progresso no Brasil seja causado por fatores alheios a nós, e pertinentes à China e ao crescimento da economia internacional.

Mas o governo, que pode não ser nada iluminado, tem bons marqueteiros e entende perfeitamente as dúvidas que afligem os cientistas sociais e os eleitores quando se trata de identificar relações de causa e efeito. E, num rasgo de iluminação, lança o PAC, que consiste mais em deixar claro que quer o crescimento, do que propriamente em mecanismos que sabidamente causam o crescimento.

Como as pessoas sabem que as causas costumam vir antes dos efeitos, elas escutam que o governo deflagrou iniciativas para o crescimento, agrupadas pela enigmática sigla PAC. E, em seguida, são informadas que efetivamente está se observando algum crescimento. É de concluir que o PAC, ou o governo iluminado, produziu o crescimento? Ou foi a China?

Aqui entra uma mágica. Ninguém vai querer acreditar que o crescimento foi causado pela China por uma razão simples: a China está fora do controle do eleitor. É mais confortável supor que o PAC causou o crescimento, pois essa crença proporciona ao eleitor uma esperança. Ou uma ilusão, faz pouca diferença. Na verdade, é disso que trata essa ciência conhecida como “marketing”, o estudo de um público para fazê-lo enxergar uma coisa que, às vezes, não existe exatamente da forma como se vende.

Fidel Castro, por exemplo, é um milagre de “marketing”: um ditador que se aposenta com pensão completa, com algumas homenagens e sem que nenhum juiz espanhol venha lhe apoquentar, como foi o caso do general Pinochet. Fidel parece ter migrado para o mundo da ficção, onde vigora uma espécie de “suspensão da descrença”. Acreditamos no que não existe, não enxergamos as mazelas e os defeitos do líder, e o herói revolucionário se torna um mito que nenhuma acusação é capaz de atingir. O que são alguns cadáveres, ou algumas transações financeiras exóticas, no quarto ao lado?

(Época num. 0510 - 25/2/2008)

PRIMEIRA GRANDE BOBAGEM: VOCÊ PODE TER TUDO O QUE QUISER Trabalhe duro e tenha tudo o que sempre sonhou: uma bela casa, um belo carro, filhos na melhor escola da cidade, um portfolio de seguros, um de ações, um negócio próprio bem sucedido ou um emprego de sonho, uma montanha de dinheiro de reserva, e consumo desenfreado, com artigos de luxo, boa comida e viagens constates. Sinto muito. É mentira. A grande maioria de nós nunca vai ter tudo isso. E tem que se acostumar com a idéia desde cedo. Porque acostumar-se com a idéia significa priorizar. É a própria definição de economia: como alocar os recursos, escassos por natureza, de modo a proporcionarem o maior retorno possível.A maioria de nós tem quatro grandes “blocos de alocação financeira”: a)     uma reserva de capital para emergências, uma poupança de curto prazo, por assim dizer;b)     um lugar pra morar;c)      educação dos filhos;d)     aposentadoria, uma poupança de longo prazo. Pode ser que você tenha outros, então reflita à respeito. Tendo refletido, comece decidindo quais, dentre os seus grandes blocos, são mais importantes para você. Talvez você prefira morar de aluguel em casas pequenas, para sobrar mais dinheiro para mandar o filho para uma boa escola. Se você não quiser uma escola de ponta para seus filhos, e economizar na casa, talvez dê para se aposentar mais cedo. Talvez você não se importe com a aposentadoria, queira aproveitar uma vida mais luxuosa agora. Tudo bem. Nenhuma das escolhas é errada. Errado é não escolher. Muito provavelmente você não terá tudo o que deseja. Mas, se não poupar, não terá nada. E muita gente, muita gente mesmo, jamais economizará para valer. O que também não é necessariamente ruim, desde que você tenha ciência das implicações desta escolha. Para os que querem poupar, um dos principais desafios de finanças pessoais em um tempo que alia incerteza com relação a emprego e à previdência é a necessidade de equilíbrio entre esses dois fatos. O emprego é incerto. E você tem que poupar para poder viver quando não PUDER mais trabalhar. Essa tensão tem uma implicação danosa: as pessoas buscam investimentos facilmente acessíveis e extremamente conservadores. Porque, amanhã, podem estar desempregadas. Mas, por outro lado, se quiserem ter as benesses futuras dos juros compostos, devem buscar rendimentos diferenciados. E isso, em finanças, tem um sinônimo: RISCO.Para correr riscos, é preciso ter ESTRATÉGIA. Elaborando uma estratégia, ainda assim você não terá tudo o que deseja. Mas terá muito mais do que teria se não tivesse uma.

O mundo mudou. A previdência tradicional foi desmantelada. Funcionários excelentes são mão-de-obra temporária. Os imóveis estão mais caros. A inflação absurda de 20 anos atrás não existe mais – e, naqueles níveis, não voltará a existir. E os salários, de maneira geral, pararam de aumentar, porque o País não apresenta ganhos de produtividade significativos. E, em economia, aumento de salário é igual ao aumento de produtividade. Isso significa que as velhas regras financeiras não valem mais. Você se lembra dos conselhos financeiros de seus pais?  Começavam com “compre uma casa própria, assim que possível, a maior que encontrar”. Seguiam com “nada oferece mais segurança do que dinheiro no banco” e “sempre pague a maior parcela possível de seu financiamento imobiliário”. Os mais “antenados”, que se arriscavam na Bolsa – os menos fugiam da Bolsa de Valores como se houvessem visto o Tinhoso em pessoa – costumavam dizer que “nada pode dar errado com a Vale do Rio Doce”. Mercado Financeiro? Em muitas famílias, para muita gente, é palavrão. “Junte suas economias e faça casas para vender. Foi assim que seu tio ficou rico.” Pois bem. Essas Bobagens se perpetuam. Mas não valem mais – se é que algum dia valeram. Seus pais estão errados. Aliás, eles não só estão errados, como tiveram sorte. Cresceram em um País que crescia 13% ao ano, com o maior fluxo migratório da história, no início da globalização financeira. Os empregos sobravam. Em um país emininentemente agrário, se seus pais tivessem um diploma, um só, eles teriam garantia de bons salários.  Seus pais, portanto, ganharam a vida em grande parte porque o País e o Mundo mudaram. Seus pais gostam de casas porque, na época da inflação absurda, eram a única reserva de valor disponível – comprar dólares e ouro era quase impossível. Seus pais não gostam do mercado financeiro porque, na “época deles”, com um mercado muito menor, e, portanto, mais facilmente manipulável, o pequeno especulador simplesmente não tinha vez. Ah, e a palavra “especulação” também é palavrão, para os seus pais. Não há motivos para que você seja como seus pais. Um diploma não resolve mais a sua vida – todos têm diplomas. O sistema de previdência social custeado pelo estado, que nada mais é que um mecanismo de transferência, e não uma conta “de investimento”, como você poderia pensar que fosse – você paga a aposentadoria dos outros, na esperança de que alguém, daqui a 30 anos, pague a sua – não tem como se sustentar. Comprar uma casa razoável, em um bairro razoável de uma grande cidade, custa uma fortuna. E uma casa significa dinheiro parado. Se você tem esse dinheiro, comprar uma casa é efetivamente a melhor decisão que você pode tomar?  Aí é que mora o problema. Este primeiro post introduz algumas discussões sobre as Bobagens que ouvimos, financeiramente falando.

O pior?

O pior é alguém chorar por um assassino inescrupuloso, ladrão desalmado, facínora. Que queime no inferno, junto com seus “irmãos de fé” Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao.

Ainda não morreu? Pena. Merecia morte das mais odiáveis, das mais dolorosas.

E ainda é incensado. E ainda é tratado como herói.

Diogo Mainardi fala por todos os de bom senso, em seu podcast:

Os comentários mais pitorescos sobre a renúncia de Fidel Castro foram feitos pelo próprio Fidel Castro. Ele declarou: “Meu dever não é aferrar-me a cargos”. Para um ditador que permaneceu 49 anos no poder, eu diria que ele se aferrou direitinho ao cargo. Fidel Castro declarou também que não quer “obstruir o passo a pessoas mais jovens”. Ele tem 81 anos. Deve estar se referindo a pessoas mais jovens como seu sucessor dinástico, Raúl Castro, de 75 anos.
Em sua carta de renúncia, Fidel Castro citou Oscar Niemeyer: “Deve-se ser conseqüente até o final”. Ninguém pode negar que Fidel Castro tenha sido conseqüente até o final. Ele nunca parou de prender e fuzilar dissidentes políticos. Assim como Oscar Niemeyer nunca parou de faturar concorrências públicas, de todos os tipos e em todos os governos. Oscar Niemeyer comentou que, apesar da renúncia de Fidel Castro, “a luta contra o imperialismo americano continua”. No seu caso, creio que a luta contra o imperialismo americano seja representada pelo Anexo 3 do Senado.
Barack Obama considerou que a renúncia de Fidel Castro foi “insuficiente”. Eu concordo. A cadeia teria sido melhor. Ou o túmulo. Em seguida, Barack Obama falou sobre a possibilidade de abrir uma brecha no embargo contra Cuba. Ihh: estragou tudo. Primeiro, Cuba tem de se render. Só depois, com boa vontade, os Estados Unidos podem cogitar a hipótese de salvar o país.

Primeiro, a análise mais completa do que pode vir a ocorrer:

New Administration
May Ease Embargo;
The Miami Factor

By JOSÉ DE CÓRDOBA and DAVID LUHNOW
February 20, 2008; Page A1

For the first time since a bearded young revolutionary named Fidel Castro overthrew the Cuban government on New Year’s Day in 1959, both Cuba and the U.S. are about to change leaders, increasing the chance of a thaw on one of the last remaining fronts of the Cold War.

Yesterday, Mr. Castro, who is 81 years old, said he will step down as Cuba’s president, ending his tenure as the world’s longest serving head of state. Most Cubans expect his brother Raúl, who is 76, to be named his successor, raising questions about how quickly things will change. Cuba’s National Assembly meets on Sunday to ratify a new leadership.

Associated Press

“My wishes have always been to discharge my duties to my last breath,” Mr. Castro wrote yesterday in Communist Party daily Granma. “[But] it would be a betrayal to my conscience to accept a responsibility requiring more mobility and dedication than I am physically able to offer.” (Announcement)

In July 2006, Mr. Castro underwent emergency intestinal surgery, handing over power to Raúl on what was characterized as a temporary basis. Since then, he has had several more operations and has rarely been seen in public. Nevertheless, he has remained active in making government decisions.

For the U.S., his resignation could rekindle debate about the best way to bring about change in Cuba: to continue the long-running economic embargo, or to allow trade and engage Cuba’s leader through diplomacy. Although dramatic change appears unlikely under the Bush administration, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon surprised many a year ago when he praised Canada’s policy of active engagement with Cuba.

The departure of Mr. Castro marks a watershed moment for the island nation of 11 million, one of the world’s few remaining Communist regimes. Mr. Castro is the only leader most Cubans have ever known. He took power before the advent of the Beatles, manned space flight, personal computers and the New York Mets. Barack Obama had not yet been born. Mr. Castro’s defiance of the superpower next door transformed his small nation into a Cold War chess piece. He will leave behind a well-educated populace that has grown frustrated by economic hardships and restrictions on speech.

Yesterday, the streets were quiet in Havana. State television broadcast Mr. Castro’s announcement, along with interviews of Cubans who said they didn’t think he should step down because he embodied the revolution. Some wondered whether Mr. Castro would continue pulling strings behind the scenes. “He will still be running the show,” said Reinaldo Escobar, a journalist in Havana.

Ismael, a Havana cab driver in his late 50s who declined to give his last name, said yesterday that he hoped the next leader would encourage foreign companies to invest. “But I think death is going to have to come here and get [Fidel],” he said, “because this guy, he doesn’t die easily.”

Many Cuba watchers doubt there will be significant change anytime soon in Cuba, or in its relations with the U.S. In both nations, however, young people have been questioning the confrontational policies of the past.

In Cuba, 70% of the population was born after the revolution. Many of these Cubans lost their parents’ revolutionary enthusiasm amid the privations that have plagued the country, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Even though most Cubans are barred from using the Internet, some young bloggers have begun to surreptitiously chronicle the struggles of daily life in Cuba.

In the U.S., there is a generational divide among the Cuban-Americans who have driven U.S. policy toward Cuba for decades. In late 2006, an umbrella group of Cuban exile organizations issued a call for the U.S. to lift restrictions on travel to the island by Cuban-Americans and on the amount of money they can send relatives in Cuba. This year, three longstanding Cuban-American Republican members of Congress face key challenges, two of them from Cuban-American Democrats.

Economic Czar

When Cuba’s National Assembly meets Sunday to ratify the leadership after recent party elections, Raúl is expected to be named president. Some experts on Cuba say there’s an outside chance that a younger generation of leaders might emerge. If that’s the case, many people think the post would go to Carlos Lage, a 56-year-old pediatrician. Mr. Lage has been Cuba’s economic czar for years and is seen both at home and abroad as an economic reformer. Fidel himself said in December that he did not want to obstruct a new generation from taking power.

Mr. Castro’s resignation should make it easier for his successor — no matter who it is — to pursue slow reforms aimed at opening up the country’s closed economy and, perhaps, its closed society. Over the past few months, Raúl has indicated that change is afoot, especially in the economy, and has encouraged more open debate about what ails the country. In January, during the election for Cuba’s National Assembly, he promised “important decisions, a little bit at a time.”

Other signs of change include the recent release of a handful of political prisoners, and last year’s deportation to Colombia of a notorious drug trafficker, who was then extradited to the U.S. Some state-controlled newspapers and television news shows even have started running stories critical of inefficiencies at state agencies.

“With [Fidel] still on the scene politically, it had limited Raúl,” says Peter DeShazo, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs. “This frees him up more…it could encourage him to take reforms.”

A hard-line Communist for most of his career, Raúl has become much more pragmatic as he has aged, says Brian Latell, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst and Cuba watcher who has written a biography of Raúl. What Raúl lacks in charisma, he makes up in management skills, says Mr. Latell. As Cuba’s defense minister, Raúl has often been an advocate of economic reform, pushing for such things as farmers’ markets and allowing more Cubans to become self-employed.

None of this means there will be McDonald’s restaurants in Havana anytime soon. So far, the discussion of economic liberalization has extended to allowing small, family-run firms to adopt cooperative methods of production, which already exist in the farm sector. Extending cooperatives to small shoe-manufacturing and textile firms would enable them to sell part of their production to consumers instead of to the government, and would permit them to expand by hiring employees outside of their families.

Cuba’s next leader will face enormous problems. Chief among them is fatigue and frustration, in particular among young Cubans. Salaries average about $15 a month. Cubans aren’t allowed to stay in hotels designated for the tourist trade, one of the few economic activities that provide foreign currency. They are upset about the nation’s dual-currency system, under which many goods are available only with the “Cuban convertible peso,” which is used by tourists and is out of reach for many Cubans.

Economic Impact

Cubans will expect their next leader to do something to improve their economic condition. The island produces little of what it consumes; it is dependant on the largess of its Venezuelan ally, Hugo Chávez, who provides more than 100,000 barrels a day of the petroleum and fuel products it needs to survive.

Recent talk of change has excited ordinary Cubans. “The drama of this year will be whether they deliver or disappoint on the economic front,” says Philip Peters, who studies Cuba at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-based think tank. “Expectations have been raised to an incredibly high level.”

If Cuba’s next leader doesn’t deliver on those expectations, the consequences could be severe. But pushing for change too quickly could cause Cuban leaders to lose control of the process. “If they slip on a banana peel, they lose the whole thing,” says Mark Entwistle, a former Canadian ambassador to the island who advises foreign companies seeking to do business there.

If Raúl takes over, he must also deal with a hostile neighbor — at least at the beginning. According to U.S. law, the U.S. can’t deal formally with a Cuban government headed by either Castro brother. During a trip to Africa yesterday, President Bush welcomed the news of Mr. Castro’s resignation. “I view this as a period of transition, and it should be the beginning of the democratic transition in Cuba,” he said.

In the Miami area, home to about 800,000 of the 1.5 million Cuban-Americans, the resignation of Mr. Castro wasn’t greeted by celebrations, as had the 2006 news that he had temporarily given up power. Cuban exiles, who hoped back then that the regime would collapse, have become disillusioned as they have watched Mr. Castro engineer a transition to his younger brother.

On the Republican side of the U.S. presidential race, it appears there is little appetite for changing American policy toward Cuba. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has said that altering the embargo would serve only to prop up the Communist regime. He said yesterday that the coming transition in Cuba was an opportunity for the regime to “empty their political prisons, to invite human-rights organizations into the country and begin the transition to a free and open society.”

Democratic candidate Sen. Obama advocated lifting the embargo as a Senate candidate in 2003. He has since moderated that view, saying he supports loosening restrictions on travel by Cuban-Americans to the island and on the amount of money they can send back. “If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change,” he said yesterday, “the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo.”

At a campaign stop, Sen. Hillary Clinton said she might be willing to consider change as well. “If that new [Cuban] government takes some action that demonstrates they are willing to change,” she said, the U.S. should consider reassessing its policy toward Cuba.

Movement in Congress

In Congress, Mr. Castro’s resignation is likely to increase the number of lawmakers seeking to ease restrictions. “We have had a bad policy for nearly 50 years, for bad reasons that have nothing to do with Cuba,” says New York Rep. Charles Rangel, who heads the House Ways and Means Committee. Arizona Republican Rep. Jeff Flake, who has split with the majority of his party to try to lift a travel ban on Americans going to Cuba, said Castro’s resignation could open “a new chapter” in U.S.-Cuba relations.

That view may be gaining currency in Miami, where many Cuban-Americans reside. Younger Cubans who came to the U.S. in the 1980 Mariel boatlift, and who still maintain many family ties to Cuba, tend to be less hard-line than older Cuban-Americans who came as exiles at the beginning of Mr. Castro’s revolution.

“The politics of passion that led to the isolation of Cuba is waning,” says Damian Fernandez, the head of Florida International University’s Cuban Research Center. In a poll conducted last year, FIU found that 65% of Cuban-Americans would support dialogue with the regime, up from 55.5% in 2004.

Tough Policy

Longtime Cuban-American congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, who is seen as the driving force behind the U.S.’s tough Cuba policy, wasn’t changing his tune yesterday. “For now, nothing has changed in totalitarian Cuba,” he said in a statement.

But Joe Garcia, a Cuban-American Democrat who is challenging Mr. Diaz-Balart’s brother Mario for a house seat, said the U.S. government risks missing an opportunity to push for change in Cuba. “Our administration is a soundbox to the ultraright-wing in Miami,” said Mr. Garcia, who unlike his opponent, favors lifting restrictions on visits and remittances by Cuban-Americans to their families on the island.

Some U.S. businesses can be expected to push for an end to the embargo, including agricultural exporters, which have already sold more than $1.5 billion of chicken, corn and other foodstuffs to the island since the U.S. began allowing food sales in 2001. Airlines and hotel and tourism companies can be expected to join in the campaign, along with oil companies interested in drilling in Cuba’s coastal waters, where some oil has already been found.

Back in Havana, Yoani Sánchez, who writes a popular blog about daily life in Cuba, said in an interview yesterday that she thought Fidel Castro would remain an obstacle to change. “But at least my son will talk about Fidel as something of the past,” she said. “It’s the end of one cycle, and the beginning of another. I just hope the next one doesn’t last for 50 years.”

–Evan Perez and Joel Millman contributed to this article.

Write to David Luhnow at david.luhnow@wsj.com

Sensacional!

segunda-feira, 18 de fevereiro de 2008 14:32 BRT
 
TÓQUIO (Reuters) - Os órgãos de previsões econômicas devem ficar
atentos: as japonesas estão cortando seus cabelos curtos outra vez.
Citando uma pesquisa conduzida pela empresa japonesa de cosméticos Kao
Corp, o jornal econômico Nikkei informou que as mulheres tendem a deixar
os cabelos longos quando a economia japonesa está indo bem.

Quanto à performance econômica futura do Japão, o Nikkei notou que a
tendência da moda favorece os cortes de cabelo mais curtos.

A observação reflete a opinião de alguns analistas de que o mais longo
ciclo de crescimento do Japão desde a 2a Guerra Mundial pode ter acabado
e que a economia corre o risco de entrar em recessão.

A Kao, segunda maior firma de cosméticos do Japão, faz pesquisas
regulares com 1.000 mulheres em Tóquio e Osaka há 20 anos, disse o
Nikkei.

Até o início dos anos 1990, quando a bolha econômica japonesa estourou,
60 por cento das mulheres na casa dos 20 anos deixavam seus cabelos
longos, disse o jornal.

Durante a queda dos anos 1990, os cabelos curtos — definidos como sendo
aqueles cortados acima da clavícula — passaram a dominar entre as
japonesas. Desde 2002, porém, os cabelos longos voltaram a ter alguma
popularidade — justamente quando a economia começou a crescer, disse o
Nikkei.

O jornal também identificou um novo fator que pode afetar a precisão do
comprimento dos cabelos como indicador econômico: a crescente
popularidade do coque.

© Reuters 2008 All rights reserved.