Não foram os mercados que substituiram Berlusconi e Papandreou por tecnoeurocratas, foram os parlamentos e os partidos capazes de fazer ou não maiorias. Não vejo na incapacidade de formar em tempo, com legitimidade democrática, os governos necessários para enfrentar a crise, a vitória dos ditames externos mas a derrota dos líderes dos grandes partidos democráticos em que os eleitores têm confiado.
Na Grécia, Papandreou ficou sózinho, como Sócrates em Portugal e Zapatero em Espanha. Em Itália, Berlusconi preferiu prosseguir até ser insustentável com Bossi (como em Portugal Passos Coelho o está a fazer agora com Portas).
Nem Merkel nem Sarkozy estão à altura do sonho europeu. Mas em vários outros países, os líderes políticos têm sido incapazes de honrar o espírito de compromisso de que se fez a Europa desde a 2a guerra mundial. Contudo, o pior está para vir. Depois de os políticos "tradicionais" atirarem a toalha ao chão, o que acontecerá se a situação ainda se agravar mais e o povo tornar inorganicamente ingovernáveis os países que os políticos agora entregaram aos tecnoeurocratas? Parece que há mesmo muita gente convencida de que a crise acaba em 2012 ou sem estatura política para construir os cenários B que os grandes momentos da história tornam necessários.
15.11.11
João Duque, "a bem da nação": num país em que há um autoritário em cada esquina, consciências liberais precisam-se.
Julgava eu que estávamos perante um governo de ofensiva neoliberal quando me deparo com as conclusões da Comissão Relvas para a RTP. Eduardo Pitta leu o relatório em causa e deu-lhe o nome merecido: albanês. Mas, se dúvidas houvera de que de tal se tratava, João Duque desfê-las "a bem da nação", confundindo informação e propaganda, com o tique totalitário que o Porfírio Silva bem notou.
Espero agora assistir a um barulho ensurdecedor da blogosfera liberal contra o desmando autoritário da Comissão Relvas e do seu chefe. Ou será que a dita ao seguir para o governo se reduziu à servidão?
Num país em que há um autoritário em cada esquina, consciências liberais precisam-se, urgentemente.
Espero agora assistir a um barulho ensurdecedor da blogosfera liberal contra o desmando autoritário da Comissão Relvas e do seu chefe. Ou será que a dita ao seguir para o governo se reduziu à servidão?
Num país em que há um autoritário em cada esquina, consciências liberais precisam-se, urgentemente.
EUA: os novos pobres aparecem quando se adoptam novas medidas da pobreza
Tal como acontece com muitos fenómenos sociais, a noção que temos da pobreza varia com o indicador que escolhemos. Numa lição cuja citação não tenho aqui à mão, Anthony Atkinson chegou mesmo a fazer um exercício comparativo demonstrando que os resultados entre países - e a nossa percepção da pobreza nesses países - variariam com a medida escolhida.
Isso não impede que se vão adoptando linhas estatísticas de pobreza adaptadas à situação das economias avançadas: a UE tem a sua, o Reino Unido e os EUA também. E Portugal devia ter uma e reportar regularmente sobre ela.
Nos EUA, há muito tempo que tem vindo a dsicutir-se a questão da definição de pobreza. Agora o Census Bureau lançou a Suplemental Poverty Measure. Com a nova medida, o fenómeno do pobre, branco e proprietário da sua própria casa sai da armadilha estatística que o escondia, vê-se que a pobreza não é um assunto dos outros e que a insegurança económica é bem mais transversal do que os estereotipos americanos sobre a sua própria pobreza sugeriam. Ed Nolan dedicou no Ecomonitor, dois posts que mercem leitura sobre o assunto. Primeiro este e depois este.
Isso não impede que se vão adoptando linhas estatísticas de pobreza adaptadas à situação das economias avançadas: a UE tem a sua, o Reino Unido e os EUA também. E Portugal devia ter uma e reportar regularmente sobre ela.
Nos EUA, há muito tempo que tem vindo a dsicutir-se a questão da definição de pobreza. Agora o Census Bureau lançou a Suplemental Poverty Measure. Com a nova medida, o fenómeno do pobre, branco e proprietário da sua própria casa sai da armadilha estatística que o escondia, vê-se que a pobreza não é um assunto dos outros e que a insegurança económica é bem mais transversal do que os estereotipos americanos sobre a sua própria pobreza sugeriam. Ed Nolan dedicou no Ecomonitor, dois posts que mercem leitura sobre o assunto. Primeiro este e depois este.
13.11.11
Greece: the rationale of Papandreou's moves since referendum's announcement (corrected and completed)
This post is reprinted because it was, by mistake, not printed completed. I regret the error and invite you to read the full version)
I belong to a small country. A rocky promontory in the Mediterranean, it has nothing to distinguish it but the efforts of its people, the sea, and the light of the sun.
Giorgos Seferis – Nobel Literature award Speech, 1963
Today it is expected that Greece will announce who will be the new prime minister that will “save us” from the dept crisis, successfully getting the green light from our European “partners” for the sixth instalment of the “bailout” package. Effectively what happened was that Papandreou and Samaras agreed for a new guy to come in and do the same thing that Papandreou’s been doing until now, to hold elections in February and allow Samaras to be voted in to continue doing the same thing. What is to be done is one question, but today I’d like to discuss a bit about this marriage.
On the last day of October, Papandreou surprised the world by announcing his plans to take the sixth loan treaty of the bailout package, including an agreed haircut of 50% Greece’s primary debt, to referendum. The world shook from Tokyo to Los Angeles. Every major stock market in the closed with losses up to 7%. Politically speaking, Merkel and Sarkozy were shocked and numbed by the news, Oly Ren and others were disgruntled with Greece’s ”unilateral”(!!??!!) decision to hold a referendum, Americans were vague in their reactions and other EU states had a generally negative response. Who would have ever suspected that the will of the people of such a small country could ever cause such global turmoil?
In Greece, there was a peculiar consensus amongst opposition parties, several MPs within PASOK ruling party and 100% of the press that were against the idea of the referendum. And I say peculiar because both right and left wing politicians were all demanding elections. Over 15 political dailies and countless web sites covering the entire political/ideological phasm known to man disagreed with Papandreou’s decision. The left had argued, correctly, that the PASOK government was elected on a different mandate than what they are implementing. The right had argued, correctly, that PASOK has proven incompetent to deal with such a huge crisis, without however noting that they have been against every measure, treaty and loan that has been agreed to, to date. The Indignatos on the streets of Athens and other Greek cities were dead against the austerity measures that hit their pockets, dreams and future directly. All, however, were against putting the decision in the hands of the people. And I ask the following: what were they afraid of?
In my view, the announcement for the referendum, whether a bluff or not, was a maverick political gamble that paid off 100% in the favour of the policy that has been adopted in order to confront the dept crisis and given the situation that PASOK has found itself in, and I explain:
1. It displayed just how important Greece and other members of the common currency are to its survival. Although it has been speculated over the last months that Greece is about the leave the Euro, and indeed Greece has been called upon to leave by several commentators, the actual „threat” of the referendum displayed just how catastrophic such an exit would be globally;
2. It forced New Democracy to the table, to finally take some of the political costs for a policy that, in reality, it agrees with;
3. It stripped the left of their legitimacy, placing the power in the hands of the people.
It is strange that since the announcement of the referendum, there have been no rallies in Athens backed by the left, no strikes by taxi drivers for example backed by the right, no indignatos at Syntagma square. In order to avoid any misconceptions, I should state that I do not agree fully with the austerity measures that have been taken, but since this path has been chosen, it is obvious that a consensus of at least the major political parties needed to be achieved. Both Spain and Portugal have achieved this. On several occasions Papandreou has attempted this in vain. Don’t get me wrong, I still think that Papandreou is generally not up to dealing with the dept crisis. However, my main quiff with Papandreou has to do with two issues. Firstly that indeed he was elected on a different mandate than what he is implementing, and I voted for him, something that will not occur again in the near future. He should have called elections long before accepting any bailout package. Second, and perhaps more importantly, he should have negotiated tougher with our „partners” for a complete solution to the systemic problem that faces the Eurozone from the beginning. Perhaps the latter would have pushed Ms. Merkel to adopting political decisions quickly instead of wasting two years. Perhaps it would have pushed Europe into deeper economic integration, something that seems now inevitable in order to stabilise the currency and assure some light at the end of the tunnel.
The only thing that keeps me at ease during these times of economic turmoil is that real power remains in the hands of politicians. Silly as this may sound given the incompetence and perhaps confused leadership that surrounds us, the essence remains that people still run countries, governments still have the ultimate legitimate authority within their borders and the duty to “protect” citizens and hence to manipulate the beast known as the markets, also known as capitalism when I was young. As Nobel peace winning Greek Poet Giorgos Seferis put it “In our gradually shrinking world, everyone is in need of all the others. We must look for man wherever we can find him. When on his way to Thebes Oedipus encountered the Sphinx, his answer to its riddle was: ‘Man’. That simple word destroyed the monster. We have many monsters to destroy. Let us think of the answer of Oedipus.”
Yannis Parcharidis
(he is kindly sharing his views on Greece with Banco Corrido's readers. See his previous text - What happened to Greece? - here)
I belong to a small country. A rocky promontory in the Mediterranean, it has nothing to distinguish it but the efforts of its people, the sea, and the light of the sun.
Giorgos Seferis – Nobel Literature award Speech, 1963
Today it is expected that Greece will announce who will be the new prime minister that will “save us” from the dept crisis, successfully getting the green light from our European “partners” for the sixth instalment of the “bailout” package. Effectively what happened was that Papandreou and Samaras agreed for a new guy to come in and do the same thing that Papandreou’s been doing until now, to hold elections in February and allow Samaras to be voted in to continue doing the same thing. What is to be done is one question, but today I’d like to discuss a bit about this marriage.
On the last day of October, Papandreou surprised the world by announcing his plans to take the sixth loan treaty of the bailout package, including an agreed haircut of 50% Greece’s primary debt, to referendum. The world shook from Tokyo to Los Angeles. Every major stock market in the closed with losses up to 7%. Politically speaking, Merkel and Sarkozy were shocked and numbed by the news, Oly Ren and others were disgruntled with Greece’s ”unilateral”(!!??!!) decision to hold a referendum, Americans were vague in their reactions and other EU states had a generally negative response. Who would have ever suspected that the will of the people of such a small country could ever cause such global turmoil?
In Greece, there was a peculiar consensus amongst opposition parties, several MPs within PASOK ruling party and 100% of the press that were against the idea of the referendum. And I say peculiar because both right and left wing politicians were all demanding elections. Over 15 political dailies and countless web sites covering the entire political/ideological phasm known to man disagreed with Papandreou’s decision. The left had argued, correctly, that the PASOK government was elected on a different mandate than what they are implementing. The right had argued, correctly, that PASOK has proven incompetent to deal with such a huge crisis, without however noting that they have been against every measure, treaty and loan that has been agreed to, to date. The Indignatos on the streets of Athens and other Greek cities were dead against the austerity measures that hit their pockets, dreams and future directly. All, however, were against putting the decision in the hands of the people. And I ask the following: what were they afraid of?
In my view, the announcement for the referendum, whether a bluff or not, was a maverick political gamble that paid off 100% in the favour of the policy that has been adopted in order to confront the dept crisis and given the situation that PASOK has found itself in, and I explain:
1. It displayed just how important Greece and other members of the common currency are to its survival. Although it has been speculated over the last months that Greece is about the leave the Euro, and indeed Greece has been called upon to leave by several commentators, the actual „threat” of the referendum displayed just how catastrophic such an exit would be globally;
2. It forced New Democracy to the table, to finally take some of the political costs for a policy that, in reality, it agrees with;
3. It stripped the left of their legitimacy, placing the power in the hands of the people.
It is strange that since the announcement of the referendum, there have been no rallies in Athens backed by the left, no strikes by taxi drivers for example backed by the right, no indignatos at Syntagma square. In order to avoid any misconceptions, I should state that I do not agree fully with the austerity measures that have been taken, but since this path has been chosen, it is obvious that a consensus of at least the major political parties needed to be achieved. Both Spain and Portugal have achieved this. On several occasions Papandreou has attempted this in vain. Don’t get me wrong, I still think that Papandreou is generally not up to dealing with the dept crisis. However, my main quiff with Papandreou has to do with two issues. Firstly that indeed he was elected on a different mandate than what he is implementing, and I voted for him, something that will not occur again in the near future. He should have called elections long before accepting any bailout package. Second, and perhaps more importantly, he should have negotiated tougher with our „partners” for a complete solution to the systemic problem that faces the Eurozone from the beginning. Perhaps the latter would have pushed Ms. Merkel to adopting political decisions quickly instead of wasting two years. Perhaps it would have pushed Europe into deeper economic integration, something that seems now inevitable in order to stabilise the currency and assure some light at the end of the tunnel.
The only thing that keeps me at ease during these times of economic turmoil is that real power remains in the hands of politicians. Silly as this may sound given the incompetence and perhaps confused leadership that surrounds us, the essence remains that people still run countries, governments still have the ultimate legitimate authority within their borders and the duty to “protect” citizens and hence to manipulate the beast known as the markets, also known as capitalism when I was young. As Nobel peace winning Greek Poet Giorgos Seferis put it “In our gradually shrinking world, everyone is in need of all the others. We must look for man wherever we can find him. When on his way to Thebes Oedipus encountered the Sphinx, his answer to its riddle was: ‘Man’. That simple word destroyed the monster. We have many monsters to destroy. Let us think of the answer of Oedipus.”
Yannis Parcharidis
(he is kindly sharing his views on Greece with Banco Corrido's readers. See his previous text - What happened to Greece? - here)
Circuito turístico Ceausescu? Há quem pense que sim.
Tenho um amigo que já tinha tido esta ideia aparentemente estranha e até já levou boa gente do centro-direita português a fazer-se fotografar num memorial à antiga comunista na aldeia do conducatore.
12.11.11
Imaginava uma casa a sério, construída com garrafas plásticas de àgua e areia? É possível, veja tal ecoarquitectura, aqui.
9.11.11
8.11.11
Insensatez, reconhece o Ministro, que também o é dos Transportes.
Fechar o metro às 11 da noite não faz sentido, diz Alvaro Santos Pereira. Tem razão. É certo que, ao fazê-ló, chamou insensatos aos especialistas nomeados para estudar a questão. Oxalá seja capaz de dizer o mesmo sobe outras ideias insensatas do grupo... E de escolher melhor as próximas sumidades que o hão-de aconselhar, se quiser continuar a ter que receber conselhos enquanto Ministro.
E se a Itália entra na espiral da crise das dívidas soberanas?
A todos os que pensam que a Europa pode brincar com o fogo da crise para sempre recomendo esta análise que conclui que a recessão prolongada é o melhor cenário que a Europa pode esperar depois de perder-se o controlo do risco da dívida soberana italiana.
7.11.11
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)