segunda-feira, 21 de abril de 2008
A origem do problema II
"The subprime crisis is none of these. Its origin lies in a housing price bubble brought about by excessive central bank money creation and the subsequent puncturing of this bubble. The price declines in housing then induced the large rise in foreclosures of the recent past and present.
Fiat money inflations often bring on real estate booms followed by busts. These inflations are the common element in real estate cycles that span many countries and many centuries, and they put the lie to the hypothesis that bad lending practices are the culprit. Fraudulent money creation is the culprit, not faulty evaluation of the credit risks of borrowers.
Jesús Huerta De Soto’s book Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles provides documentation of cases. For example, real estate prices fell by 50 percent by 1349 in Florence when boom became bust. That boom was fed by bank money creation:
"Evidence shows that from the beginning of the fourteenth century bankers gradually began to make fraudulent use of a portion of the money on demand deposit, creating out of nowhere a significant amount of expansionary credit. Therefore, it is not surprising that an increase in the money supply (in the form of credit expansion) caused an artificial economic boom followed by a profound, inevitable recession."
In the face of excessive money, lenders tend to adopt laxer standards for making loans. Borrowers and investors tend to use higher amounts of leverage. Asset prices rise. When the rate of money creation slows or halts and asset prices begin to decline, those who have bought houses at high prices, perhaps with little or no equity of their own, quickly find themselves in a position of negative equity, with their promised loan payments exceeding their house values.
This induces default and foreclosures." The Subprime Crisis and Government Failure by Michael S. Rozeff
Fiat money inflations often bring on real estate booms followed by busts. These inflations are the common element in real estate cycles that span many countries and many centuries, and they put the lie to the hypothesis that bad lending practices are the culprit. Fraudulent money creation is the culprit, not faulty evaluation of the credit risks of borrowers.
Jesús Huerta De Soto’s book Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles provides documentation of cases. For example, real estate prices fell by 50 percent by 1349 in Florence when boom became bust. That boom was fed by bank money creation:
"Evidence shows that from the beginning of the fourteenth century bankers gradually began to make fraudulent use of a portion of the money on demand deposit, creating out of nowhere a significant amount of expansionary credit. Therefore, it is not surprising that an increase in the money supply (in the form of credit expansion) caused an artificial economic boom followed by a profound, inevitable recession."
In the face of excessive money, lenders tend to adopt laxer standards for making loans. Borrowers and investors tend to use higher amounts of leverage. Asset prices rise. When the rate of money creation slows or halts and asset prices begin to decline, those who have bought houses at high prices, perhaps with little or no equity of their own, quickly find themselves in a position of negative equity, with their promised loan payments exceeding their house values.
This induces default and foreclosures." The Subprime Crisis and Government Failure by Michael S. Rozeff
A origem do problema: "The most successful systematic theft operation in human history"
Mises on Money, by Gary North:
"There is no doubt that goldsmiths in early modern times did begin to take on the function of banks. At some point, goldsmith-bankers did begin to lend receipts to gold that were not 100% backed by gold. They did begin to collect interest payments from borrowers who believed that there was enough gold in reserve to pay off receipts under normal circumstances. Banking in Spain during the sixteenth century adopted fractional reserves, and a series of banking house bankruptcies in second half of the century proved it. The Emperor, Charles V, had legalized the system. As usual, the State authorized the practice of fractional reserve banking as a means of financing itself. It wanted a ready market for its debt. (...)
So, in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt unconstitutionally confiscated Americans' gold that was still outside the banks. By unilateral executive order, he made it illegal for American citizens to own any gold coins that had no numismatic value. The government paid the owners $20.67 per ounce. Once the gold was in the possession of the Treasury, Roosevelt officially hiked the price to $35 on January 31, 1934. The Fed then bought the gold from the Treasury by creating new money......So, worldwide, governments and central banks steadily removed gold coins from the economy, thereby demonetizing gold. It was the most successful systematic theft operation in human history. It was all done officially. It was all done with paper IOU's to gold that were revoked by sovereign governments, which in turn chose not to be sued by their victims. The public now is unfamiliar with gold coins as a medium of exchange. "
"There is no doubt that goldsmiths in early modern times did begin to take on the function of banks. At some point, goldsmith-bankers did begin to lend receipts to gold that were not 100% backed by gold. They did begin to collect interest payments from borrowers who believed that there was enough gold in reserve to pay off receipts under normal circumstances. Banking in Spain during the sixteenth century adopted fractional reserves, and a series of banking house bankruptcies in second half of the century proved it. The Emperor, Charles V, had legalized the system. As usual, the State authorized the practice of fractional reserve banking as a means of financing itself. It wanted a ready market for its debt. (...)
So, in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt unconstitutionally confiscated Americans' gold that was still outside the banks. By unilateral executive order, he made it illegal for American citizens to own any gold coins that had no numismatic value. The government paid the owners $20.67 per ounce. Once the gold was in the possession of the Treasury, Roosevelt officially hiked the price to $35 on January 31, 1934. The Fed then bought the gold from the Treasury by creating new money......So, worldwide, governments and central banks steadily removed gold coins from the economy, thereby demonetizing gold. It was the most successful systematic theft operation in human history. It was all done officially. It was all done with paper IOU's to gold that were revoked by sovereign governments, which in turn chose not to be sued by their victims. The public now is unfamiliar with gold coins as a medium of exchange. "
Wall Street socialism.
Phillips Slams Wall Street, Feckless Politicians in `Bad Money'
"(...) To hear Kevin Phillips tell it, the U.S. is a world power on the skids, an overstretched empire slumping toward the fate of Hapsburg Spain, the maritime Dutch Republic and imperial Britain. (...)
The book repeats ideas that Phillips has written about before. He again uses the term ``financial mercantilism'' to describe how Washington and Wall Street have collaborated ``to minimize certain unwanted marketplace forces.''
Hence the long, sad history -- from the Latin American debt crisis and the S&L bailout to the subprime mortgage meltdown -- of the U.S. government and Federal Reserve rescuing our failed financial wizards. He gives a name for what happens when taxpayers rescue profligate bankers: ``Wall Street socialism.''
"(...) To hear Kevin Phillips tell it, the U.S. is a world power on the skids, an overstretched empire slumping toward the fate of Hapsburg Spain, the maritime Dutch Republic and imperial Britain. (...)
The book repeats ideas that Phillips has written about before. He again uses the term ``financial mercantilism'' to describe how Washington and Wall Street have collaborated ``to minimize certain unwanted marketplace forces.''
Hence the long, sad history -- from the Latin American debt crisis and the S&L bailout to the subprime mortgage meltdown -- of the U.S. government and Federal Reserve rescuing our failed financial wizards. He gives a name for what happens when taxpayers rescue profligate bankers: ``Wall Street socialism.''
Afinal querem mais mais crédito e mais barato...
... para resolver os problemas de excesso de crédito e demasiado barato.
Bank of England Will Unveil Swap to Ease Home Lending (Update1)
April 21 (Bloomberg) -- The Bank of England will today announce a plan to swap about 50 billion pounds ($100 billion) of government bonds for mortgage-backed securities to lower credit costs, three people familiar with the matter said.
The plan will ``unfreeze the situation we've got at the moment,'' Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling said yesterday in an interview with the BBC, without specifying how much would be made available. ``What the Bank of England will do is, in effect, lend the banks that money. In the meantime, the Bank of England will take a security.''
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government is trying to encourage lending after a surge in borrowing costs prompted banks to withdraw their best mortgage offers, threatening to exacerbate the worst housing downturn since 1992. (...)"
Bank of England Will Unveil Swap to Ease Home Lending (Update1)
April 21 (Bloomberg) -- The Bank of England will today announce a plan to swap about 50 billion pounds ($100 billion) of government bonds for mortgage-backed securities to lower credit costs, three people familiar with the matter said.
The plan will ``unfreeze the situation we've got at the moment,'' Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling said yesterday in an interview with the BBC, without specifying how much would be made available. ``What the Bank of England will do is, in effect, lend the banks that money. In the meantime, the Bank of England will take a security.''
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government is trying to encourage lending after a surge in borrowing costs prompted banks to withdraw their best mortgage offers, threatening to exacerbate the worst housing downturn since 1992. (...)"
quarta-feira, 16 de abril de 2008
Estratégia liberal para a direita
Dois conceitos cristãos:
Política Interna
- O princípio da subsidariedade aplicado à organização política e administrativa e ao intervencionismo na economia
Por exemplo, podemos defender o encolhimento de toda o sistema de pensões de reforma da segurança social para um valor próximo de um mínimo de sobrevivência, e assim baixar drásticamente o imposto da segurança social. Assim como tentar recuperar o municipalismo radical de Alexandre Herculano. Os impostos locais, etc.
Política Externa
- O princípio da "Guerra Justa"
Política Interna
- O princípio da subsidariedade aplicado à organização política e administrativa e ao intervencionismo na economia
Por exemplo, podemos defender o encolhimento de toda o sistema de pensões de reforma da segurança social para um valor próximo de um mínimo de sobrevivência, e assim baixar drásticamente o imposto da segurança social. Assim como tentar recuperar o municipalismo radical de Alexandre Herculano. Os impostos locais, etc.
Política Externa
- O princípio da "Guerra Justa"
terça-feira, 15 de abril de 2008
Os preços dos alimentos e matérias primas sobem e sobem
Isso não será bom para os produtores dos países sub-desenvolvidos?
Não se os seus Estados começarem a condicionar as exportações e a fixar preços internamente.
Pois é isso mesmo que estão a fazer. Em vez de lutarem por um comércio livre mesmo livre que lhes permita exportar para os países desenvolvidos.
Não se os seus Estados começarem a condicionar as exportações e a fixar preços internamente.
Pois é isso mesmo que estão a fazer. Em vez de lutarem por um comércio livre mesmo livre que lhes permita exportar para os países desenvolvidos.
segunda-feira, 14 de abril de 2008
Direito natural, liberalismo e estatismo
Direito natural. Por Rui Albuquerque.
Para todos os efeitos, o direito natural foi sempre um forte entrave ao despotismo e ao totalitarismo do poder político. Ele fundamentou, no mundo antigo, a ideia de justiça, e no mundo moderno e contemporâneo a criação de limites ao governo e ao exercício dos seus poderes.
(...)
O direito natural é, assim, património histórico e filosófico do liberalismo. Já no nosso tempo Murray Rothbard retomaria o tema e entroncaria nele toda a sua teoria da liberdade. Tratava-se (a «lei natural») de uma verdadeira «ciência da felicidade» (uma evidente reminiscência da Declaração de Independência), que servia para aclarar «o que é melhor para o homem – que fins deve prosseguir por serem os mais conformes com a sua natureza e os que melhor tendem a realizá-la». A razão seria o instrumento indicado para alcançar a verdadeira natureza humana («Se o homem tem uma natureza, porque não há-de ser acessível à observação e reflexão racional?») e, através dela, criar uma ética objectiva para o indivíduo e a sociedade humana, baseada em «princípios de justiça absolutos». Do ponto de vista liberal, para além de se fragmentar em direitos individuais absolutos, a «lei natural» resulta, em si mesma, num «conjunto de normas que podem sustentar uma crítica radical à lei positiva em vigor imposta pelo Estado». É o primeiro limite à acção do Estado.
É por isso que os defensores do estatismo são quase sempre adversários da ideia do direito natural. Entre eles, obviamente, Hans Kelsen, o célebre jurista austríaco do século XX, para quem o direito se consubstancia nas normas jurídicas positivas decorrentes da vontade do Estado, e encontra a sua validade em si mesmo, na autoridade do legislador, e não em quaisquer considerações éticas ou morais, menos ainda numa suposta ideia de justiça universal, que Kelsen considera ser uma pura ficção.
quinta-feira, 10 de abril de 2008
Fed Weighs Its Options in Easing Crunch
"(...) The Fed is reluctant to heed calls from some Wall Street participants and foreign officials for the Fed to directly purchase mortgage-backed securities to help a market that still is not functioning normally.(...)
The Fed holds assets to manage the nation's money supply and influence the federal-funds rate, which banks charge each other on overnight loans. When the Fed buys Treasurys or makes loans directly to banks, it supplies financial institutions with cash; in effect, it prints money. The cash ends up as currency in circulation or in banks' reserve accounts at the Fed.
(..)Officials are reluctant to buy mortgage-backed securities directly. They worry that such purchases would hurt the market for MBS that the Fed is not permitted to buy: those backed by jumbo and subprime and alt-A mortgages, which are under the greatest strain.
Moreover, the Fed is not operationally equipped to hold MBS and would probably have to outsource their management. Such holdings wouldn't help avert foreclosures much, since the Fed would have little control over the mortgages that comprise MBS."
PS: Eu acho que vão acabar por comprar (monetizar com a criação monetária) carteiras de crédito.
The Fed holds assets to manage the nation's money supply and influence the federal-funds rate, which banks charge each other on overnight loans. When the Fed buys Treasurys or makes loans directly to banks, it supplies financial institutions with cash; in effect, it prints money. The cash ends up as currency in circulation or in banks' reserve accounts at the Fed.
(..)Officials are reluctant to buy mortgage-backed securities directly. They worry that such purchases would hurt the market for MBS that the Fed is not permitted to buy: those backed by jumbo and subprime and alt-A mortgages, which are under the greatest strain.
Moreover, the Fed is not operationally equipped to hold MBS and would probably have to outsource their management. Such holdings wouldn't help avert foreclosures much, since the Fed would have little control over the mortgages that comprise MBS."
PS: Eu acho que vão acabar por comprar (monetizar com a criação monetária) carteiras de crédito.
quarta-feira, 9 de abril de 2008
Catolicismo e Liberalismo
Esta conversa sobre Católicos e liberalismo é um pouco irritante. Sendo a Igreja a maior das instituições da "sociedade civil" e a única cuja autoridade faz (alguma) frente ao Estado (que desde que perdeu a monarquia transformou-se num conceito eminentemente nacionalista), cuja propriedade foi roubada, cujas instituições de educação foram atacadas pela escola pública (cuja primeira razão de ser foi o ataque ao catolicismo pelo laicismo uns e pelo protestantismo outros) tem piada vir agora pedir que esta "desista do Estado" como se tivesse que ignorar que é um centro de disputa e de onde emana uma religião civil com os seus dogmas e puritanismos com nova face.
Por outro, exista quem diga que só os Católicos são anarquistas por acreditarem no livre arbítrio. Curiosamente, uma boa parte da mais antiga, mais pequena, e em maior crescimento... escola da economia, a austriaca, para onde convergem muitos libertarians-anarchists (e diria socialmente conservadores), é católica e até tradicionalista (Lew Rockwell, HH Hoope, Thomas Woods, etc, até Rothbard foi acusado de se ter convertido no fim da vida pelos habituais left-libertarians) mas contando também com muitos protestantes (Robert Murphy, Ron Paul, etc). Curioso, é habitual serem anti-neo-cons.
Falta saber, portanto, quem é que não é liberal e pensa que é. E sobretudo, quem é não desiste do "poder do Estado"
PS: Também tem uma certa piada a notícia que Gordon Brown se prepara para acabar com a proibição de Católicos ascenderem ao trono Inglês.
Por outro, exista quem diga que só os Católicos são anarquistas por acreditarem no livre arbítrio. Curiosamente, uma boa parte da mais antiga, mais pequena, e em maior crescimento... escola da economia, a austriaca, para onde convergem muitos libertarians-anarchists (e diria socialmente conservadores), é católica e até tradicionalista (Lew Rockwell, HH Hoope, Thomas Woods, etc, até Rothbard foi acusado de se ter convertido no fim da vida pelos habituais left-libertarians) mas contando também com muitos protestantes (Robert Murphy, Ron Paul, etc). Curioso, é habitual serem anti-neo-cons.
Falta saber, portanto, quem é que não é liberal e pensa que é. E sobretudo, quem é não desiste do "poder do Estado"
PS: Também tem uma certa piada a notícia que Gordon Brown se prepara para acabar com a proibição de Católicos ascenderem ao trono Inglês.
Subprime
GOVERNMENT FAILURE:
In 1995, US authorities told banks that they had to start giving mortgage to poor areas to avoid accusations of discrimination. The only way for the banks to profit from this risky debt was to bundle it with good debt and pass it on. The investors didn´t have to worry too much about the risks because they knew that the banks were too big and entangled to fail and that the Fed would bail them out if there was a crisis. State-owned Chinese and German banks belonged to the most enthusiastic buyers. And they were all being helped by a US monetary policy that lowered interest rates more and kept them low longer than the market would have, which poured liquidity into real estate and stock markets.
Now the mortgage bubble has burst and most commentators blame free markets and tell us that we should give wise autorities and bureaucrats more power to regulate to save us from another crisis. Judging from how they handled it this time, that sounds about as risky as subprime loans.
I write about this in Dagens Industri today (subscribers only)." johannorberg.net
In 1995, US authorities told banks that they had to start giving mortgage to poor areas to avoid accusations of discrimination. The only way for the banks to profit from this risky debt was to bundle it with good debt and pass it on. The investors didn´t have to worry too much about the risks because they knew that the banks were too big and entangled to fail and that the Fed would bail them out if there was a crisis. State-owned Chinese and German banks belonged to the most enthusiastic buyers. And they were all being helped by a US monetary policy that lowered interest rates more and kept them low longer than the market would have, which poured liquidity into real estate and stock markets.
Now the mortgage bubble has burst and most commentators blame free markets and tell us that we should give wise autorities and bureaucrats more power to regulate to save us from another crisis. Judging from how they handled it this time, that sounds about as risky as subprime loans.
I write about this in Dagens Industri today (subscribers only)." johannorberg.net
terça-feira, 8 de abril de 2008
IMF plans gold sale to raise $6bn
A melhor coisa que pode acontecer é os Bancos Centrais e equiparados despojarem-se de todo o ouro que tenham, trocando-o por meros papeis de que eles próprios se encarregam de emitir (=tirar fotocópias).
Quanto mais ouro (roubado à população no início do século 20) circular no mundo mais depressa ele recupera o seu valor monetário. Como dizia Lenine (sort of), os Banqueiros Centrais vão vender a corda com que vão ser enforcar. De assinalar é que o ouro movimenta-se na direcção do Médio Oriente e Ásia. O pêndulo da história segue o ouro.
Quanto mais ouro (roubado à população no início do século 20) circular no mundo mais depressa ele recupera o seu valor monetário. Como dizia Lenine (sort of), os Banqueiros Centrais vão vender a corda com que vão ser enforcar. De assinalar é que o ouro movimenta-se na direcção do Médio Oriente e Ásia. O pêndulo da história segue o ouro.
quarta-feira, 2 de abril de 2008
O Humanitário com a Guilhotina
O Humanitário com a Guilhotina, texto adaptado e traduzido por Miguel Botelho Moniz a partir do original de Isabel Paterson, incluído no seu livro The God of The Machine, editado em 1943.
A maior parte do mal no mundo é feito por boas pessoas, e sem ser por acidente, lapso ou omissão. É o resultado das suas acções deliberadas, persistentes ao longo do tempo, e por si vistas como motivadas por altos ideais e objectivos virtuosos. Isto é demonstravelmente verdadeiro; e nem podia ser de outra forma. A percentagem de pessoas realmente malignas, violentas ou depravadas tem de ser pequena, pois nenhuma espécie sobreviveria se os seus membros habitual e conscientemente se ferissem uns aos outros, por sistema. A destruição é tão fácil que mesmo uma minoria persistente mal-intencionada poderia exterminar em pouco tempo a maioria inocente de pessoas tendencialmente boas. Homicídio, roubo, pilhagem e destruição são facilmente cometíveis por todos os indivíduos em qualquer altura. Se assumirmos que estes são inibidos apenas por medo ou pela força, que temerão eles, ou quem usaria de força contra eles se todos os indivíduos tivessem as mesmas inclinações? Se calculássemos todo o mal cometido por criminosos deliberados, o número de homicídios, a extensão de estragos e perdas, este seria certamente negligenciável comparado com a totalidade de morte e devastação causada a seres humanos pela sua própria espécie. Por conseguinte, é óbvio que em periodos quando milhões são exterminados, a tortura é praticada, a fome forçada, a opressão tornada política, como presentemente em grande parte do mundo, e como ocorreu frequentemente no passado, tal só é possível com a vontade de muito boa gente, mesmo com a sua acção directa, no que consideram objectivos virtuosos. Quando não são os executantes imediatos, dão publicamente a sua aprovação, elaborando justificações ou então escondendo factos com silêncio, e desencorajando a discussão.
Pergunta que me parece lógica
Se existe uma crise de liquidez no sistema financeiro isso não deveria querer dizer que os Bancos Centrais deveriam aumentar os requisitos de reservas, incluindo a relação entre créditos a longo prazo e financiamento a curto prazo?
nota: os requesitos de reservas definem o valor de valores monetários detidos pelos Bancos em relação aos depósitos (DO, depósito a prazo,etc).
PS. Curiosamente a solução da reputda economista Teodora Cardoso no seu artifo "Regulação versus mercado" (negócios .pt) é ... :
"Suspender a aplicação do mark to market está, por isso, a tornar-se numa necessidade imperiosa"
Se não o tivesse lido não acreditava.
PS2 Como se sabe, os Bancos são entidades que dizem ter a guarda de "depósitos à ordem" que na verdade não têm. Essa antes era uma prática juridicamente fraudulenta (e que conduzia às "corridas aos bancos") mas que depois foi institucionalizada pelo Estado (esse garante do Direito...).
nota: os requesitos de reservas definem o valor de valores monetários detidos pelos Bancos em relação aos depósitos (DO, depósito a prazo,etc).
PS. Curiosamente a solução da reputda economista Teodora Cardoso no seu artifo "Regulação versus mercado" (negócios .pt) é ... :
"Suspender a aplicação do mark to market está, por isso, a tornar-se numa necessidade imperiosa"
Se não o tivesse lido não acreditava.
PS2 Como se sabe, os Bancos são entidades que dizem ter a guarda de "depósitos à ordem" que na verdade não têm. Essa antes era uma prática juridicamente fraudulenta (e que conduzia às "corridas aos bancos") mas que depois foi institucionalizada pelo Estado (esse garante do Direito...).
segunda-feira, 31 de março de 2008
Problemas com moeda
Edmund Burke (em tónica um tanto ou quanto...): " [The English revolutionaries] were not like Jew brokers, contending with each other who could best remedy with fraudulent circulation and depreciated paper the wretchedness and ruin brought on their country by their degenerate councils." [não confirmei esta citação, só a encontrei http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/vw268.htm
Sobre as mudanças regulatórias pós-crise de que são co-responsáveis
* "This amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic—the sort of gesture that one expects of government when faced with a crisis. When in doubt, play around with organizational charts. (...)
The big investment bankes, who profit from Fed policies, and are the first to get bailed out, are the real villains in this drama, and yet no Republican (and certainly not Hillary, whose campaign contributions from this crowd ensure her silence) is going to say this out loud. The real roots of the problem are the inflationary policies of Greenspan-Bernanke, who put the peddle to the metal during the days of “prosperity”—in short, Ron Paul was (and is) right. But a Republican administration would rather nationalize the banking sector than admit that. "Justin Raimundo
* "Resolver os sintomas do passado
Publicado por JoaoMiranda [via Blasfémias] em 31 Março, 2008
Duas notícias da manhã aparentemente não relacionadas:
A DREN deu ordens para tolerância zero aos telemóveis no Carolina Michaelis.
A regulamentação bancária nos EUA vai ser modificada para dar ao FED mais poder sobre as instituições bancárias.
Estas notícias têm alguns pontos em comum:
1. Tenta-se corrigir o sintoma e não a causa do problema.
2. A instituição que foi a principal responsável pelo problema ganhou poder.
3. Ficamos muito mais preparados para os sintomas do passado e continuamos impreparados para os sintomas do futuro."
The big investment bankes, who profit from Fed policies, and are the first to get bailed out, are the real villains in this drama, and yet no Republican (and certainly not Hillary, whose campaign contributions from this crowd ensure her silence) is going to say this out loud. The real roots of the problem are the inflationary policies of Greenspan-Bernanke, who put the peddle to the metal during the days of “prosperity”—in short, Ron Paul was (and is) right. But a Republican administration would rather nationalize the banking sector than admit that. "Justin Raimundo
* "Resolver os sintomas do passado
Publicado por JoaoMiranda [via Blasfémias] em 31 Março, 2008
Duas notícias da manhã aparentemente não relacionadas:
A DREN deu ordens para tolerância zero aos telemóveis no Carolina Michaelis.
A regulamentação bancária nos EUA vai ser modificada para dar ao FED mais poder sobre as instituições bancárias.
Estas notícias têm alguns pontos em comum:
1. Tenta-se corrigir o sintoma e não a causa do problema.
2. A instituição que foi a principal responsável pelo problema ganhou poder.
3. Ficamos muito mais preparados para os sintomas do passado e continuamos impreparados para os sintomas do futuro."
quinta-feira, 27 de março de 2008
Transparência nos mercados, dizem eles
"The Fed, for the first time, agreed on March 16 to let big investment houses temporarily get emergency loans directly from the central bank. This mechanism, similar to one available for commercial banks for years, will continue for at least six months. It was the broadest use of the Fed's lending authority since the 1930s.
(
...) The Fed does not release the identity of the borrowers using the facility."
E então a obrigação (imposta por reguladores e as suas teorias sobre "informação perfeita" acessível a todos simultâneamente - uma nova geração de igualitarismo) das empresas cotadas em informar o mercado sobre "Factos Relevantes"?
E os que dizem que um dos problemas é a falta de transparência?
(
...) The Fed does not release the identity of the borrowers using the facility."
E então a obrigação (imposta por reguladores e as suas teorias sobre "informação perfeita" acessível a todos simultâneamente - uma nova geração de igualitarismo) das empresas cotadas em informar o mercado sobre "Factos Relevantes"?
E os que dizem que um dos problemas é a falta de transparência?
Monopólios?
"To those who are still tempted to make the number of pro ducers in any field the test of competitive merit, we might ask (setting aside the problem of proving homogeneity): How can the market create sufficient numbers? If Crusoe exchanges fish for Friday’s lumber on their desert island, are they both benefiting, or are they “bilateral monopolists” exploiting each other and charging each other monopoly prices? But if the State is not justi fied in marching in to arrest Crusoe and/or Friday, how can it be justified in coercing a market where there are obviously many more competitors?" Murray N. Rothbard
terça-feira, 25 de março de 2008
História
http://www.libertymaven.com/
Liberty: The American Revolution from PBS [Video]
This is a six part series (each part is just under 1 hour long) from PBS that covers the 25 years surrounding the American Revolution. It is an excellent use of some free time, if you have any.
Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…51196414323436
Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…45627130631491
Part 3: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…22546684391794
Part 4: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…65465027527206
Part 5: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…21666647804785
Part 6: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…50897330746009
Liberty: The American Revolution from PBS [Video]
This is a six part series (each part is just under 1 hour long) from PBS that covers the 25 years surrounding the American Revolution. It is an excellent use of some free time, if you have any.
Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…51196414323436
Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…45627130631491
Part 3: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…22546684391794
Part 4: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…65465027527206
Part 5: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…21666647804785
Part 6: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…50897330746009
Depósitos e Crédito: Na verdade, uma e outra são (quase) a mesma a coisa
Jornal de Negócios: Depósitos voltam a aumentar para níveis recorde
"As famílias portuguesas estão a colocar cada vez mais dinheiro no banco, com os montantes dos depósitos a atingirem um novo recorde em Janeiro. Contudo, continuam também a pedir mais empréstimos, com o montante de crédito concedido a registar o nível mais elevado de sempre. Um crescimento acompanhado pelo crédito malparado."
Nota: Se o crédito pode ser concedido por criação de moeda, quando um novo crédito é aberto, o Banco simplesmente abre um depósito na conta do devedor.
E assim, crédito = depósitos.
"As famílias portuguesas estão a colocar cada vez mais dinheiro no banco, com os montantes dos depósitos a atingirem um novo recorde em Janeiro. Contudo, continuam também a pedir mais empréstimos, com o montante de crédito concedido a registar o nível mais elevado de sempre. Um crescimento acompanhado pelo crédito malparado."
Nota: Se o crédito pode ser concedido por criação de moeda, quando um novo crédito é aberto, o Banco simplesmente abre um depósito na conta do devedor.
E assim, crédito = depósitos.
domingo, 23 de março de 2008
1913 - o FED é criado
"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." -- Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
PS: Bem, só demorou 16 anos para criarem a Grande Depressão.
PS2: Charles A. Lindbergh Sr foi o congressista que liderou a oposição à entrada dos EUA na Primeira Guerra Mundial.
E Charles A. Lindbergh Jr, seu filho, depois um honesto opositor de Roosevelt e para sempre smeared, tinha uma tradição de família a seguir - a de ir contra a maré do "war buildup". Philip Roth fez o favor de produzir uma fantasia usando personagens reais como o que usa como vice-presidente na sua trama. E com que cuidado?
"The smear continues to this day. Take for example Phillip "Portnoy's Complaint" Roth's recent fantasy novel "The Plot Against America" painting a fascist alternative history under an imagined 1940 President Charles Lindbergh Junior with Burton K Wheeler as vice-president in an anti-semitic America. As wikipedia reports "Roth depicts Wheeler imposing marital law in Lindbergh's absence, whereas the real Wheeler had been a leading opponent of the martial law imposed in Montana during World War I. Author Bill Kaufman describes Wheeler as being, in fact an "anti-draft, antiwar, anti-big business defender of civil liberties"" . Wheeler, who ran for Montana Governor in 1920, on a ticket that included an African American and a Blackfoot Indian makes for an unlikely nazi. "
Enfim...
PS: Bem, só demorou 16 anos para criarem a Grande Depressão.
PS2: Charles A. Lindbergh Sr foi o congressista que liderou a oposição à entrada dos EUA na Primeira Guerra Mundial.
E Charles A. Lindbergh Jr, seu filho, depois um honesto opositor de Roosevelt e para sempre smeared, tinha uma tradição de família a seguir - a de ir contra a maré do "war buildup". Philip Roth fez o favor de produzir uma fantasia usando personagens reais como o que usa como vice-presidente na sua trama. E com que cuidado?
"The smear continues to this day. Take for example Phillip "Portnoy's Complaint" Roth's recent fantasy novel "The Plot Against America" painting a fascist alternative history under an imagined 1940 President Charles Lindbergh Junior with Burton K Wheeler as vice-president in an anti-semitic America. As wikipedia reports "Roth depicts Wheeler imposing marital law in Lindbergh's absence, whereas the real Wheeler had been a leading opponent of the martial law imposed in Montana during World War I. Author Bill Kaufman describes Wheeler as being, in fact an "anti-draft, antiwar, anti-big business defender of civil liberties"" . Wheeler, who ran for Montana Governor in 1920, on a ticket that included an African American and a Blackfoot Indian makes for an unlikely nazi. "
Enfim...
sexta-feira, 21 de março de 2008
Leituras recomendadas
«Escola Austríaca»: individualismo e subjectivismo metodológicos nas ciências sociais. Por Luís Aguiar Santos.
O post sobre custo de oportunidade. Por Diogo Costa.
Cluelessness. Por Miguel Botelho Moniz.
O post sobre custo de oportunidade. Por Diogo Costa.
Cluelessness. Por Miguel Botelho Moniz.
quarta-feira, 12 de março de 2008
Não é por nada, mas parece que os hetero e homo discriminam
... e os bisexuais não. Assim, quer o sexo consentido gratuito quer a prostituição (sexo consentido a título oneroso) tem de passar a ser bisexual.
ASSEMBLEIA DA REPÚBLICA Lei n.º 14/2008 de 12 de Março
Proíbe e sanciona a discriminação em função do sexo no acesso a
bens e serviços e seu fornecimento, transpondo para a ordem
jurídica interna a Directiva n.º 2004/113/CE, do Conselho, de
13 de Dezembro.
A Assembleia da República decreta, nos termos da
alínea c) do artigo 161.º da Constituição, o seguinte:
Artigo 1.º
Objecto
A presente lei tem por objecto prevenir e proibir a discriminação,
directa e indirecta, em função do sexo, no
acesso a bens e serviços e seu fornecimento e sancionar a
prática de actos que se traduzam na violação do princípio
da igualdade de tratamento entre homens e mulheres.
(...)
Artigo 2.º
Âmbito
1 — A presente lei aplica -se às entidades públicas e
privadas que forneçam bens e prestem serviços disponíveis
ao público a título gratuito ou oneroso.(...)
Definições
Para efeito desta lei, consideram -se:
a) «Discriminação directa» todas as situações em
que, em função do sexo, uma pessoa seja sujeita a tratamento
menos favorável do que aquele que é, tenha
sido ou possa vir a ser dado a outra pessoa em situação
comparável;
b) «Discriminação indirecta» sempre que uma disposição,
critério ou prática aparentemente neutra coloque
pessoas de um dado sexo numa situação de desvantagem
comparativamente com pessoas do outro sexo, a não ser
que essa disposição, critério ou prática objectivamente
se justifique por um fim legítimo e que os meios para o
alcançar sejam adequados e necessários;"
(...)"
terça-feira, 11 de março de 2008
Mitos: o consumo estimula a economia
"Constâncio: redução de impostos não iria estimular a economia mas aumentar a poupança "
Socialismo Monetário
Nota: Os Bancos Centrais a financiar directamente o crédito à habitação por pura criação monetária .... para ajudar os grandes-bancos-too-big-to-fall na sua crise de liquidez.
Fed to Auction as Much as $200 Bln in Treasuries, Boosts Swaps
March 11 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve will hold auctions to lend as much as $200 billion in Treasury securities and increase swap lines with two foreign central banks to try to ease renewed turmoil in credit markets.
The Fed said in a statement it is establishing a new Term Securities Lending Facility to, through weekly auctions, lend as much as $200 billion of Treasuries to primary dealers for 28 days, instead of overnight as it currently does. The loans may be secured by collateral including agency and private mortgage- backed securities, the Fed said.
The Federal Open Market Committee also authorized increasing currency swap lines with the European Central Bank and Swiss National Bank to $30 billion and $6 billion, respectively, increasing the ECB's line by $10 billion and the Swiss line by $2 billion."
Fed to Auction as Much as $200 Bln in Treasuries, Boosts Swaps
March 11 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve will hold auctions to lend as much as $200 billion in Treasury securities and increase swap lines with two foreign central banks to try to ease renewed turmoil in credit markets.
The Fed said in a statement it is establishing a new Term Securities Lending Facility to, through weekly auctions, lend as much as $200 billion of Treasuries to primary dealers for 28 days, instead of overnight as it currently does. The loans may be secured by collateral including agency and private mortgage- backed securities, the Fed said.
The Federal Open Market Committee also authorized increasing currency swap lines with the European Central Bank and Swiss National Bank to $30 billion and $6 billion, respectively, increasing the ECB's line by $10 billion and the Swiss line by $2 billion."
Inflation Watch
"Money Supply Watch
The fuel that is causing accelerating price inflation in the U.S. continues to climb. The latest money supply numbers from the Fed's H.6 release show money supply (M2)growth over the last 3 months at a 6.5% annualized rate, an extremely fast rate. This growth compares with an annualized growth rate of 5.8% over the last 12 months."
Tribe, Class, and Murder
John Zmirak: "Which is why multicultural states are tricky balancing acts, which lately tend to collapse. They especially tend to fall apart when modernity has broken down basic units such as the family, transformed people in communities into individuals facing the State. Cosmopolitanism gets even hard with the rise of democracy, with its fiction of popular sovereignty, and unlimited claims to dispose of private property as the majority sees fit. Once property is politicized—as always happens in centralized democracies—it only makes sense to fight for your share of the loot. "
segunda-feira, 10 de março de 2008
John Galt Plan Might Save U.S. Financial System
Caroline Baum, Bloomberg.com: "(..) The following day, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke encouraged mortgage servicers to write down a portion of the principal on home loans, which would give owners some equity and discourage foreclosure. He advocated a bigger role for the Federal Housing Administration, a Depression-era agency that insures mortgages. Congress envisions an even larger role for the federal government.
Any day, I expect some government official to unveil the John Galt plan to save the economy.
Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand's magnum opus ``Atlas Shrugged,'' stops the world by going on strike. He and the ``men of the mind'' literally withdraw from the world after watching their wealth confiscated by the looters (the government).
Toward the end of Rand's 1,000-plus page novel (or polemic), the economy is in shambles. Desperate, the looters kidnap Galt and prod him to ``tell us what to do.''
Galt refuses, or rather tells them ``to get out of the way.''
Road Is Cleared
You probably can sense where I'm going. Today's economic and financial crisis would resolve itself more quickly and efficiently if the government got out of the way. Yes, there would be pain. Some banks would fail. Others would clamp down on credit to atone for the years of lax lending standards. Homeowners-in-name-only would become renters. Housing prices would fall until speculators found value.
That's not going to happen. The bigger the mess, the more urgent the calls for a government solution, the more willing government is to oblige.
We want laissez-faire capitalism in good times and a government backstop against losses in bad times. It's a tough way to run an economy.
(Caroline Baum, author of ``Just What I Said,'' is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
sexta-feira, 7 de março de 2008
Best WFB R.I.P.
Taki Theodoracopulos:
"Gstaad is a very chic place and, alas, getting chicer by the minute as the nouveaux riche Russians and oily kleptocratic Arabs are closing in. Thinking about the way our alpine village used to be, I’m reminded of the time I spent here with Bill Buckley and what he represented when he came on the American political scene—a fresh voice full of promise, and an educated and cultured one at that.
I’ve written a memoir of Bill for National Review that is better than the one I did for my own web site. That is understandable. Rich Lowry asked me to do it, and I was flattered. NR gave me my start, and however much I feel betrayed by the way things have gone, Bill was Bill. And NR is NR.
When my father’s best friend faked his X-rays and avoided going to the front in 1940, my grandfather happened to be chief justice of the Greek Supreme Court. My dad’s friend was caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced to die the next day for draft evasion, the reason being he was a “have,” and while farm boys were dying at the front against the Italians, there was no way one of “us” could have been spared. By a superhuman effort, the wife of the condemned managed to reach my father fighting at the Albanian front, and he—however unbelievable it seems—managed to get a message to my grandfather to stay the execution. I was four years old and remember my mother begging her father for a reprieve. But what I will never forget is when she reported to me of what my grandfather had told her: “Noblesse Oblige—if he were a poor boy, I would understand. But when the time comes for those of us who are privileged, there can be no excuse.” He was shot at dawn. His children and grandchildren are friends of mine, and we don’t talk about it.
What does this have to do with Bill? He made a mistake. He honestly believed that the Podhoretzes and Kristols of this world would help make conservatism mainstream. On my boat in the summer of 2005, he told me that he regretted having backed the war. I did not push it. “May I quote you,” I asked him. Of course you can, he answered. But the Podhoretzes of this world do not forgive. I heard that Norman Podhoretz attacked Bill for not staying the course. My dad’s friend’s family never held it against us when my grandfather refused to save their father. Neocons are of a different breed. They are haters, and they do not forgive.
I write this under the weather, having just received a wonderful e-mail from a rosey School master and his wife who had met Bill and who are upset about the rude remarks on this web site about him. “Such are the joys of public life,” I answered them. They wish to hold a service for him here in Gstaad, and they are the real thing: true Americans. Religious, patriotic, kind, hard working—the types neocons take for granted. I will hold a service for Bill here in the Mecca of the rich, but I will also speak about how he lost his way listening to the siren songs of the Podhoretzes and Kristols. In Dante’s Inferno the 9th circle is reserved for traitors. There is no circle for the misguided like him. "
"Gstaad is a very chic place and, alas, getting chicer by the minute as the nouveaux riche Russians and oily kleptocratic Arabs are closing in. Thinking about the way our alpine village used to be, I’m reminded of the time I spent here with Bill Buckley and what he represented when he came on the American political scene—a fresh voice full of promise, and an educated and cultured one at that.
I’ve written a memoir of Bill for National Review that is better than the one I did for my own web site. That is understandable. Rich Lowry asked me to do it, and I was flattered. NR gave me my start, and however much I feel betrayed by the way things have gone, Bill was Bill. And NR is NR.
When my father’s best friend faked his X-rays and avoided going to the front in 1940, my grandfather happened to be chief justice of the Greek Supreme Court. My dad’s friend was caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced to die the next day for draft evasion, the reason being he was a “have,” and while farm boys were dying at the front against the Italians, there was no way one of “us” could have been spared. By a superhuman effort, the wife of the condemned managed to reach my father fighting at the Albanian front, and he—however unbelievable it seems—managed to get a message to my grandfather to stay the execution. I was four years old and remember my mother begging her father for a reprieve. But what I will never forget is when she reported to me of what my grandfather had told her: “Noblesse Oblige—if he were a poor boy, I would understand. But when the time comes for those of us who are privileged, there can be no excuse.” He was shot at dawn. His children and grandchildren are friends of mine, and we don’t talk about it.
What does this have to do with Bill? He made a mistake. He honestly believed that the Podhoretzes and Kristols of this world would help make conservatism mainstream. On my boat in the summer of 2005, he told me that he regretted having backed the war. I did not push it. “May I quote you,” I asked him. Of course you can, he answered. But the Podhoretzes of this world do not forgive. I heard that Norman Podhoretz attacked Bill for not staying the course. My dad’s friend’s family never held it against us when my grandfather refused to save their father. Neocons are of a different breed. They are haters, and they do not forgive.
I write this under the weather, having just received a wonderful e-mail from a rosey School master and his wife who had met Bill and who are upset about the rude remarks on this web site about him. “Such are the joys of public life,” I answered them. They wish to hold a service for him here in Gstaad, and they are the real thing: true Americans. Religious, patriotic, kind, hard working—the types neocons take for granted. I will hold a service for Bill here in the Mecca of the rich, but I will also speak about how he lost his way listening to the siren songs of the Podhoretzes and Kristols. In Dante’s Inferno the 9th circle is reserved for traitors. There is no circle for the misguided like him. "
quinta-feira, 6 de março de 2008
Além da dimensão do défice
Suave mal-estar e despedida. Por José Manuel Moreira.
Como se explica que, ao contrário de outros da Sedes, este tenha “pegado” logo e tão bem?
Terá sido por oferecer uma boa descrição do mal-estar, recheada de discretas doses de ambiguidade nas suas raízes? Não terá sido isso que permitiu tanto aplauso ao mal-estar, tão pouca clareza nas alternativas – de que, afinal, depende a confiança – e tanta liberdade nas considerações?
(...)
Não será tempo de, além da dimensão do défice, se prestar atenção à forma como os gastos governamentais contribuem – da criminalidade à educação – para fomentar os males que se propõem combater? De se deixar de confundir princípios com expedientes, causas morais com sociais? De descobrir quanto o mal-estar difuso, que alastra e degrada a confiança, é inseparável da pedagogia do facilitismo, de que tudo se consegue sem custo? De questionar uma cultura de direitos sem deveres, que incentivou o sequestro legal dos cidadãos por políticas suavemente criminosas e, com o tempo, a multiplicação de crimes comuns e de comportamentos anti-sociais?
O actual sistema monetário: quem beneficia e o que fazer
Todos os Bancos Centrais representam uma união de interesses entre o Estado (para o financiamento dos déficits), a banca (para terem acesso à capacidade de criação de dinheiro para conceder crédito sem ter de pagar o preço real pela captação de poupança aos pequenos e médios aforradores) e os grandes utilizadores de crédito (beneficiam em primeira ordem das novas quantidades de dinheiro para o aplicar a preços que não reflectem a nova relação entre quantidade de moeda e bens).
Os economistas fazem parte do pacote (generalizando) porque vão trabalhar para o Estado-Bancos-Empresas e o mundo académico onde propagam uma completa falsidade científica - a que a economia funciona melhor (argumento utilitário) ao quebrar-se a ligação entre a poupança voluntária e o investimento (e ignorando por completo o argumento ético do efeito redistributivo da desvalorização permanente da moeda para beneficiar o complexo Estado-Banca-Grandes-Devedores).
Perguntem-se como é que certos raiders de bolsa (cuja função económica é importante e existiria de qualquer forma) constroem fortunas com o recurso ao crédito? Porque num ciclo de expansão, o crédito é mais abundante e barato do que o seria num “sistema natural” (reservas de 100% ou se quisermos, liberdade monetária - esta daria lugar àquela), tendo assim acesso facilitado a elevadas quantidades de moeda e comprando activos a preços que não reflectem ainda a desvalorização induzida pelas novas quantidades de dinheiro colocadas na economia.
O segredo é perceber estes ciclos, entrando na melhor altura e saindo antes de a bolha rebentar. Na verdade, um bom timing permite depois do rebentamento da bolha, comprar aquilo (ou outra coisa qualquer) que se vendeu no topo (auferindo um lucro puro facilitado pelo acesso fácil ao crédito via criação monetária pelo sistema bancário) a preços extremamente deprimidos dada a crise económica – que na verdade representa o processo de cura e não a doença, reequilibrando o valor do investimento à poupança realmente existente. Relação essa que é quebrada quando se permite que o investimento tenha ligar com o recurso a pura criação monetária em vez de este “ter” de convencer a poupança existente a financiá-lo (o que significa ter de pagar o preço – taxa de juro – justo). O que é que o sistema incentiva? O recurso ao endividamento por comparação ao capital próprio, já que moeda e crédito passam a ser a mesma coisa (tal como nos Bancos Centrais, a moeda que emitem tem como colateral o crédito ao Estado e à Banca).
A velha memória de poupar e "guardar o dinheiro em casa", retendo assim a capacidade de independência do sistema financeiro, desvanece-se. Antes, dada a contínua valorização do dinheiro (ou seja, descida dos preços) era possível deter pelo menos parte da poupança “em casa” auferindo de um juro sem juro conferido pela contínua descida de preços (ou no mínimo a retenção da poder aquisitivo dessa poupança).
Hoje, com a contínua desvalorização da moeda, só para reter o valor da poupança somos obrigados a conceder crédito aos Bancos (“depósitos” à ordem e depósitos a prazo). E o sistema financeiro adora isso. Os economistas pensam que é a forma (subtilmente compulsória) de existir mais crédito e por isso mais investimento. Mas ainda que exista um factor real de poupança forçada, mais uma vez, é possível realçar negativamente o efeito redistributivo de muitos a favor de poucos, assim como a evidência dos permanentes ciclos económicos que aumentam a incerteza mais do que o risco em si.
E assim, para não sermos ainda mais prejudicados com o sistema, é racional recorrer ao crédito, principalmente nos primeiros estágios de um ciclo de expansão. Tentemos também auferir da situação de facto.
Mas como no fim, tudo se paga, o melhor é limitar o crédito à casa e amealhar ouro físico (ex: libras de ouro) como poupança e protecção, e sim, investir também no mercado de capitais que apesar do sistema monetário, e não por causa do sistema monetário, consegue ir cumprindo a sua função económica.
Os economistas fazem parte do pacote (generalizando) porque vão trabalhar para o Estado-Bancos-Empresas e o mundo académico onde propagam uma completa falsidade científica - a que a economia funciona melhor (argumento utilitário) ao quebrar-se a ligação entre a poupança voluntária e o investimento (e ignorando por completo o argumento ético do efeito redistributivo da desvalorização permanente da moeda para beneficiar o complexo Estado-Banca-Grandes-Devedores).
Perguntem-se como é que certos raiders de bolsa (cuja função económica é importante e existiria de qualquer forma) constroem fortunas com o recurso ao crédito? Porque num ciclo de expansão, o crédito é mais abundante e barato do que o seria num “sistema natural” (reservas de 100% ou se quisermos, liberdade monetária - esta daria lugar àquela), tendo assim acesso facilitado a elevadas quantidades de moeda e comprando activos a preços que não reflectem ainda a desvalorização induzida pelas novas quantidades de dinheiro colocadas na economia.
O segredo é perceber estes ciclos, entrando na melhor altura e saindo antes de a bolha rebentar. Na verdade, um bom timing permite depois do rebentamento da bolha, comprar aquilo (ou outra coisa qualquer) que se vendeu no topo (auferindo um lucro puro facilitado pelo acesso fácil ao crédito via criação monetária pelo sistema bancário) a preços extremamente deprimidos dada a crise económica – que na verdade representa o processo de cura e não a doença, reequilibrando o valor do investimento à poupança realmente existente. Relação essa que é quebrada quando se permite que o investimento tenha ligar com o recurso a pura criação monetária em vez de este “ter” de convencer a poupança existente a financiá-lo (o que significa ter de pagar o preço – taxa de juro – justo). O que é que o sistema incentiva? O recurso ao endividamento por comparação ao capital próprio, já que moeda e crédito passam a ser a mesma coisa (tal como nos Bancos Centrais, a moeda que emitem tem como colateral o crédito ao Estado e à Banca).
A velha memória de poupar e "guardar o dinheiro em casa", retendo assim a capacidade de independência do sistema financeiro, desvanece-se. Antes, dada a contínua valorização do dinheiro (ou seja, descida dos preços) era possível deter pelo menos parte da poupança “em casa” auferindo de um juro sem juro conferido pela contínua descida de preços (ou no mínimo a retenção da poder aquisitivo dessa poupança).
Hoje, com a contínua desvalorização da moeda, só para reter o valor da poupança somos obrigados a conceder crédito aos Bancos (“depósitos” à ordem e depósitos a prazo). E o sistema financeiro adora isso. Os economistas pensam que é a forma (subtilmente compulsória) de existir mais crédito e por isso mais investimento. Mas ainda que exista um factor real de poupança forçada, mais uma vez, é possível realçar negativamente o efeito redistributivo de muitos a favor de poucos, assim como a evidência dos permanentes ciclos económicos que aumentam a incerteza mais do que o risco em si.
E assim, para não sermos ainda mais prejudicados com o sistema, é racional recorrer ao crédito, principalmente nos primeiros estágios de um ciclo de expansão. Tentemos também auferir da situação de facto.
Mas como no fim, tudo se paga, o melhor é limitar o crédito à casa e amealhar ouro físico (ex: libras de ouro) como poupança e protecção, e sim, investir também no mercado de capitais que apesar do sistema monetário, e não por causa do sistema monetário, consegue ir cumprindo a sua função económica.
quarta-feira, 5 de março de 2008
Piadas económicas
Três empresários na cadeia trocam comentários sobre o seu infortúnio.
Diz um: "Eu cobrava os preços mais caros e acusaram-me de ser monopolista"
Diz o outro: " Eu cobrava o preço mais barato e acusaram-me de "dumping""
O terceiro: "Eu cobrava exactamente o mesmo que todos os outros e acusaram-me de concertação".
(Via Walter Block)
Diz um: "Eu cobrava os preços mais caros e acusaram-me de ser monopolista"
Diz o outro: " Eu cobrava o preço mais barato e acusaram-me de "dumping""
O terceiro: "Eu cobrava exactamente o mesmo que todos os outros e acusaram-me de concertação".
(Via Walter Block)
Sobre o ataque à concorrência fiscal e soberania dos Estados
Ou: Proibam e façam o que quiser no seu país e com os seus próprios cidadãos mas não invadam a soberania dos outros (a não ser que queriam promover a total anomia e desordem internacional).
Europe's Tiny Tax Havens Should Be Left in Peace: Matthew Lynn (Bloomberg) --
(...) Not cooperating in Germany's investigation ofalleged tax evaders. The tussle between Germany and Liechtenstein is just theoverture to a wider battle between the big European nations andthe tiny low-tax principalities. Next up: Monaco and Andorra. And yet, the attacks are completely unfair.
(...) It started when German investigators paid 5 million euros ($7.6 million) to aformer employee of the Liechtenstein bank LGT Group for computerdisks containing the names of people holding accounts there. (...)
You can see why the tax havens are an irritation for the big European governments. In a world of increasing mobility, andbetter communication links, it has become easier for the wealthyto shift their base to a more tax-friendly environment.
Half theBritish corporate establishment seems to be based in Monaco thesedays. Plenty of Germans appear to be storing money away in Liechtenstein. ``Liechtenstein is a clear example of a pirate state,'' saidJohn Christensen, director of the Brussels-based Tax JusticeNetwork, a research group that promotes awareness about offshorefinance. ``
(...) And yet, Liechtenstein and Monaco have no obligation toprovide a list of foreign investors to German, French or British tax authorities, as long as money laundering and terrorism aren't suspected. Here's why such demands are contradictory.
Two Wrongs First, how can the German government justify paying HeinrichKieber, the former LGT Group employee, for details of privateaccounts, then sell the stolen property around the world? Itdoesn't matter if the disks revealed tax evasion, which,incidentally, has yet to be proven. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Presumably the German, U.K., French or Swedishgovernments, which bought the data, will have no objections if anEU member state starts stealing information from their banks.
Next, while they may not be full-blown nations, these are sovereign entities. Germany has a right to set whatever laws itlikes for people living in Germany. If it wants to ban its citizens from holding accounts -- or setting up trusts andfoundations -- in other countries, it can do so (and deal withthe flight of people and capital). But it can't harass other countries into changing their practices. If people invest in low-tax countries or in legal structures such as foundations, their tax liability is their business, not the responsibility of the host nation. For most legitimate investors, low-tax principalities provide a useful alternative tot he high-tax, big-government consensus that suffocates much ofEurope.
Unfair Competition Lastly, it is ludicrous to say that this kind of tax``competition'' is unfair. All competition is unfair. These aresmall nations entitled to make their living any way they want to. It is no more unfair than Germany's proficiency at making cars,or the French aptitude at making wine. Should the Germans shutdown their luxury-car industry because it makes life difficultfor auto workers in the rest of Europe? Of course not. So whyshould Liechtenstein close its financial-services industry? Naturally, tax havens should make sure they aren't harboringassets for criminals or terrorists. And yet, that is a redherring. Mounir el-Motassadeq, the only person to stand trialover the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the U.S., operated out ofHamburg, not Liechtenstein. One of the suspected hijackers usedaccounts in Florida, not Monaco. In reality, terrorists useeveryday banks because they attract less suspicion. Maybe the German government and others paying for stoleninformation should spend more time thinking about making theirown countries more attractive for its tax-paying citizens.
(Matthew Lynn is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Europe's Tiny Tax Havens Should Be Left in Peace: Matthew Lynn (Bloomberg) --
(...) Not cooperating in Germany's investigation ofalleged tax evaders. The tussle between Germany and Liechtenstein is just theoverture to a wider battle between the big European nations andthe tiny low-tax principalities. Next up: Monaco and Andorra. And yet, the attacks are completely unfair.
(...) It started when German investigators paid 5 million euros ($7.6 million) to aformer employee of the Liechtenstein bank LGT Group for computerdisks containing the names of people holding accounts there. (...)
You can see why the tax havens are an irritation for the big European governments. In a world of increasing mobility, andbetter communication links, it has become easier for the wealthyto shift their base to a more tax-friendly environment.
Half theBritish corporate establishment seems to be based in Monaco thesedays. Plenty of Germans appear to be storing money away in Liechtenstein. ``Liechtenstein is a clear example of a pirate state,'' saidJohn Christensen, director of the Brussels-based Tax JusticeNetwork, a research group that promotes awareness about offshorefinance. ``
(...) And yet, Liechtenstein and Monaco have no obligation toprovide a list of foreign investors to German, French or British tax authorities, as long as money laundering and terrorism aren't suspected. Here's why such demands are contradictory.
Two Wrongs First, how can the German government justify paying HeinrichKieber, the former LGT Group employee, for details of privateaccounts, then sell the stolen property around the world? Itdoesn't matter if the disks revealed tax evasion, which,incidentally, has yet to be proven. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Presumably the German, U.K., French or Swedishgovernments, which bought the data, will have no objections if anEU member state starts stealing information from their banks.
Next, while they may not be full-blown nations, these are sovereign entities. Germany has a right to set whatever laws itlikes for people living in Germany. If it wants to ban its citizens from holding accounts -- or setting up trusts andfoundations -- in other countries, it can do so (and deal withthe flight of people and capital). But it can't harass other countries into changing their practices. If people invest in low-tax countries or in legal structures such as foundations, their tax liability is their business, not the responsibility of the host nation. For most legitimate investors, low-tax principalities provide a useful alternative tot he high-tax, big-government consensus that suffocates much ofEurope.
Unfair Competition Lastly, it is ludicrous to say that this kind of tax``competition'' is unfair. All competition is unfair. These aresmall nations entitled to make their living any way they want to. It is no more unfair than Germany's proficiency at making cars,or the French aptitude at making wine. Should the Germans shutdown their luxury-car industry because it makes life difficultfor auto workers in the rest of Europe? Of course not. So whyshould Liechtenstein close its financial-services industry? Naturally, tax havens should make sure they aren't harboringassets for criminals or terrorists. And yet, that is a redherring. Mounir el-Motassadeq, the only person to stand trialover the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the U.S., operated out ofHamburg, not Liechtenstein. One of the suspected hijackers usedaccounts in Florida, not Monaco. In reality, terrorists useeveryday banks because they attract less suspicion. Maybe the German government and others paying for stoleninformation should spend more time thinking about making theirown countries more attractive for its tax-paying citizens.
(Matthew Lynn is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
terça-feira, 4 de março de 2008
Excelente artigo sobre a actuação recente do FED II
Nos comentários de um artigo do LvMI (Bennie and the Monetary Jets, Mark Thornton) decorre um debate interessante:
" (...) Even though TAF has added $60 billion to money supply, overall M1 continues to fall, as Shadow stats and Shedlock have pointed out.
How has this occurred? The $60 billion jump has been offset by a >$60 billion drop in the Fed's long term government bond portfolio, or SOMA. Historically, whenever a long term bond (2 year to 30 year) in the SOMA portfolio matured, the Fed simply rolled it over. The cash it had spent to buy that bond therefore stayed in the economy.
Since August or so the Fed has been redeeming SOMA's bonds, not rolling them over. The face value of the bond has been paid back to the Fed, the effect being that money is being withdrawn from the economy. The effect of redeeming bonds and withdrawing circulating cash outweighs TAF's influence on increasing the level of circulating cash. Overall M1 is decreasing.
The Fed's decision to roll over or redeem is a policy decision. Unlike open operations, it doesn't depend on the willingness of commercial banks to lend the money the Fed injects into the banking industry. I sort of agree with Shedlock on this one - the Fed seems to be following a policy of shrinking money supply.
At the same time, the TAF accepts a lot of questionable collateral (mortgage backed securities, comm paper, corp bonds and more). This change in the assets backing the dollar (from relatively safe government bonds to the above) can only hurt the purchasing power of the dollar, especially if the Fed is lax on monitoring what it is accepting as collateral."
" (...) Even though TAF has added $60 billion to money supply, overall M1 continues to fall, as Shadow stats and Shedlock have pointed out.
How has this occurred? The $60 billion jump has been offset by a >$60 billion drop in the Fed's long term government bond portfolio, or SOMA. Historically, whenever a long term bond (2 year to 30 year) in the SOMA portfolio matured, the Fed simply rolled it over. The cash it had spent to buy that bond therefore stayed in the economy.
Since August or so the Fed has been redeeming SOMA's bonds, not rolling them over. The face value of the bond has been paid back to the Fed, the effect being that money is being withdrawn from the economy. The effect of redeeming bonds and withdrawing circulating cash outweighs TAF's influence on increasing the level of circulating cash. Overall M1 is decreasing.
The Fed's decision to roll over or redeem is a policy decision. Unlike open operations, it doesn't depend on the willingness of commercial banks to lend the money the Fed injects into the banking industry. I sort of agree with Shedlock on this one - the Fed seems to be following a policy of shrinking money supply.
At the same time, the TAF accepts a lot of questionable collateral (mortgage backed securities, comm paper, corp bonds and more). This change in the assets backing the dollar (from relatively safe government bonds to the above) can only hurt the purchasing power of the dollar, especially if the Fed is lax on monitoring what it is accepting as collateral."
Excelente artigo sobre a actuação recente do FED
... e o seu novo mecanismo para "socorrer os bancos" com crédito por criação monetária ("injecção"): "Term Auction Facility"
Fed Isn't Getting Snookered by Collateral Risk: Caroline Baum2008-03-04 00:05 (New York)Commentary by Caroline Baum March 4 (Bloomberg) --
Ever since the Federal Reserve created a Term Auction Facility in December to ease the strainsin the interbank-lending market, the TAF has been a source ofagitation in certain conspiracy-prone circles. The thrust of that argument goes something like this: The Fed, which is first and foremost a counterfeiter, printing moneyat will, is now accepting low-quality collateral as security for28-day loans to banks whose anonymity is protected. In theprocess, the central bank assumes credit risk and lays it at thefeet of the U.S. taxpayer. Maybe it's time to take a look at some of the facts. The Fed had already taken steps in August to encouragebanks to borrow directly from its discount window, compressingthe spread of the discount rate over the federal funds rate to50 basis points from 100 and expanding both the type ofcollateral it would accept and the terms of the loans to 30days. No matter how nicely the Fed asked, banks were unwilling toincur the stigma associated with discount window borrowing,especially at a time when financial institutions were reportinglarge losses and any intimation of trouble could causedepositors to take flight. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke decided to respond to theliquidity crisis with, appropriately, added liquidity. (See``Federal Reserve'' and ``lender of last resort.'') That didn'tstop the yammering about the assumption of credit risk by the central bank. The misinformation surrounding the TAF has reached suchepic proportions, at least in my small world, that I decided tocompile my own version of frequently asked questions andanswers. Most of this information is publicly available on theFed's Web site -- in excruciating detail. But hey, never let thefacts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Q: What is the difference between the discount window and theTAF?
A: About 50 basis points, at least at the Feb. 25 TAF auction.The minimum bid at the auction is determined by the expected fedfunds rate over the term of the loan, which is 28 days. The Fed awarded $30 billion at 3.08 percent last week. Thediscount rate is 3.5 percent. (That rate doesn't include theimplied cost of any stigma that accrues to the borrower forgoing to the window.)
Q: What does a bank have to do to qualify for a loan from theFed?
A: Banks must be in sound financial condition to be eligiblefor so-called primary credit. They must file the necessarydocumentation, as set out in Operating Circular No. 10. And theyhave to pledge collateral in advance of a request for adiscount-window or TAF loan. Many depository institutions regularly post collateral withthe Fed in case they need backup funding when money markets aretight, loan demand spikes or depositors withdraw moneyunexpectedly. Since August, when the interbank market froze up,banks have increased the amount of collateral posted with theFed.
Q: What sort of securities and loans will be accepted ascollateral outside of the traditional U.S. Treasury and agencysecurities?
A: Corporate and municipal bonds, money-market instruments,asset-backed securities, collateralized-mortgage obligations andvarious consumer, commercial and industrial, agricultural,residential and commercial real-estate loans.
Q: How does the Fed determine how much to lend against thesecurities and loans it accepts as collateral?
A: A table of recommended margins for various types ofcollateral is posted on the Fed's Web site. The Fed lends only apercentage of the market value of the collateral, with the``haircut'' ranging from 2 percent on short-term, top-qualityTreasuries (in other words, the lendable value of a two-yearTreasury note is 98 percent) to 40 percent for certain types ofconsumer loans.
Q: Some of the collateral the Fed is accepting is exactly whatgot the banks into trouble. Why will the Fed do a better job ofmanaging risk when it missed the bad-loan problems at banks itregulates?
A: The discount-window officers at the 12 Federal ReserveDistrict Banks have discretion in determining both the fairvalue of the collateral and the required margin. If there is no market price for a given security and thediscount-window officers and/or bank-supervisory officials atthe Fed aren't confident about the value, they can impose abigger haircut. Alternatively, they can just say no. In the current environment, it's safe to say the Fed hasbeen erring on the side of too much rather than too littlecollateral.
Q: What happens if the value of the underlying collateraltakes a dive during the 28-day term of the loan?
A: The same thing that happens in the private sector: theborrower gets a margin call. If the value of the collateraldeteriorates, the Fed can consider other collateral in theborrower's pool as a backstop for the outstanding loan. Or theFed bank can immediately reduce the amount of the loan. The only thing fixed on a TAF loan is the rate. The Fedmonitors the collateral on a daily basis. Borrowers thatqualified for a loan can un-qualify quickly if the collateral is inadequate.
Q: So you're saying there's nothing to worry about?
A: There's plenty to worry about, including the collapse ofthe housing market, early signs of decay in commercial realestate, soaring commodity prices, an over-leveraged consumer,losses and potential capital impairment at financialinstitutions and an economy that's flat-lining. That's enough tokeep you up at night without tossing and turning over the Fed'sexposure to credit risk. (Caroline Baum, author of ``Just What I Said,'' is aBloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
Fed Isn't Getting Snookered by Collateral Risk: Caroline Baum2008-03-04 00:05 (New York)Commentary by Caroline Baum March 4 (Bloomberg) --
Ever since the Federal Reserve created a Term Auction Facility in December to ease the strainsin the interbank-lending market, the TAF has been a source ofagitation in certain conspiracy-prone circles. The thrust of that argument goes something like this: The Fed, which is first and foremost a counterfeiter, printing moneyat will, is now accepting low-quality collateral as security for28-day loans to banks whose anonymity is protected. In theprocess, the central bank assumes credit risk and lays it at thefeet of the U.S. taxpayer. Maybe it's time to take a look at some of the facts. The Fed had already taken steps in August to encouragebanks to borrow directly from its discount window, compressingthe spread of the discount rate over the federal funds rate to50 basis points from 100 and expanding both the type ofcollateral it would accept and the terms of the loans to 30days. No matter how nicely the Fed asked, banks were unwilling toincur the stigma associated with discount window borrowing,especially at a time when financial institutions were reportinglarge losses and any intimation of trouble could causedepositors to take flight. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke decided to respond to theliquidity crisis with, appropriately, added liquidity. (See``Federal Reserve'' and ``lender of last resort.'') That didn'tstop the yammering about the assumption of credit risk by the central bank. The misinformation surrounding the TAF has reached suchepic proportions, at least in my small world, that I decided tocompile my own version of frequently asked questions andanswers. Most of this information is publicly available on theFed's Web site -- in excruciating detail. But hey, never let thefacts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Q: What is the difference between the discount window and theTAF?
A: About 50 basis points, at least at the Feb. 25 TAF auction.The minimum bid at the auction is determined by the expected fedfunds rate over the term of the loan, which is 28 days. The Fed awarded $30 billion at 3.08 percent last week. Thediscount rate is 3.5 percent. (That rate doesn't include theimplied cost of any stigma that accrues to the borrower forgoing to the window.)
Q: What does a bank have to do to qualify for a loan from theFed?
A: Banks must be in sound financial condition to be eligiblefor so-called primary credit. They must file the necessarydocumentation, as set out in Operating Circular No. 10. And theyhave to pledge collateral in advance of a request for adiscount-window or TAF loan. Many depository institutions regularly post collateral withthe Fed in case they need backup funding when money markets aretight, loan demand spikes or depositors withdraw moneyunexpectedly. Since August, when the interbank market froze up,banks have increased the amount of collateral posted with theFed.
Q: What sort of securities and loans will be accepted ascollateral outside of the traditional U.S. Treasury and agencysecurities?
A: Corporate and municipal bonds, money-market instruments,asset-backed securities, collateralized-mortgage obligations andvarious consumer, commercial and industrial, agricultural,residential and commercial real-estate loans.
Q: How does the Fed determine how much to lend against thesecurities and loans it accepts as collateral?
A: A table of recommended margins for various types ofcollateral is posted on the Fed's Web site. The Fed lends only apercentage of the market value of the collateral, with the``haircut'' ranging from 2 percent on short-term, top-qualityTreasuries (in other words, the lendable value of a two-yearTreasury note is 98 percent) to 40 percent for certain types ofconsumer loans.
Q: Some of the collateral the Fed is accepting is exactly whatgot the banks into trouble. Why will the Fed do a better job ofmanaging risk when it missed the bad-loan problems at banks itregulates?
A: The discount-window officers at the 12 Federal ReserveDistrict Banks have discretion in determining both the fairvalue of the collateral and the required margin. If there is no market price for a given security and thediscount-window officers and/or bank-supervisory officials atthe Fed aren't confident about the value, they can impose abigger haircut. Alternatively, they can just say no. In the current environment, it's safe to say the Fed hasbeen erring on the side of too much rather than too littlecollateral.
Q: What happens if the value of the underlying collateraltakes a dive during the 28-day term of the loan?
A: The same thing that happens in the private sector: theborrower gets a margin call. If the value of the collateraldeteriorates, the Fed can consider other collateral in theborrower's pool as a backstop for the outstanding loan. Or theFed bank can immediately reduce the amount of the loan. The only thing fixed on a TAF loan is the rate. The Fedmonitors the collateral on a daily basis. Borrowers thatqualified for a loan can un-qualify quickly if the collateral is inadequate.
Q: So you're saying there's nothing to worry about?
A: There's plenty to worry about, including the collapse ofthe housing market, early signs of decay in commercial realestate, soaring commodity prices, an over-leveraged consumer,losses and potential capital impairment at financialinstitutions and an economy that's flat-lining. That's enough tokeep you up at night without tossing and turning over the Fed'sexposure to credit risk. (Caroline Baum, author of ``Just What I Said,'' is aBloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
domingo, 2 de março de 2008
William F. Buckley (2)
William F. Buckley Jr.-- R.I.P. Por Justin Raimondo.
His magazine, the National Review, was available in our Junior High School library—along with The New Republic, The Nation, and even American Opinion (!)—and I read it regularly, as soon as the new issue came in. Nurtured on Frank S. Meyer’s essays, and Buckley’s acerbic commentary, I was part and parcel of the Goldwater movement in my own small way, and I idolized the youthful and articulate Buckley, who often appeared on television. Here was an intellectual, who was, at the same time, a man of the Right: back then, an almost inconceivable phenomenon. Buckley, with his formidable erudition, and his ready wit, was a kind of intellectual father figure for me: although I never met him, he was a kind of model.
William F. Buckley
Buckley. Por Tom Palmer.
I suppose everyone who ever came in contact with, or read a book by, William F. Buckley, Jr. has to chime in. Yes, I met him and when I was a young teenager he praised me for asking a particularly convoluted question, which made me feel clever (for a few minutes). No, we were not buddies and I have no colorful stories to tell about him. His influence on me was largely of a negative kind: I figured out early that I did not want to be superficial in my writing or speech, as his columns typically were.
sexta-feira, 29 de fevereiro de 2008
Para perceber os ciclos económicos
The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle compiled by Richard M. Ebeling,
Money, Bank Credit, And Economic Cycles by Jesús Huerta de Soto
"Expectations and Austrian Cycle Theory" by Frank Shostak
Resultados da Guerra à Droga
"Record-high ratio of Americans in prison" NEW YORK - For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America's rank as the world's No. 1 incarcerator."
quarta-feira, 27 de fevereiro de 2008
Discriminação, mercado e intervencionismo
"As Mises said, in a market economy, there is no legal discrimination against anyone. Freedom prevails, and "whoever dislikes the Jews may in such a world avoid patronizing Jewish shopkeepers, doctors, and lawyers." The problem is that this does not produce the results racists want. Indeed, the market always tends to bring people together in peace, neither compelling nor forbidding exchanges.
"Many decades of intensive anti-Semitic propaganda did not succeed in preventing German 'Aryans' from buying in shops owned by Jews, from consulting Jewish doctors and lawyers, and from reading books by Jewish authors." What the racists wanted required more. "Whoever wanted to get rid of his Jewish competitors could not rely on an alleged hatred of Jews; he was under the necessity of asking for legal discrimination against them."
The end result, then, is a policy of interventionism." The Hegelianism of the 2008 Electionby Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
quarta-feira, 20 de fevereiro de 2008
Inflação - Taxa de Juro do Fed: voltamos aos anos 70
No gráfico ainda não se vê o que resulta do valor saído hoje para Janeiro. Inflação de 4,3%. "FED Funds" em 3,25%.
Quem semeia ventos...
"we are all Keynesians now"
(...) the 1936 German edition of his General Theory. After condemning the "classical tradition" in economics - and specifically criticizing the Austrians - Keynes declares: "The theory of aggregate production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. . . . Although I have, after all, worked it out with a view to the conditions prevailing in the Anglo-Saxon countries where a large degree of laissez-faire still prevails, nevertheless it remains applicable to situations in which state management is more pronounced." Via LRC
terça-feira, 19 de fevereiro de 2008
Democracia = "Troca" de informações
Negócios: "O secretário-geral da OCDE – organização que reúne mais de 30 países, entre os quais Portugal, e que tem desempenhado um papel de charneira no combate à evasão fiscal – acusa as autoridades do Principado de fugirem às obrigações impostas pelos regimes democráticos.
"Regras excessivas de sigilo bancário e recusa em trocar informações são relíquias de um tempo que passou e não têm qualquer papel a desempenhar nas relações entre sociedades democráticas", acusa Gurría."
O Principado defende-se:
"Somos um pequeno país que deseja ter boas relações com os vizinhos, mas somos também um Estado soberano", disse, depois de ter manifestado o seu desagrado pelo "ataque alemão" dirigido contra o Principado.
Inflação
"No emergency can justify a return to inflation. Inflation can provide neither the weapons a nation needs to defend its independence nor the capital goods required for any project. It does not cure unsatisfactory conditions. It merely helps the rulers whose policies brought about the catastrophe to exculpate themselves."
-Ludwig von Mises
-Ludwig von Mises
quinta-feira, 14 de fevereiro de 2008
Henrique Raposo acerta em cheio
Mas a direita (e até algum liberalismo) esqueceu-se disso.
"É o Direito – e não a Democracia - que garante as nossas liberdades."
Porque George Reisman devia ganhar um Nobel
(Krizner também...)
This article is based on a portion of Chapter 15 of the author's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. [Reisman, amigo de Rothbard e de Ralph Raico, ambos emergiram no austrianismo com Mises em NY. Desentenderam-se mais tarde por causa da Ayn Rand. Só há uns anos Lewrockwell conseguiu trazê-lo para o seio do Mises Institute].
Saving Not Consumption as the Main Source of Spending
" I’ve shown that most spending in the economic system is in fact concealed under the head of net investment. However modest in size, including possibly being actually negative, net investment represents the true source of most revenue and income. That source is productive expenditure, which, I showed, is expenditure for the purpose of making subsequent sales and is represented by the spending of business firms for capital goods of all descriptions and for labor. (Consumption expenditure, in contrast, I showed is expenditure not for the purpose of making subsequent sales.)
The role of productive expenditure is concealed because net investment is the difference between it and business costs, the same costs that appear in business income statements in calculating business profits, and which do not differ very greatly from productive expenditure in size. Thus only a very small portion of the actual magnitude and importance of productive expenditure is ever revealed in conventional, Keynesian national income accounting. "
This article is based on a portion of Chapter 15 of the author's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. [Reisman, amigo de Rothbard e de Ralph Raico, ambos emergiram no austrianismo com Mises em NY. Desentenderam-se mais tarde por causa da Ayn Rand. Só há uns anos Lewrockwell conseguiu trazê-lo para o seio do Mises Institute].
Saving Not Consumption as the Main Source of Spending
" I’ve shown that most spending in the economic system is in fact concealed under the head of net investment. However modest in size, including possibly being actually negative, net investment represents the true source of most revenue and income. That source is productive expenditure, which, I showed, is expenditure for the purpose of making subsequent sales and is represented by the spending of business firms for capital goods of all descriptions and for labor. (Consumption expenditure, in contrast, I showed is expenditure not for the purpose of making subsequent sales.)
The role of productive expenditure is concealed because net investment is the difference between it and business costs, the same costs that appear in business income statements in calculating business profits, and which do not differ very greatly from productive expenditure in size. Thus only a very small portion of the actual magnitude and importance of productive expenditure is ever revealed in conventional, Keynesian national income accounting. "
quarta-feira, 13 de fevereiro de 2008
Chicago versus MIT (e no entanto ambos errados...)
"No entanto, se bem que a tese das muitas receitas atraia um grande interesse, usufrua de suporte empírico e sugira um espírito de pluralismo teórico, a reivindicação de uma “economia única” é errónea, uma vez que dá a entender que a economia neoclássica dominante é a única economia autêntica. Parte da dificuldade em explicar esta restrição reside no facto de haver uma disputa na família dos economistas neoclássicos, que divide aqueles que acreditam que as economias de mercado do mundo real se aproximam da concorrência perfeita e aqueles que não acreditam nisso.
Os crentes identificam-se com a “Escola de Chicago”, cujos principais exponentes incluem Milton Friedman e George Stigler. Os descrentes identificam-se com a “Escola do MIT”, associada a Paul Samuelson. Rodrik pertence à Escola do MIT, bem como outros nomes conhecidos, como Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz e Larry Summers. Esta divisão esconde a uniformidade subjacente do pensamento.
A Escola de Chicago advoga que as economias de mercado do mundo real produzem resultados em grande medida eficientes (o chamado “Óptimo de Pareto”), que as políticas públicas não podem melhorar. Assim, qualquer intervenção do Estado na economia há-de sempre prejudicar alguém.
Em contrapartida, a Escola do MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) sustenta que as economias do mundo real sofrem as consequências das falhas omnipresentes nos mercados, onde se incluem a concorrência imperfeita e os monopólios, as externalidades associadas a problemas como a poluição e a incapacidade de fornecer bens públicos, tais como iluminação das ruas ou a Defesa nacional. Consequentemente, as intervenções estatais dirigidas às falhas de mercado - bem como às generalizadas imperfeições da informação e à inexistência de muitos mercados necessários - podem beneficiar todas as pessoas." Negócios: Thomas Palley - "Acabar com o monopólio neoclássico em economia"
Mas:
1. Os "austriacos" dizem que é precisamente por não existirem condições de concorrência perfeita que se justifica o "mercado", a "função empresarial" de descoberta de oportunidades que no final asseguram um "lucro normal", etc.
2. Os problemas das externalidades (se é que existe problema algum) como os "bens públicos" são já hoje largamente ultrapassáveis devido à tecnologia (ex: lembrar as empresas de segurança privada que fazem contratos individuais).
Por outro, é um atraso no reconhecimento de novos direitos de propriedade que gera muitos problemas. Assim, as questões habituais associados à poluição podem ser resolvidas como disputas de direitos de propriedade, assim como ainda mais fácil é resolver o da "conservação" de recursos, se estes forem atribuidos a proprietários.
Muito há para dizer num confronto "austriacos" versus Chicago versus MIT...
terça-feira, 12 de fevereiro de 2008
Liberalismo clássico e propriedade
Propriedade. Por Rui A.
Trata-se, note-se, não apenas do direito de dispor do seu corpo físico, mas da totalidade da sua individualidade, desde logo, da capacidade de auto-determinição. Por outras palavras, o direito de auto-propriedade incide sobre a totalidade da personae, e não somente sobre o seu corpo físico, como se pode erradamente admitir (o que acontece frequentemente, por exemplo, no debate sobre o aborto). Neste sentido, a propriedade exercida sobre bens e direitos é um corolário natural do direito de propriedade sobre a própria personae. Esse conjunto de direitos resulta do que é adquirido pelo esforço individual, pelo trabalho transformador da matéria-prima, e pelas escolhas e opções de vida de cada um.
Salário Mínimo adaptado à realidade de cada região
Tendo em conta a enorme diferença nos valores de "PIB per capita PPS" em Portugal (apresentado no post anterior), sugeria-se que o Norte de Portugal (e cada uma das regiões apresentadas) tivesse um salário mínimo corrigido por essa factor.
Assim, o do Norte de Portugal deveria ter um salário mínimo de (quase) metade do que seria estabelecido para Lisboa (59.8/106.3), já que também em relação ao salário mínimo actual de Portugal não parece credível uma proposta de aumento para próximo dos existentes nos países com um rendimento (PIB per capita PPS) 77% superior ao português.
Sugestão. o melhor sera acabar mesmo com o salário mínimo nacional, que prejudica aquelas pessoas que mais dificuldade têm para entrar no mercado de trabalho.
Assim, o do Norte de Portugal deveria ter um salário mínimo de (quase) metade do que seria estabelecido para Lisboa (59.8/106.3), já que também em relação ao salário mínimo actual de Portugal não parece credível uma proposta de aumento para próximo dos existentes nos países com um rendimento (PIB per capita PPS) 77% superior ao português.
Sugestão. o melhor sera acabar mesmo com o salário mínimo nacional, que prejudica aquelas pessoas que mais dificuldade têm para entrar no mercado de trabalho.
PIB de Portugal em 2005
| Região (NUTS 2006) | PIB | PIB per capita | PIB | PIB per capita | PIB per capita |
| PORTUGAL | 149 010 | 14 125 | 178 190 | 16 891 | 75.4 |
| Continente | 141 641 | 14 076 | 169 378 | 16 832 | 75.1 |
| Norte | 41 824 | 11 205 | 50 014 | 13 399 | 59.8 |
| Algarve | 6 172 | 14 903 | 7 381 | 17 822 | 79.6 |
| Centro (PT) | 28 430 | 11 948 | 33 997 | 14 287 | 63.8 |
| Lisboa | 55 166 | 19 916 | 65 968 | 23 816 | 106.3 |
| Alentejo | 10 050 | 13 106 | 12 018 | 15 672 | 70.0 |
| Açores | 3 019 | 12 489 | 3 610 | 14 935 | 66.7 |
| Madeira | 4 350 | 17 774 | 5 202 | 21 255 | 94.9 |
| UE27 | 11 018 771 | 22 400 | 11 018 771 | 22 400 | 100. |
sábado, 9 de fevereiro de 2008
quinta-feira, 7 de fevereiro de 2008
"Nothing harmed the cause of liberalism more than the almost regular return of feverish booms and of the dramatic breakdown of bull markets followed by lingering slumps. Public opinion has become convinced that such happenings are inevitable in the unhampered market economy. People did not conceive that what they lamented was the necessary outcome of policies directed toward a lowering of the rate of interest by means of credit expansion. They stubbornly kept to these policies and tried in vain to fight their undesired consequences by more and more government interference." Mises
Socialização do risco
Criação de moeda, à custa de inflação monetárias que recai sobre todos:
Negócios: "Ou seja, a dívida do banco inglês – incluindo os 25 mil milhões de libras emprestados pelo Banco de Inglaterra – passa a ser contabilizada como dívida pública."
Negócios: "Ou seja, a dívida do banco inglês – incluindo os 25 mil milhões de libras emprestados pelo Banco de Inglaterra – passa a ser contabilizada como dívida pública."
quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2008
Da democracia
HR na Atlântico escreve: "do liberalismo marxista.Na American Interest, uma excelente crítica ao determinismo liberal que liga - num nexo de causalidade inevitável - globalização e democracia liberal. Ou como a malta devia largar Hayek e demais cafeína austríaca e ler um pouco de Montesquieu ou Aron."
Lê-se o artigo e apanhamos com esta "grande" conclusão: "Democratic politics often do not support open markets, and open markets do not always reinforce the tendency to democratic government. "
Grande tirada para refutar "austriacos", mas tem implicito que no fim o objectivo da humanidade é a democracia. Não é. Como diz Ron Paul, é a paz, prosperidade e liberdade. As grandes democracias nunca foram estáveis suficiente tempo para o proporcionar, mais tarde ou mais cedo descobrem grandes desígnios internos e externos para o seu Estado cumprir mais urgentes que a ... paz, prosperidade e liberdade. E de repente tudo se acaba.
Lê-se o artigo e apanhamos com esta "grande" conclusão: "Democratic politics often do not support open markets, and open markets do not always reinforce the tendency to democratic government. "
Grande tirada para refutar "austriacos", mas tem implicito que no fim o objectivo da humanidade é a democracia. Não é. Como diz Ron Paul, é a paz, prosperidade e liberdade. As grandes democracias nunca foram estáveis suficiente tempo para o proporcionar, mais tarde ou mais cedo descobrem grandes desígnios internos e externos para o seu Estado cumprir mais urgentes que a ... paz, prosperidade e liberdade. E de repente tudo se acaba.
O culpado pela crise do "Sub-Prime"
Did what gov't asked: Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm
February 5, 2008 -- PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mort gage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.
At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment.
Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness?
From the current hand-wringing, you'd think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards - at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.
In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation (...)"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm
February 5, 2008 -- PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mort gage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.
At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment.
Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness?
From the current hand-wringing, you'd think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards - at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.
In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation (...)"
sexta-feira, 1 de fevereiro de 2008
Escola Austríaca em Santiago de Compostela
Congreso de Economía Austriaca
Del miércoles 26 al viernes 28 de marzo del 2008 tendrá lugar el Congreso de Economía Austriaca en Santiago de Compostela, organizado por el Instituto Juan de Mariana en colaboración con la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela y la Asociación Prólogos.
Todos aquellos interesados en presentar una ponencia pueden mandar un resumen a la dirección info@juandemariana.org hasta el 15 de febrero. Los trabajos deberán mandarse en formato Word, a espacio y medio, letra Times New Roman, 12 puntos, con una extensión máxima de 200 palabras; pueden estar escritos en inglés o en español y su temática debe estar relacionada con la Escuela Austriaca de Economía, tanto a favor como desde una perspectiva crítica.
quinta-feira, 24 de janeiro de 2008
terça-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2008
Mercantilismo e capitalismo
O novo mercantilismo. Por José Manuel Moreira.
Grassa por aí uma grave confusão entre mercantilismo e capitalismo. Julgam-se sinónimos, mas são sistemas opostos, como bem viu Adam Smith.
Ao contrário dos defensores do livre mercado, os mercantilistas (XVI-XVIII) temiam o excesso de liberdade, de modo que se apoiavam no Estado para planificar e regular a vida económica. A lista de políticas para promover o interesse nacional era, por isso, grande e variada. Regulamentos, impostos e subsídios para tudo, assim como monopólios legais na forma de privilégios e patentes eram comuns no mercantilismo. Daí o uso do processo político para garantir benefícios e assegurar os controles e condicionamentos requeridos à “boa” regulação. Ao mercantilismo corresponde, por isso, uma “economia de interesses”, a bem de (alguns) produtores e a mal dos consumidores.
Mais crédito fácil para resolver problemas gerados com o crédito fácil...
Inflação (YoY) = 4.1%
Taxa de Juro FED = 3.5%
Taxa de Juro FED = 3.5%
Nobel socialista critica o socialismo monetário e atribui as culpas aos liberais...
"Alguma vez terão Ayn Rand ou o libertário Milton Friedman previsto que 'o mercado paraíso' de Adam Smith chegaria a este caos? Onde estavam os presidentes do Banco de Inglaterra, do BCE e do Banco do Japão quando a catástrofe começou a ganhar forma?
Paul Samuelson, Nobel da Economia, "Diário Económico", 21-01-2008 (Via Público)
Falará do "paraíso" criado por instituições socialistas que nacionalizaram o ouro da população e coercivamente forçaram esta a usar pedaços de papel que o Bacno Central e o sistema bancário cria (em vez de captar como depósitos) para conceder crédito ao investimento (e aos déficits do Estado) como se existisse a poupança real para a sustentar?
Paul Samuelson, Nobel da Economia, "Diário Económico", 21-01-2008 (Via Público)
Falará do "paraíso" criado por instituições socialistas que nacionalizaram o ouro da população e coercivamente forçaram esta a usar pedaços de papel que o Bacno Central e o sistema bancário cria (em vez de captar como depósitos) para conceder crédito ao investimento (e aos déficits do Estado) como se existisse a poupança real para a sustentar?
Porque existem ciclos económicos? .... porque existem Bancos Centrais
"In his writings Milton Friedman blamed the central bank policies for causing the Great Depression. According to Friedman the Federal Reserve failed to pump enough reserves into the banking system to prevent the collapse in the money stock. For Friedman, the failure of the US central bank is not that it caused the monetary bubble but that it allowed the deflation of the bubble. Murray Rothbard, while agreeing with Friedman that the money stock fell sharply, found that the Federal Reserve had been aggressively pumping reserves into the banking system. Notwithstanding this pumping, the money stock continued to fall. The sharp fall in the money stock, contrary to Friedman, is not indicative of the Federal Reserve’s failure to pump the money supply. It is indicative of the shrinking pool of funding brought about by the loose monetary policies of the central bank.
Essentially, the pool of funding is the quantity of goods available in an economy to support future production. In the simplest of terms: a lone man on an island is able to pick 25 apples an hour. With the aid of a picking tool, he is able to raise his output to 50 apples an hour. Making the tool, (adding a stage of production) however, takes time. During the time he is busy making the tool, the man will not be able to pick any apples. In order to have the tool, therefore, the man must first have enough apples to sustain himself while he is busy making it. His pool of funding is his means of sustenance for this period-the quantity of apples he has saved for this purpose.
The size of this pool determines whether or not a more sophisticated means of production can be introduced. If it requires one year of work, for the man to build this tool, but he has only enough apples saved to sustain him for one month, then the tool will not be built-and the man will not be able to increase his productivity. (This point is drawn from Richard von Strigl, Capital and Production). The island scenario is complicated by the introduction of multiple individuals who trade with each other and use money. The essence, however, remains the same: the size of the pool of funding sets a brake on the implementation of more productive-but longer-stages of production.
Trouble erupts whenever the banking system makes it appear that the pool of funding is larger than it is in reality. When a central bank expands the money stock, it does not enlarge the pool of funding. It gives rise to the consumption of goods, which is not preceded by production. It leads to less means of sustenance. As long as the pool of funding continues to expand, loose monetary policies give the impression that economic activity is being boosted. That this is not the case becomes apparent as soon as the pool of funding begins to stagnate or shrink. Once this happens, the economy begins its downward plunge. The most aggressive loosening of money will not reverse the plunge (for money cannot replace apples).
By fulfilling the role of the intermediary, banks are an important factor in the process of real wealth formation. Banks facilitate the flow of real funding i.e the flow of the means of sustenance by introducing suppliers of real funding to the demanders.
The introduction of money to our analysis will not alter the fact that the subject matter remains the pool of means of sustenance. When a saver lends money, what he in fact lends to borrowers is the goods he has not consumed. Credit then means that unconsumed goods are loaned by one productive individual to another, to be repaid out of future production.
The existence of the central bank and fractional reserve banking permits commercial banks to generate credit which is not backed up by real funding i.e. credit out of "thin air." Once the unbacked credit is generated it creates activities that the free market would never approve, i.e. these activities are consuming and not producing real wealth. As long as the pool of funding is expanding and banks are eager to expand credit various false activities continue to prosper.
Whenever the extensive creation of credit out of "thin air" lifts the pace of real-wealth consumption above the pace of real-wealth production the flow of real savings is arrested and a decline in the pool of funding is set in motion. Consequently, the performance of various activities starts to deteriorate and bank’s bad loans start to rise. In response to this, banks begin to call back their loans and this in turn sets in motion a decline in the money stock
We can thus conclude that depression is not caused by the collapse in the money stock, but in response to the shrinking pool of funding, which also causes the disappearance of money out of "thin air." Consequently, even if the central bank were to be successful in preventing the disappearance of money, this would not be able to prevent a depression if the pool of funding is declining. Also, even if loose monetary policies were to succeed in lifting prices and inflationary expectations, this couldn’t revive the economy as long as the pool of funding is declining.
Furthermore, it is the loose monetary policies of the central bank and fractional reserve banking that cause the misallocation of resources, which in turn weakens the flow of savings and hence weakens the buildup of the pool of funding. This in turn implies that the primary causes of depression are loose monetary policies of the central bank and fractional reserve banking. "
"Inflation, Deflation, and the Future ", By Frank Shostak
quarta-feira, 16 de janeiro de 2008
terça-feira, 15 de janeiro de 2008
Inflation is back
"The Labor Department reported that wholesale inflation was up 6.3 percent for all of 2007 ... Wholesale inflation last year shot up by the largest amount in 26 years"
segunda-feira, 14 de janeiro de 2008
Nova Cidadania 35: Liberdade, Religião e Vida Pública
Está nas bancas o Nº 35 da revista Nova Cidadania.
Entre muitos artigos que se recomendam, inclui-se da minha parte uma recensão alargada do livro Catholic Social Teaching and the Market Economy
, editado pelo Institute of Economic Affairs. Especialmente recomendada aos interessados na relação entre catolicismo, liberalismo e economia de mercado. O ensaio-recensão em causa funciona também como um cumprimento parcial da promessa que tinha feito há alguns meses de escrever algo mais desenvolvido sobre o tema.Fica a faltar um texto mais desenvolvido sobre as interessantes questões levantadas pelo André Abrantes Amaral e pelo Adolfo Mesquita Nunes no artigo Os Católicos e o Estado Laico, publicado na Atlântico. Para quando houver disponibilidade.
Post anteriormente publicado n'O Insurgente.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)