Economia e política

The US Fiat Dollar Ponzi Scheme: Digital Money Used to Purchase Toxic Assets from the “Too Big To Fail” Global Banks
"The US Federal Reserve Does Not Print Money" Says Dr. Lacy Hunt
By Matthias Chang
Global Research, May 30, 2013
Future Fastforward


http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-fiat-dollar-ponzi-scheme-digital-money-used-to-purchase-toxic-assets-from-the-too-big-to-fail-global-banks/5336990


In the Hoisington Quarterly Review and Outlook (First Quarter 2013), Dr. Lacy Hunt wrote and we quote:

“The Federal Reserve is printing money. No statement could be less truthful. The Federal Reserve (FED) is not, and has not been, ‘printing money’ as defined as an acceleration in M2 or money supply. Just check the facts. For the first quarter of 2013 the FED purchased $277.5 billion in securities (net) as their security portfolio expanded from $2.660 trillion to $2.937 trillion. A review of post-war economic history would lead to a logical assumption that the money supply (M2) would respond upward to this massive infusion of reserves into the banking system. The reality is just the opposite. The last week of December, 2012 showed M2 at $10.505 trillion, but at the end of March, 2013 it totalled only $10.450 trillion which was an unexpected decline of $55 billion. Printing money? No.”

Please read the words which I have highlighted in bold and underlined.

Any novice in economics and monetary policy will have no difficulty in identifying the flaw in Dr. Lacy Hunt’s contention as he has equated the printing of money (digital or otherwise) with the acceleration in M2 or money supply.

The acceleration in M2 is a consequence of the FED printing money in certain circumstances. We will address this issue in a moment. But, to say that because there was not a corresponding acceleration in M2, therefore was no money printing by the FED, is to put it kindly, drawing on the wrong conclusions.

But, first let us point out a critical fact which Dr. Lacy Hunt has not denied and this is the fact that the FED has expanded the monetary base from $840 billion to $2.93 trillion.

How did the FED increase the monetary base from a mere $840 billion to $2.93 trillion? The answer is simple. By a click of the computer mouse, thereby digitally creating virtual money which enabled the FED to embark on its various bail-out schemes following the financial tsunami of 2008 and thereafter the massive quantitative easing (QE) programs.

The digital money was employed in two specific areas – firstly to purchase toxic assets from the insolvent Too Big To Fail Global Banks and secondly to finance the US government debts by purchasing US treasuries.

Purchase of Toxic Assets from Banks

Why did the FED print money to buy toxic assets?

The banks were all insolvent, even till to-date. The toxic assets of banks in ordinary circumstances (“Old Normal”) would have to be written off, if marked-to -market. They were all junk assets and ought to be treated as such. But, the FED and other central banks and with the connivance of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) agreed to allow the global banks to treat these toxic assets in the balance sheets as still performing assets. It was a fraud, but this fraud could not be maintained for long so a way out was devised. The FED came to the rescue and purchased these toxic assets by printing money digitally. It was shifting toxic assets from one balance sheet to another – from the global banks’ balance sheet to that of the FED!

But, there is a catch! In time, the global banks must re-purchase these toxic assets when they are able to do so (when the global economy has recovered). No one really knows when that would happen.

But, you can take it from me, that there will be no such re-purchase because these assets are all junk and there are not even worth a dime on the dollar. To that extent and in this sense, one can say that the FED is actually insolvent at the present moment as the value of its assets is junk. But, this Ponzi scheme is continuing because the FED can print money (digitally or otherwise) as long as confidence in the US$ remains.

In fractional reserve banking, when the FED purchases assets from the bank, it will create “bank reserves” which will enable the banks to “create money” by an agreed multiplier (usually by ten times).

In the present financial/banking environment, there is a huge problem. All the customers’ deposits with the banks have been depleted in reckles speculation in the tech bubble in early part of this century followed by the sub-prime housing bubble, the stock market bubble, the derivative casino bubble etc. If all the banks’ customers were to demand their deposits, these global banks would not be able to repay their customers and this would result in a bank-run.

By law and banking regulations, banks in such circumstances must increase their share capital and reserves in order that they be allowed to continue the banking business. But, the banks’ shareholders don’t have the trillions to re-capitalise the banks. The banks following the crisis have no reserves because prior to the crisis, the BIS and the FED decreed that banks need not have reserves. This is very significant, because a critical pillar of fractional reserve banking was dispensed with completely. As explained earlier, a bank’s ability to create money is founded on the amount of reserves it has with the central bank. It can only create “ten times” (the multiplier) of the reserves e.g. if the reserves is $100 million, the bank can create $1 billion in its books and lend out the same to customers. This, in economic jargon is the velocity of money, the acceleration of the money supply and it hinges on the reserve requirement established by the BIS.

So, what we have at the present moment is that all the global banks are staring at a black hole. They are insolvent because they have not re-capitalised under the present banking regulations sufficient enough to cover all their liabilities. Additionally, they don’t have sufficient reserves to trigger the multiplier and “create money” under the fractional reserve banking system.

So, part of the huge money printing by the FED went to “create” or “supply” reserves to the bank so as to cover-up the fact that the said global banks prior to the FED’s intervention had zero reserves.
Even now, with the FED’s intervention and as a result, there are now the so-called “surplus reserves” (a misnomer because there is no such surplus as these reserves are merely supplied to comply with BIS’s new requirements) and as such the banks have not been able to “create” their own monies under the fractional reserve banking system.

This is because the banks cannot embark on a massive “money creation” based on the agreed multiplier of these reserves, as these reserves have been created in anticipation of bank runs, and not to allow the banks to create more money. At a conservative estimate, customers’ deposits exceed statutory reserves by more than ten times. There is no way that banks can repay all the deposits. The present system and circumstance is that it is a giant Ponzi scheme.

And the FED, Bank of England, other central banks and the BIS know this too well and no amount of “reserves” created by printing money digitally would be able to resolve this issue as the horrendous consequence would be massive devaluation of the various fiat currencies engaged in such an exercise. In that event, we will have inflation and then hyperinflation.

Hence, and as a digression to the issue at hand, the powers that be and the financial elites have decided to do away with the illusion that customers’ deposits are secured and instead can be confiscated to maintain the solvency of the banks. I have written an article recently, No Bank Deposit Will Be Spared From Confiscation posted to my website on 24th April, 2013, that in law and in fact, all bank deposits are deemed unsecured loans to banks which the banks can use it in any way, even to speculate and the only obligation of the bank is to repay the deposits on demand and if and when the bank has sufficient funds, failing which the depositor is just another unsecured creditor in the long queue in a bank’s liquidation.

Coming back to the issue at hand.

When banks cannot lend money (since they cannot “create money” based on the current so-called “surplus reserves”, a misnomer), they can no longer earn exorbitant profits, the FED yet again comes to the rescue. The FED agreed to pay interest on such reserves.

In Joe-Six-Packs language, this is a FREEBIE TO THE BANKS.

The FED prints money out of thin air digitally to purchase toxic assets (which prevents the banks from writing off such assets and declaring massive losses and the inevitable liquidation) and apply this “new digitally printed money” as reserves which gives an illusion of solvency of such banks so as to prevent bank runs. Adding insult to injury and to con the public further, the FED pays interest on monies in which it created itself and then given to the banks to generate profits for doing nothing at all so as to improve the balance sheets of the bankrupt banks.

Yet, the powers that be refuse to bail out the unemployed, the families that have been foreclosed, students up to their eyeballs in debt, and in compounding their poverty, remove the life-lines that may offer some hope such as reducing unemployment benefits and food stamps! Adding insult to injury, the Too Big To Fail Banks can borrow from the FED at near zero interest rates and then lend out to reap profits.

Is Dr. Lacy Hunt mistaken or what when he says that the FED does not print money?

PRINTING MONEY TO PURCHASE TREASURIES

The FED also prints money to lend to the US government. It does so by purchasing treasuries. Without this money printing, the US government would not be able to continue with its imperial war agenda.

If the FED did not print money, the US government would be bankrupt immediately, the economy would collapse and all imperial wars (proxy or otherwise) would come to a grinding halt.

Who says that there is no acceleration of the money supply?

Dr. Lacy Hunt misses the point totally when he chose to ignore the fact that printed monies did not and were not funnelled through the system in the “normal” way. In the “New Normal”, the printed monies have been diverted and “supplied” in a roundabout way thereby creating an illusion that there was no multiplier effect as a result of the expansion of the FED’s monetary base. How very naïve and misleading for Dr. Lacy Hunt to assert that the FED does not print money!.

The fact that the multiplier effect under the fractional reserve banking system (the “Old Nornal”) did not correspond to the percentage increase in the monetary base is NOT AND CANNOT BE THE FOUNDATION OF THE ASSERTION THAT THE FED DID NOT PRINT MONEY.

To put the nail in the coffin of Dr. Lacy Hunt’s argument, let me quote him (with my comments in bold):

However, empirical evidence is clear that high powered money is not causing an increase in M2. (I have pointed out above that it went to reserves and treasuries under the “New Normal” for the reasons stated and as such, little or no money was created by banks and the multiplier did not take off as expected. But, that was not the objective of the FED which was to save the fiat money system and the TBTF global banks. It is a leap of imagination and denial to say that as such, there was no money printing. There was money printing, but the acceleration (multiplier effect) did not materialise as it would had under the “Old Normal”.)

Why? A bank’s conversion of reserves into money is called the money multiplier. At the end of 2007, the money multiplier was 9.0. This meant that the monetary base of $825 billion was multiplied nine times to create the level of M2 that stood at $7.4 trillion. (Yes, Dr. Lacy Hunt, this is because it was under the “Old Normal” when the banks were in a position to create money out of thin air under the fractional reserve banking system. This was before the crisis. What is it so difficult for Dr. Lacy hunt to understand this simple issue? As explained above, under the “New Normal” the multiplier effect went to reserves and treasuries.)

At the end of March 2013, the monetary base had exploded to $2.09 trillion… (This is because of FED’s digital money printing and as Dr. Lacy Hunt has admitted, the monetary base “exploded”. It can only “explode” because of unrestrained money printing which expanded the monetary base. Why does Dr. Lacy Hunt try to confuse the issue of expansion of monetary base with the multiplier effect under the fractional reserve banking system?)

… but the money multiplier had collapsed to only 3.6 creating an M2 balance of $10.4 trillion. (Does not Dr.Lacy Hunt’s admission and observation prove my point that under the “New Normal”, the multiplier effect went to reserves and treasuries as opposed to the “Old Normal” where it would be channelled to the fractional reserve banking system whereby banks can then “create money out of thin air” by book entry in proportion to their reserves. Under the “New Normal”, even though reserves are at record high, banks were not allowed to utilise the multiplier because the banks failed to comply with the requirements of banking reserves under the BIS guidelines which must be complied with by year 2019. Therefore, FED’s printing money is to enable the TBTF banks to comply with the new BIS guidelines. Dr. Lacy Hunt should not pretend that he does not know this fact. Dr. Lacy Hunt is dishonest when asserting that the FED does not print money.)

Finally:

The Central Bank has very little control over the movement of the money multiplier; the actions of banks and their customers primarily control this variable. (Such ignorance is appalling. Under the fractional reserve banking system, the amount of reserves determines the amount that can be multiplied. So, when the FED and any other central banks determine the amount of reserves, it in fact determines the velocity of money that can be created by the banks. The money multiplier is a consequence of the amount of reserves. If the reserves of bank A is $100 million, the multiplier effect for bank A is that it can loan $1 billion. If the reserves of bank B is $1 billion, then the multiplier effect for bank B is that it can loan $1 trillion. Under the “Old Normal” the amount of reserves required under banking regulations is a proportion of the amount of customers’ deposits. This is so basic.)

The article by Dr. Lacy Hunt and the assertion that the FED does not print money serves only one purpose – to mislead and to create an illusion as to the true nature of the banking system under the “New Normal”.

If the FED did not print money as asserted by Dr. Lacy Hunt, which resulted in the managed devaluation of the US$ toilet paper money, why would other countries engage in competitive devaluation and QE? The central banks are all acting in concert to save the TBTF banks and the fiat money system as the priority because that IS THE REAL ECONOMY to be saved as far as the powers that be are concerned. Main Street is secondary. If the fiat money system fails, the Main Street collapse is the inevitable consequence.

It is not the other way round, Dr. Lacy Hunt. Saving Main Street will not save the fiat money system. The fiat money system is the Ponzi scheme that has enabled the US and other developed countries to live beyond their means. It is a debt-based system and the fiat money is the fuel that keeps the system running. Without this fuel, everything comes to a standstill. However, the system is inherently self-destructive because a point would be reached whereby too much fuel (fiat money printing) would clog the engine.

Dr. Lacy Hunt, please fill your car engine with engine oil till it overflows. Then try to start your car.

Have a nice and enjoyable drive! When the fumes come gushing out of the exhaust, the fire brigade may be summoned by a bystander. Be prepared for a civil suit for negligence or worse.

NOTES & REFERENCE

For further information on the financial scam by BIS and Basel III, refer to my article “BISTRO – Bank of International Settlements Total Rip Off” dated 30th September, 2010 and the implications of BASEL III Accords on banking capital ratios and reserves.

Please go to my website – www.futurefastforward.com at Folder financial analysis via: http://www.futurefastforward.com/malaysia-updates/4292-by-matthias-chang

Is it the end of Sykes-Picot?
Patrick Cockburn on the war in Syria and the threat to the Middle East


http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/05/23/patrick-cockburn/is-it-the-end-of-sykes-picot


For the first two years of the Syrian civil war foreign leaders regularly predicted that Bashar al-Assad’s government would fall any day. In November 2011, King Abdullah of Jordan said that the chances of Assad’s surviving were so slim he ought to step down. In December last year, Anders Rasmussen, the Nato secretary general, said: ‘I think the regime in Damascus is approaching collapse.’ Even the Russian Foreign Ministry – which generally defends Assad – has at times made similar claims. Some of these statements were designed to demoralise Assad’s supporters by making his overthrow seem inevitable. But in many cases outsiders genuinely believed that the end was just round the corner. The rebels kept claiming successes, and the claims were undiscriminatingly accepted.

That Assad’s government is on its last legs has always been something of a myth. YouTube videos of victorious rebel fighters capturing military outposts and seizing government munitions distract attention from the fact that the war is entering its third year and the insurgents have succeeded in capturing just one of the 14 provincial capitals. (In Libya the insurgents held Benghazi and the whole of the east as well as Misrata and smaller towns in the west from the beginning of the revolt.) The Syrian rebels were never as strong militarily as the outside world supposes. But they have always been way ahead of the government in their access to the international media. Whatever the uprising has since become it began in March 2011 as a mass revolt against a cruel and corrupt police state. The regime at first refused to say much in response, then sounded aggrieved and befuddled as it saw the vacuum it had created being filled with information put out by its enemies. Defecting Syrian soldiers were on television denouncing their former masters while government units that had stayed loyal remained unreported and invisible. And so it has largely continued. The ubiquitous YouTube videos of minor, and in some cases illusory, victories by the rebels are put about in large part to persuade the world that, given more money and arms, they can quickly win a decisive victory and end the war.

There is a striking divergence between the way the Syrian war is seen in Beirut – just a few hours’ drive from Damascus, even now – and what actually appears to be happening on the ground inside Syria. On recent trips I would drive to Damascus, having listened to Syrians and non-Syrians in Beirut who sincerely believed that rebel victory was close, only to find the government still very much in control. Around the capital, the rebels held some suburbs and nearby towns, but in December I was able to travel the ninety miles between Damascus and Homs, Syria’s third largest city, without any guards and with ordinary heavy traffic on the road. Friends back in Beirut would shake their heads in disbelief when I spoke about this and politely suggest that I’d been hoodwinked by the regime.

Some of the difficulties in reporting the war in Syria aren’t new. Television has a great appetite for the drama of war, for pictures of missiles exploding over Middle Eastern cities amid the sparkle of anti-aircraft fire. Print journalism can’t compete with these images, but they are rarely typical of what is happening. Despite the iconic images Baghdad wasn’t, in fact, heavily bombarded in either 1991 or 2003. The problem is much worse in Syria than it used to be in Iraq or Afghanistan (in 2001) because the most arresting pictures out of Syria appear first on YouTube and are, for the most part, provided by political activists. They are then run on TV news with health warnings to the effect that the station can’t vouch for their veracity, but viewers assume that the station wouldn’t be running the film if it didn’t believe it was real. Actual eyewitnesses are becoming hard to find, since even people living a few streets from the fighting in Damascus now get most of their information from the internet or TV.

Not all YouTube evidence is suspect. Though easily fabricated, it performs certain tasks well. It can show that atrocities have taken place, and even authenticate them: in the case of a pro-government militia massacring rebel villagers, for instance, or rebel commanders mutilating and executing government soldiers. Without a video of him doing so, who would have believed that a rebel commander had cut open a dead government soldier and eaten his heart? Pictures of physical destruction are less reliable because they focus on the worst damage, giving the impression – which may or may not be true – that a whole district is in ruins. What YouTube can’t tell you is who is winning the war.

*

The reality is that no one is. Over the last year a military stalemate has prevailed, with each side launching offensives in the areas where they are strongest. Both sides have had definite but limited successes. In recent weeks government forces have opened up the road that leads west from Homs to the Mediterranean coast and the road from Damascus south to the Jordanian border. They have expanded the territory they hold around the capital and trained a militia of sixty thousand, the National Defence Force, to guard positions once held by the Syrian army. This strategy of retrenchment and consolidation isn’t new. About six months ago the army stopped trying to keep control of outlying positions and focused instead on defending the main population centres and the routes linking them. These pre-planned withdrawals took place at the same time as real losses on the battlefield, and were misinterpreted outside Syria as a sign that the regime was imploding. The strategy was indeed a sign of military weakness, but by concentrating its forces in certain areas the government was able to launch counterattacks at vital points. Assad isn’t going to win a total victory, but the opposition isn’t anywhere close to overthrowing him either. This is worth stressing because Western politicians and journalists so frequently take it for granted that the regime is entering its last days. A justification for the British and French argument that the EU embargo on arms deliveries to the rebels should be lifted – a plan first mooted in March but strongly opposed by other EU members – is that these extra weapons will finally tip the balance decisively against Assad. The evidence from Syria itself is that more weapons will simply mean more dead and wounded.

The protracted conflict that is now underway in Syria has more in common with the civil wars in Lebanon and Iraq than with the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya or the even swifter regime changes in Egypt and Tunisia at the start of the Arab Spring. The civil war in Lebanon lasted 15 years, from 1975 to 1990, and the sectarian divisions which caused it are as marked as ever. In Iraq, 2006 and 2007 are usually described as being the worst years of the slaughter – three thousand people murdered every month – but sectarian killings began immediately after the US invasion in 2003 and haven’t stopped since. According to the UN some seven hundred Iraqis were killed in April: the highest monthly total since 2008. Syria is increasingly resembling its neighbours to the west and east: there will soon be a solid bloc of fragmented countries that stretches between the Mediterranean and Iran. In all three places the power of the central state is draining away as communities retreat into their own well-defended and near autonomous enclaves.

Meanwhile, foreign countries are gaining influence with the help of local proxies, and in so doing the rebels’ supporters are repeating the mistake Washington made ten years ago in Iraq. In the heady days after the fall of Saddam, the Americans announced that Iran and Syria were the next targets for regime change. This was largely ill-informed hubris, but the threat was real enough for the Syrians and Iranians to decide that in order to stop the Americans acting against them they had to stop the US stabilising its occupation of Iraq and lent their support to all of America’s opponents regardless of whether they were Shia or Sunni.

From an early stage in the Syrian uprising the US, Nato, Israel and the Sunni Arab states openly exulted at the blow that would soon be dealt to Iran and to Hezbollah in Lebanon: Assad’s imminent fall would deprive them of their most important ally in the Arab world. Sunni leaders saw the uprising not as a triumph of democracy but as the beginning of a campaign directed at Shia or Shia-dominated states. As with Iraq in 2003, Hezbollah and Iran believe they have no alternative but to fight and that it’s better to get on with it while they still have friends in power in Damascus. ‘If the enemy attacks us,’ Hossein Taeb, a high-ranking intelligence officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, recently said, ‘and seeks to take over Syria or Khuzestan’ – an Iranian province – ‘the priority is to maintain Syria, because if we maintain Syria we can take back Khuzestan. But if we lose Syria we won’t be able to hold Tehran.’ Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, made it very clear in a speech on 30 April that the Lebanese Shia also see Syria as a battleground where they can’t afford a defeat. ‘Syria,’ he said, ‘has real friends in the region and the world who will not let Syria fall into the hands of America, Israel or takfiri groups.’ He believes the very survival of the Shia is at stake. For many in the Middle East this sounded like a declaration of war: a significant one, given Hezbollah’s experience in fighting a guerrilla war against the Israelis in Lebanon. The impact of its skill in irregular warfare has already been witnessed in the fighting at Qusayr and Homs, just beyond Lebanon’s northern border. ‘It probably is unrealistic to expect Lebanese actors to take a step back,’ a study by the International Crisis Group concludes. ‘Syria’s fate, they feel, is their own, and the stakes are too high for them to keep to the sideline.’

*

The Syrian civil war is spreading. This, not well-publicised advances or withdrawals on the battlefield, is the most important new development. Political leaders in the region see the dangers more intensely than the rest of the world. ‘Neither the opposition nor the regime can finish the other off,’ Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, said earlier this year. ‘If the opposition is victorious, there will be a civil war in Lebanon, divisions in Jordan, and a sectarian war in Iraq.’ Of these countries, the most vulnerable is Lebanon, given the division between Sunni and Shia, a weak state, porous borders and proximity to heavily populated areas of Syria. A country of four million people has already taken in half a million Syrian refugees, most of them Sunnis.
Felix Dennis Tour 2013

In Iraq, the Syrian civil war has reignited a sectarian conflict that never entirely ended. The destabilising of his country that Maliki predicted in the event of an opposition victory has already begun. The overthrow of Saddam brought to power a Shia-Kurdish government that displaced Sunni rule dating back to the foundation of the Iraqi state in 1921. It is this recently established status quo that is now under threat. The revolt of the Sunni majority in Syria is making the Sunni minority in Iraq feel that the regional balance is swinging in their favour. They started to demonstrate in December, modelling their protests on the Arab Spring. They wanted reform rather than revolution, but to the Shia majority the demonstrations appeared to be part of a frighteningly powerful Sunni counter-offensive across the Middle East. The Baghdad government equivocated until 23 April, when a military force backed by tanks crushed a sit-in protest in the main square of Hawijah, a Sunni town south-west of Kirkuk, killing at least 50 people including eight children. Since then local Sunni leaders who had previously backed the Iraqi army against the Kurds have been demanding that it leave their provinces. Iraq may be disintegrating.

The feeling that the future of whole states is in doubt is growing across the Middle East – for the first time since Britain and France carved up the remains of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. ‘It is the end of Sykes-Picot,’ I was told repeatedly in Iraq; the reference was to the agreement of 1916 which divided up the spoils between Britain and France and was the basis for later treaties. Some are jubilant at the collapse of the old order, notably the thirty million Kurds who were left without a state of their own after the Ottoman collapse and are now spread across Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. They feel their moment has come: they are close to independence in Iraq and are striking a deal with the Turkish government for political rights and civil equality. In March, the Kurdish guerrillas of the PKK declared an end to their thirty-year war with the Turkish government and started withdrawing into the mountains of northern Iraq. The 2.5 million Kurds in northern Syria, 10 per cent of the population, have assumed control of their towns and villages and are likely to demand a high degree of autonomy from any postwar Syrian government.

What will the new order in the Middle East look like? This should be Turkey’s great moment in the region: it has a powerful military, a prospering economy and a well-established government. It is allied to Saudi Arabia and Qatar in supporting the Syrian opposition and is on good terms with the US. But these are dangerous waters to fish in. Three years ago, Ankara was able to deal peaceably with Syria, Iraq and Iran, but now it has poisonous relations with all three. Engagement in Syria on the side of the rebels isn’t popular at home and the government is clearly surprised that the conflict hasn’t yet ended. There are signs that the violence is spilling over Turkey’s 510-mile frontier with Syria, across which insurgent groups advance and retreat at will. On 11 May, two bombs in a Turkish border town killed 49 people, almost all Turkish. An angry crowd of Turks marched down the main street chanting ‘kill the Syrians’ as they assaulted Syrian shopkeepers. Arab politicians wonder whether the Turks know what they are getting into and how they will handle it. ‘The Turks are big on rhetoric but often disappointing when it comes to operational ability,’ one Arab leader says. ‘The Iranians are just the opposite.’ The recent deal between the government and Turkey’s Kurds could easily unravel. A long war in Syria could open up divisions in Turkey just as it is doing elsewhere.

When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, it changed the overall balance of power and destabilised every country in the region. The same thing is happening again, except that the impact of the Syrian war is likely to be less easily contained. Already the frontier dividing the western deserts of Iraq from the eastern deserts of Syria is ceasing to have any physical reality. In April, al-Qaida in Iraq embarrassed the rebels’ Western supporters by revealing that it had founded, reinforced with experienced fighters and devoted half its budget to supporting al-Nusra, militarily the most effective rebel group. When Syrian soldiers fled into Iraq in March they were ambushed by al-Qaida and 48 of them were killed before they could return to Syrian territory.

There is virtually no state in the region that hasn’t got some stake in the conflict. Jordan, though nervous of a jihadi victory in Syria, is allowing arms shipments from Saudi Arabia to reach rebels in southern Syria by road. Qatar has reportedly spent $3 billion on supporting the rebels over the last two years and has offered $50,000 to every Syrian army defector and his family. In c0-ordination with the CIA it has sent seventy military flights to Turkey with arms and equipment for the insurgents. The Tunisian government says that eight hundred Tunisians are fighting on the rebel side but security sources are quoted as saying the real figure is closer to two thousand. Moaz al-Khatib, the outgoing president of the Syrian National Coalition, which supposedly represents the opposition, recently resigned, declaring as he did so that the group was controlled by outside powers – i.e. Saudi Arabia and Qatar. ‘The people inside Syria,’ he said, ‘have lost the ability to decide their own fate. I have become only a means to sign some papers while hands from different parties want to decide on behalf of the Syrians.’ He claimed that on one occasion a rebel unit failed to go to the rescue of villagers being massacred by government forces because they hadn’t received instructions from their paymasters.

Fear of widespread disorder and instability is pushing the US, Russia, Iran and others to talk of a diplomatic solution to the conflict. Some sort of peace conference may take place in Geneva over the next month, with the aim at least of stopping things getting worse. But while there is an appetite for diplomacy, nobody knows what a solution would look like. It’s hard to imagine a real agreement being reached when there are so many players with conflicting interests. Five distinct conflicts have become tangled together in Syria: a popular uprising against a dictatorship which is also a sectarian battle between Sunnis and the Alawite sect; a regional struggle between Shia and Sunni which is also a decades-old conflict between an Iranian-led grouping and Iran’s traditional enemies, notably the US and Saudi Arabia. Finally, at another level, there is a reborn Cold War confrontation: Russia and China v. the West. The conflict is full of unexpected and absurd contradictions, such as a purportedly democratic and secular Syrian opposition being funded by the absolute monarchies of the Gulf who are also fundamentalist Sunnis.

By savagely repressing demonstrations two years ago Bashar al-Assad helped turn mass protests into an insurrection which has torn Syria apart. He is probably correct in predicting that diplomacy will fail, that his opponents inside and outside Syria are too divided to agree on a peace deal. He may also be right in believing that greater foreign intervention ‘is a clear probability’. The quagmire is turning out to be even deeper and more dangerous than it was in Iraq.

23 May

Will It Be Inflation Or Deflation? The Answer May Surprise You

By Michael, on May 22nd, 2013


http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/will-it-be-inflation-or-delfation-the-answer-may-surprise-you


Inflation Or DeflationIs the coming financial collapse going to be inflationary or deflationary? Are we headed for rampant inflation or crippling deflation? This is a subject that is hotly debated by economists all over the country. Some insist that the wild money printing that the Federal Reserve is doing combined with out of control government spending will eventually result in hyperinflation. Others point to all of the deflationary factors in our economy and argue that we will experience tremendous deflation when the bubble economy that we are currently living in bursts. So what is the truth? Well, for the reasons listed below, I believe that we will see both. The next major financial panic will cause a substantial deflationary wave first, and after that we will see unprecedented inflation as the central bankers and our politicians respond to the financial crisis. This will happen so quickly that many will get "financial whiplash" as they try to figure out what to do with their money. We are moving toward a time of extreme financial instability, and different strategies will be called for at different times.

So why will we see deflation first? The following are some of the major deflationary forces that are affecting our economy right now...

The Velocity Of Money Is At A 50 Year Low

The rate at which money circulates in our economy is the lowest that it has been in more than 50 years. It has been steadily falling since the late 1990s, and this is a clear sign that economic activity is slowing down. The shaded areas in the chart represent recessions, and as you can see, the velocity of money always slows down during a recession. But even though the government is telling us that we are not in a recession right now, the velocity of money continues to drop like a rock. This is one of the factors that is putting a tremendous amount of deflationary pressure on our economy...

Velocity Of Money


The Trade Deficit

Even single month, far more money leaves this country than comes into it. In fact, the amount going out exceeds the amount coming in by about half a trillion dollars each year. This is extremely deflationary. Our system is constantly bleeding cash, and this is one of the reasons why the federal government has felt a need to run such huge budget deficits and why the Federal Reserve has felt a need to print so much money. They are trying to pump money back into a system that is constantly bleeding massive amounts of cash. Since 1975, the amount of money leaving the United States has exceeded the amount of money coming into the country by more than 8 trillion dollars. The trade deficit is one of our biggest economic problems, and yet most Americans do not even understand what it is. As you can see below, our trade deficit really started getting bad in the late 1990s...

Trade Déficit


Wages And Salaries As A Percentage Of GDP

One of the primary drivers of inflation is consumer spending. But consumers cannot spend money if they do not have it. And right now, wages and salaries as a percentage of GDP are near a record low. This is a very deflationary state of affairs. The percentage of low paying jobs in the U.S. economy continues to increase, and we have witnessed an explosion in the ranks of the "working poor" in recent years. For consumer prices to rise significantly, more money is going to have to get into the hands of average American consumers first...

Wages And Salaries As A Percentage Of GDP


When The Debt Bubble Bursts

Right now, we are living in the greatest debt bubble in the history of the world. When a debt bubble bursts, fear and panic typically cause the flow of money and the flow of credit to really tighten up. We saw that happen at the beginning of the Great Depression of the 1930s, we saw that happen back in 2008, and we will see it happen again. Deleveraging is deflationary by nature, and it can cause economic activity to grind to a standstill very rapidly.

During the next major wave of the economic collapse, there will be times when it will seem like hardly anyone has any money. The "easy credit" of the past will be long gone, and large numbers of individuals and small businesses will find it very difficult to get loans.

When the debt bubble bursts, cash will be king - at least for a short period of time. Those that do not have any savings at all will really be hurting.

And some of the financial elite seem to be positioning themselves for what is coming. For example, even though he has been making public statements about how great stocks are right now, the truth is that Warren Buffett is currently sitting on $49 billion in cash. That is the most that he has ever had sitting in cash.

Does he know something?

Of course there will be a tremendous amount of pressure on the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve to do something once a financial crash happens. The response by the federal government and the Federal Reserve will likely be extremely inflationary as they try to resuscitate the system. It will probably be far more dramatic than anything we have seen so far.

So cash will not be king for long. In fact, eventually cash will be trash. The actions of the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve in response to the coming financial crisis will greatly upset much of the rest of the world and cause the death of the U.S. dollar.

That is why gold, silver and other hard assets are going to be so good to have in the long-term. In the short-term they will experience wild swings in price, but if you can handle the ride you will be smiling in the end.

In the coming years, we are going to experience both inflation and deflation, and neither one will be pleasant at all.

Get prepared while you still can, because time is running out.

Beyond Theory – the Practice of Building Socialism in Latin America

By Jorge Capelan and Toni Solo

Global Research, May 15, 2013

Tortilla con sal 7 May 2013


http://www.globalresearch.ca/beyond-theory-the-practice-of-building-socialism-in-latin-america/5335138


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Empire's Favorite Latin American Dictators

Global Research Editor’s Note

In the interest of sharing diversity of opinions and promoting an atmosphere of exchange and critique, we bring to the attention of our readers the following text by Jorge Capelán and Toni Solo.

This text is in response to an article published on Global Research entitled The Pink Tide in Latin America: An Alliance Between Local Capital and Socialism? by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya on May 03, 2013.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the imperial propaganda machine, leftist Latin American governments and political leaders are either too leftist, not really leftist, or blind fanatics, as well as being shrewdly machiavellian, capitalists in red clothing, enemies of the market and scores of other contradictory pairs of things all at once.

This is so because the purpose of propaganda is to render unusable the intellectual capacity of the target population to understand reality. By promoting mistrust, anxiety and confusion among those sections of the public in the imperialist countries that might oppose the designs of their rulers, the war planners seek to neutralize any effective solidarity efforts.

Sadly, most European and North American progressive and radical movements and intellectuals have problems coming to terms with this, no matter what their experience, reputation or insights into what the Empire routinely does to humanity.

Without direct involvement in them, virtually none of those intellectuals can offer a true and fair view of Latin America’s various revolutionary processes. They may offer plausible theories and schemas, but the nitty gritty of achieving power and effecting radical change will always elude them. Examples of this fact abound.

Depending entirely on academics like Noam Chomsky, or James Petras, for example, for a grasp of events in Latin America is a mistake. Those writers theoretical preconceptions tend to fall apart when applied to specific realities. One need not follow the anti-Stalinism of the historian E.P.Thompson into its ultimate social-democrat cul-de-sac to acknowledge the central argument of “The Poverty of Theory” against idealist theory.

The article “Pink Tide in Latin America: An Alliance Between Local Capital and Socialism” by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya published on May 3 by Global Research is an example of this sad truth. In the final paragraphs of his article, a series of reflections on the future developments in the region after Chavez’ death, the author writes: “It can be argued that the political current in Latin America is mostly a question of financial and economic independence, rather than a socialist project challenging the capitalist world-system.”

Without developing further this thesis, Nazemroaya’s piece actually is an exercise in inconsequential and superficial dissection of the progressive/radical governments in the region, with the purpose of questioning the anti-capitalist character of the process of integration taking place in Latin America. Since Nazemroaya’s analysis spreads many biases and mistaken views that are functional to the imperial propaganda efforts against those governments, we will deal with it in this article, but first let us address the core thesis the author put forward in his piece without thoroughly grounding it.

Indeed, there is a (conflictive) synergy between (some) Capitalist and anti-capitalist interests behind the movement for Latin American unity and independence. There is a huge amount of money in the hands of the Latin American oligarchies which, under the right circumstances, might be interested in investing in the regional market rather than, say, in the Swiss banking system or in regional tax havens. The emergence of China as a major lender and investor in the region, the stagnation of the US and European economies and the massive development projects carried out thanks to the initiative of governments which Nazemroaya designates under the derogatory term “Pink Tide”, explain some of the central drives behind this process. But does this mean that what is going on in Latin America today is not the emergence of “a socialist project challenging the capitalist world-system”?

Whoever doesn’t see the anti-capitalist value of ending the hegemony of Western imperialism once and for all and of building a multi-polar world order should start writing science-fiction novels instead of feigning engagement in actual anti-capitalist struggle. It’s really puzzling that a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization has problems grasping this point. However, there is much more to the anti-capitalist ambitions of the Latin American integrationist efforts than the multi-polar dimension alone.

In Latin America, it is impossible to engage in the construction of socialist and anti-capitalist alternatives without at the same time struggling to integrate the region politically, economically and even culturally. “I desire to see America fashioned into the greatest nation in the world, greatest not so much by virtue of her area and wealth as by her freedom and glory” (1). That is the legacy of Bolivar, as was the legacy of Martí, of Sandino, Mariátegui, Gaitán, Che, Fidel Castro and many other Latin American revolutionaries since Independence. This is so because the colonial and imperial powers needed to split the region up into small countries in order to exploit its resources and labor. This is not something Chavez made up, it is an old insight down here.

At the core of the Latin American process of independent integration is the Bolivarian Alliance, ALBA, which comprises 8 full members with a total population of 70 or 80 million (some 15% of the region’s population) plus an ever-growing list of countries participating as guest members and observers.

ALBA’s economic relationships are not based on profit but on solidarity and complementarity among its members. Nor is it an alliance of convenience, but a project aimed at consolidating a higher political unit beyond Capitalism. It is not based on Venezuelan charity either, but on the use of common resources as a lever enabling its member countries to leave Capitalism behind.

Through ALBA and schemes such as PETROCARIBE (18 member countries), Venezuelan oil imports are re-invested by non oil-producing countries in social and economic programs financed by almost interest-free long-term loans. Thus, agricultural countries such as Nicaragua widen their list of trade partners, but most importantly, they develop and diversify their economies, becoming less dependent on the export of agricultural products.

Exchanges at all levels between Venezuela, Cuba and the rest of the ALBA member countries aim at sharing experiences on all fields. For example, Nicaraguan rural workers travel to Venezuela to share their experiences of cooperative organization in order to help Venezuela increase its food production. Cuban personnel from many different fields, specially health care and education, play a very important role in many social programs, but they also share their experience and know-how while at the same time gathering many experiences from their colleagues in the other member countries. ALBA members have started using their own national currencies instead of the US dollar to trade with each other through a financial arrangement called SUCRE, the Unified System of Regional Compensation. This scheme helps protect the ALBA’s economies from the financial collapse of Capitalism.

From the examples above, it is foolish to deny the anticapitalist dynamics of ALBA. Even more foolish would be to deny ALBA’s influence on the rest of Latin America.

ALBA was founded in 2004 after an agreement between Venezuela and Cuba. The following year, in 2005, the US plan to build a “free trade” zone in the Americas, the FTAA, was buried at the Summit of The Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina, when most Latin American governments refused to hail Bush’s offer of “open up your customs or else…” Without the joint leadership of Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Lula da Silva and late Argentinean president Néstor Kirchner, this strategic defeat of imperialism in Latin America would not have been possible.

With the establishment, on February 23rd, 2010, of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, CELAC, the 33 countries in the region, for the first time in history, created an organization outside the control of the United States and Canada. Without the role played by Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, CELAC’s profile would not be as integral as it is today. Actually, Venezuela’s contribution was crucial, not only because of the strategic dimension of the Bolivarian revolution, but also because of its intelligent handling of the most reactionary sectors of the Colombian oligarchy represented by Alvaro Uribe.

It is quite clear that some Capitalist interests see important opportunities in all these developments, but they are not politically organized. The Latin American right is dominated by highly aggressive, reactionary pro-imperialist political parties, right-wing networks and corporate media. On a daily bases, these groups conspire and carry out disinformation campaigns against almost all governments in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially those with progressive and radical inclinations.

In his article, Nazemroaya questions these government’s leftist and anti-capitalist credentials. Although he warns against “oversimplification and romanticization”, and although he tries to define what he understands as “left”, Nazemroaya confuses the concepts and decontextualizes the facts, ending up with a list of more or less flattering aspects which he then uses to build up a negative portrait of the developments in Latin America.

Let us start with the concepts. Correctly, Nazemroaya defines “left” and “right” as political positions within a given context, but he then almost immediately abandons all interest in understanding the multiplicity of the contexts that compose the reality of the region to focus on the fact that there is “a Plethora of ‘Lefts’ in Latin America”, an “eclectic bunch” as the author’s derogatory style defines them.

Nazemroaya goes even further and states that “Latin American left-wing governments do not strictly operate to the ‘left’”: So, according to his actual view, there is a “real left” (a context-independent Left he feels he is entitled to define as such) and some kind of “fake left” (another context-independent left he thinks one is entitled to denounce as false). As “proof” of his assertion, the author refers to an alleged “debate over whether the Cuban socialist project is genuinely reforming or if it will eventually follow the paths of capitalist restoration like China and Vietnam”.

A debate where? In some cafe in Toronto? That is not a serious argument, for two reasons. Firstly, the existence of debates about the future course of a revolution are no proof of the actual orientation of that revolution. Secondly, Nazemroaya passes as received truths his opinions on socialism in China and Vietnam without feeling it necessary to go into any further details.

Actually, as true as the fact that there are many “lefts” in Latin America, is the fact that there is a vast experience of collective discussions among those “lefts”. An example of this is the Forum of Sao Paulo, which since 1990 has gathered more than 90 political organizations from almost all countries, including Puerto Rico. Most countries are represented by several political parties, and in cases such as Argentina and Uruguay, by 12 or 13 organizations.

For over 20 years, those organizations, ranging from the Chilean Socialist Party to the Cuban Communist Party, from various Peronist parties in Argentina to Peruvian nationalists, just to mention a few examples, have been able to carry out many debates and achieve consensus around key issues such as the struggle to end the US genocidal blockade of Cuba, the support to the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and ALBA as well as the project of continental integration.

The huge continental wave of solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution after Hugo Chavez’ death, especially in face of the fascist violence unleashed by Capriles Radonski’s thugs, is another case in point in relation to the capacity of this variegated array of “leftist” movements to very quickly set aside their differences for a common cause. Without the existence of similar mechanisms and processes, it would have been impossible, in recent months, to mobilize a movement capable of denouncing the Cuban CIA agent Yoani Sanches World Tour. In capital after capital where the CIA blogger attempted to smear Cuba, she was received by large groups of activists that on several occasions managed to force her to desist from her activities.

Another case in point, The existence of the Network of Intellectuals in Defence of Humanity, composed of hundreds, if not thousands, of intellectuals from all over the world and from a broad ideological spectrum, routinely organizing campaigns in defence of Cuba, Venezuela and ALBA, as well as against imperialist putschist moves in countries such as Honduras, Ecuador or Paraguay. Without denying the differences between various political movements, it is necessary to stress that there exists an ever-growing common understanding of the problems and challenges ahead.

Nazemroaya warns against easy generalizations but goes on to make sweeping generalizations such as the following:

“Latin America’s comprador elites are the local representatives of the foreign corporations, governments, and interests that have exploited Latin America for centuries. These comprador elites can frankly be described as either the ‘House Negros’ or racist upper class that have historically ruled Latin America and managed its wealth and resources for the changing centres of power in other parts of the world that have controlled the area. Today, the regional comprador elites are mostly aligned with the United States and prefer Miami or New York City to Caracas or Quito”.

One first commentary about this description is obvious: If the Latin American “comprador elites are mostly aligned with the US and prefer Miami or New York to Caracas or Quito”, how can they actually be a driving force behind a process of regional integration that is not to the liking of the US, NATO and Europe? Are they really a driving force behind this process as Nazemroaya implies?

This is the kind of sweeping, oversimplifying generalization that makes it impossible to understand the contexts and the particular traits of the various countries in the region. This in turn explains why there are so many “lefts” which, incidentally, show a startling capacity to cooperate with each other and to reach a common consensus around key issues. Also, such oversimplifying generalizations make it impossible to understand the complexities of the international relations among the region’s countries, for example, in the case of the relations between Colombia and Venezuela and the Peace Process taking place between FARC-EP and Santos.

The 33 nations that compose Latin America and the Caribbean show a common situation of dependence on imperialism, but they also show startling differences. Countries like Chile, Argentina or Uruguay have very strong European cultural influence, while other countries, such as Bolivia or Guatemala have big indigenous majorities. Some oligarchies are richer than others, some of them have had more freedom than others to carry out policies of import substitution.

Some countries, such as Honduras and Paraguay, have been ruthlessly subjected to a state of utmost political underdevelopment for decades by repressive dictatorships, while others, such as Ecuador or Uruguay, have enjoyed relatively long periods of successful reformism. Although Latin America is the world’s most unequal region, not all countries and societies are equally poor and not all of them are equally underdeveloped. Different forms of dependent economic insertion in the World Market, different political cultures, different social realities explain the differences among the political subjects.

Are “Latin America’s comprador elites … the local representatives of the foreign corporations, governments, and interests that have exploited Latin America for centuries” as Nazemroaya puts it? They are many other things besides that. They are mediators between the Western multinational interests and the local markets, but in many cases, they are players on their own right as well. Think about the example of Mexican Carlos Slim, the world’s richest man. Think about the financial Colombian capitalists represented by Santos or even sectors of the Brazilian oligarchy. They fear Socialism and most progressive politics, but they also fear the prospects of a sociopolitical meltdown that would make their profits vanish into thin air. In many cases, they have to reluctantly accept many of the progressives’ and radicals’ policies, even if their newspapers routinely pour bile on those governments.

Lacking a better political reference frame, Nazemroaya lays hand on James Petras’ typology on the Latin American left – one the weakest intellectual products of the US-American sociologist. With this typology, an otherwise sharp analyst such as Petras cannot resist the Western temptation of handing out small stars of revolutionary approval to movements he fancies more than others, irrespective of the concrete circumstances of their struggles. Incapable of understanding many of the true challenges of social transformation in the real world and the actual limits of political power, Petras projects his romanticized revolutionary ideals on various movements and subjects. When those movements in real life do not behave according to Petras’ wishes, they are either ditched or condescendingly tapped on the back with some scornful comment on having “sold out”. Apparently unable to understand the value of nation-building for the materialization of any sort of socialist project, he rejects movements such as Peronismo, irrespective of how stubbornly the working-class masses support them.

Petras’ schematic division between “radical left”, “pragmatic left”, “pragmatic neo-liberals” and “doctrinaire neo-liberal regimes” is seriously flawed when confronted with reality. If FARC were in the same situation as PSUV in Venezuela, it would certainly act along much the same lines. In fact, it supports the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and shares its inspirational force, namely, the heritage of Simon Bolivar.

In Brazil, the Landless Workers’ Movement gives critical support to the Worker’s Party (PT). While it rightly criticizes the agribusiness-oriented development strategy of Lula’s and Dilma Roussef’s party, the Landless Workers’ Movement also understands the various constraints the PT government faces being dependent on alliances with other political forces, in an inmense country where the oligarchy retains considerable power at all levels. They are also well aware of what it would mean were the neo-liberal right to return to political power in Brazil.

In Argentina, to call Cristina Fernández a “pragmatic neo-liberal” is an outright insult, not to mention an irresponsible lack of solidarity with a progressive government subject every day to the most vicious destabilizing campaigns from the oligarchy. No neo-liberal regime increases minimum wages, raises pensions, improves education or fights poverty. Nor does any neo-liberal regime say “Good-bye” to IMF the way Argentina has done.

The same goes for Mauricio Funes’ government in El Salvador, where the FMLN is on its way to win the coming elections with a candidate of its own. Incapable of identifying processes and accumulation of forces, dogmatic analysts such as Petras/Nazemroaya see only traitors, sell-outs and capitalists everywhere. The superficiality of Petras’ analysis becomes sheer bad faith when it comes to certain countries he simply doesn’t mention such as Nicaragua, where cooperatives account for about 40% of the country’s GDP and about 70% of the work force.

Back in mid-2008, a group of leading left-wing Western intellectuals, most prominently Noam Chomsky, wrote a letter supporting a hunger strike held by ex-FSLN leader Dora Maria Tellez in Nicaragua. Tellez was protesting the elimination of her MRS political alliance from the municipal elections in November of that year for having failed to comply with the electoral law. So Noam Chomsky and the other well-respected intellectuals concerned demonstrated the loyalty and solidarity of their intellectual-managerial class and spoke out on her behalf.

In fact, as it transpired, the MRS immediately entered into an electoral alliance with the Nicaragua’s corrupt extreme right-wing PLC party. They campaigned in particular in support of reactionary banker, Eduardo Montealegre who to this day uses his parliamentary immunity to avoid indictment for multi-million dollar banking fraud. Clearly, the MRS suckered Noam Chomsky and his fellow intellectuals into misguidedly supporting her 2008 charade, because those intellectuals had no idea of the political realities in Nicaragua. Anyone who doubts MRS’ allegiance to the US Embassy in Managua, should read some of the diplomatic cables recently released by WikiLeaks on the subject.

That particular case only highlights the pitfalls of depending on the neat schemes of the managerial class who dominate intellectual production in North America and Europe. So when Nazemroaya cites James Petras as his theoretical reference point in his recent article on Latin America, one needs to apply extreme skepticism to his arguments so as to try and discern the reality. Among the typical omissions of James Petras and his colleagues, Nicaragua understandably looms large by its absence.

They see that a given country still is in the grip of IMF loans, but they are incapable of seeing that the country is becoming less dependent on such loans. They see that a given country is depending on agro-exports, but they don’t see how that country is diversifying its economy and becoming less dependent on those exports. They see capitalists and State-Capitalism and cry “Neoliberalism! Extractivism!” without even proposing a workable alternative that might to develop a country’s productive forces. Or else when they actually see those alternatives being implemented by those governments, they shout “It is not enough!”.

To revolutions applies an old Latin American saying: “It is easy to look at the lady from afar, but quite a different story to go ahead and talk to her”.

A superficial and disrespectful treatment of developments in Latin America poses two sets of problems. The first one is that it makes practical solidarity more difficult, especially now, when Washington is engaging in a fascist continental crusade against Latin America. The second set of problems has to do with the crucial importance of the Latin American experience for any new projects beyond Capitalism anywhere else in the world.

Gangster State America. “Naked Short” in the Gold Market
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, May 13, 2013
paulcraigroberts.org


http://www.globalresearch.ca/gangster-state-america-naked-short-in-the-gold-market/5334950


There are many signs of gangster state America. One is the collusion between federal authorities and banksters in a criminal conspiracy to rig the markets for gold and silver.

My explanation that the sudden appearance of an unprecedented 400 ton short sale of gold on the COMEX in April was a manipulation designed to protect the dollar from the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing policy has found acceptance among gold investors and hedge fund managers.

The sale was a naked short. The seller had no gold to sell. COMEX reported having gold only equal to about half of the short sale in its vaults, and not all of that was available for delivery. No one but the Federal Reserve could have placed such an order, and the order came from one of the Fed’s bullion banks, one of the entities “too big to fail.”

Bill Kaye of the Greater Asian Hedge Fund in Hong Kong and Dave Kranzler of Golden Returns Capital have filled in the details of how the manipulation worked. Being sophisticated investors of many years of experience, both Kaye and Kranzler understand that the financial press runs with the authorized story planted to serve the agenda that has been put into play.

Institutional investors who have bullion in their portfolio do not want the expense associated with storing it securely. Instead, they buy into Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) and hold their bullion in the form of a paper claim. The largest, the SPDR Gold Trust or GLD, trades on the New York Stock Exchange. The trustee and custodian is a bankster, and only other banksters are able to turn investments into delivery of physical bullion. Only shares in the amount of 100,000 can be redeemed in gold.

The price of bullion is not set in the physical market where individuals take delivery of bullion purchases. It is set in the paper futures market where short selling can drive down the price even if the demand for physical possession is rising. The paper gold market is also the market in which people speculate and leverage their positions, place stop-loss orders, and are subject to margin calls.

When the enormous naked shorts hit the COMEX, stop-loss orders were triggered adding to the sales, and margin calls forced more sales. Investors who were not in on the manipulation lost a lot of money.

The sales of GLD shares are accumulated by the banksters in 100,000 lots and presented to GLD for redemption in gold acquired at the driven down price.

The short sale is leveraged by the stop-loss triggers and margin calls, and results in a profit for the banksters who placed the short sell order. The banksters then profit again as they sell the released gold into the physical market, especially in Asia, where demand has been stimulated by the sharp drop in bullion price and by the loss of confidence in fiat currency. Asian prices are usually at a higher premium above the spot prices in New York-London.

Some readers have said “don’t bet against the Federal Reserve; the manipulation can go on forever.” But can it? As the ETFs such as GLD are drained of gold, their ability to cover any of their obligations to investors diminishes. In my opinion, these ETFs are like a fractional reserve banking system. The claims on gold exceed the amount of gold in the trusts. When the ETFs are looted of their gold by the banksters, the gold price will explode, as the claims on gold will greatly exceed the supply.

Kranzler reports that the current June futures contracts are 12.5 times the amount of deliverable gold. If more than 8 percent of these trades were to demand delivery, COMEX would default. That such a situation is possible indicates the total failure of federal financial regulation.

What the Federal Reserve has done in order to maintain its short-run policy of protecting the “banks too big too fail” is to make the inevitable reckoning more costly for the US economy.

Another irony is the benefactors of the banksters sale of the gold leeched from the gold ETFs. Asia is the beneficiary, especially India and China. The “get out of gold line” of the US financial press enables China to unload its excess supply of dollars, accumulated from the offshored US economy, into the gold market at a suppressed price of gold.

Kranzler points out that not only does the Fed’s manipulation permit Asia to offload US dollars for gold at low prices, but the obvious lack of confidence in the dollar that the manipulation demonstrates has caused wealthy European families to demand delivery of their gold holdings at bullion banks (the bullion banks are essentially the “banks too big to fail”). Kranzler notes that since January 1, more than 400 tons of gold have been drained from COMEX and gold ETF holdings in order to satisfy world demand for physical possession of bullion.

Again we see that institutions of the US government are acting 100% against the interests of US citizens. Just who does the US government represent?

US Dollar Collapse and Japan’s Sham Currency War: The Hidden Agenda Behind Japan’s Kamikaze Quantitative Easing

By Matthias Chang

Global Research, May 15, 2013

Future Fast Forward


http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-dollar-collapse-and-japans-sham-currency-war-the-hidden-agenda-behind-japans-kamikaze-quantitative-easing/5335129


US$ dollars have been flooding the financial markets ever since Bernanke launched quantitative easing allegedly to turnaround the US economy. These huge amounts of US$ toilet paper are mainly in financial markets (and in central banks) outside of the United States. A huge chunk is represented as reserves in central banks led by China and Japan.

If truth be told, the real value of the US$ would not be more than a dime and I am being really generous here, as even toilet paper has a value.

That the US dollar is still accepted in the financial markets (specifically by central banks) has nothing to do with it being a reserve currency, but rather that the US$ is backed/supported by the armed might and nuclear blackmail of the US Military-Industrial Complex. The nuclear blackmail of Iran is the best example following Iran’s decision to trade her crude in other currencies and gold instead of the US$ toilet paper.

If the United States were not a military threat and a global bully that can blackmail with impunity the oil exporting countries in the Middle East, the global financial system which hinges on the US$ toilet paper would have collapsed a long time ago.

The issue is why has the US$ not collapsed as it should have by now?

When we apply common sense and logic to the state of affairs, the answer is so simple and it is staring at you.

But, you have not been able to see the obvious because the global mass media, specifically the global financial mass media controlled mainly from London and New York, has created a smokescreen to hide the truth from you.

Let’s analyse the situation in a step by step manner, and apply common sense.

1. The US is the world’s biggest debtor. The biggest creditors are China and Japan, followed by the oil exporting countries in the Middle East. With each passing day, the value of the US$ toilet paper is worth less and less. Like I said earlier, even toilet paper has some intrinsic value. It reaches zero value when everyone has to carry a wheelbarrow of US$ to purchase anything.

2. For the US$ toilet paper creditors, they cannot admit the fact that they have been conned by the global Too Big To Fail Banks (TBTFs) acting in concert with the FED and the Bank of England to accept US$ toilet papers. The central bankers of these countries have a reputation to preserve (not that there is in fact any reputation, for their so-called financial credibility is also part of the scam) and the political leaders that relied on them is in a bigger bind. How can the political leaders be so very stupid to trust these central bankers (who have stashed away in foreign tax havens huge US$ toilet papers as a reward for their complicity). This is the current state of affairs in plain English. They are having sleepless nights worrying if and when the citizens would wise up to this biggest con in history i.e. the promotion and acceptance of fiat currencies, the US$ being the ultimate fiat currency.

3. The global financial elites led by the FED know that this state of affairs is to their advantage and they are exploiting it to the hilt! They also know that no country or organisation has the military resources to threaten the US to stop this global ponzi scheme which has been going on since 1945 and intensified since 1971 when President Nixon de-coupled the US$ from gold. The pound sterling is another story but, it is not relevant for the purposes of this analysis.

4. Additionally, and as a result of the above-stated scam, countries were led to believe and to accept the false economic theory that export generated growth (GDP) should be the foundation of economic development, as the United States having limitless US$ toilet paper has the ability and the means to purchase the global exports, it being the largest consumer market in the world. In the result, the world’s factories and their workers, including those in the developed world such as France and Germany worked their butts off to be rewarded with US$ toilet paper whose value is less than the paper and ink that produce it! The financial frolic went on for more than forty years and came to an abrupt and foreseeable end in the 2008 global financial tsunami.

5. When the party ended, the United States was up to her eyeballs in debts as a result of reckless financial speculation in the global derivatives casino and the consumption binge financed by housing mortgages. Debts must be repaid. But, the US has no means to do so. They cannot produce enough goods to earn the revenue to pay the debts because US manufacturing has been outsourced to the developing world – China became the world’s number 1 factory. So, the financial elite appointed helicopter Bernanke to lead the charge for the US and the UK to use the printing press (digital or otherwise) to print more US$ toilet papers to pay off the debt. In economic jargon, this is “monetising the debt”. It is outright fraud, but no one (i.e. central bankers) in his right mind would admit to this fraud as they would be hung from the lamp-posts if the truth is discovered as was the case when the Italian fascist leader Mussolini was hung by the Italian partisans.

6. Initially, central bankers confronted with this situation and having to face a restless populace embarked on a regime of competitive easing/ devaluation of their currencies. But, the price was horrendous. Inflation spiked in all these countries. But, this scheme of things did not work out as planned for the simple reason, the US$ toilet paper continued to be lower as a result of more QE by Bernanke. China realised the danger and adopted other means to overcome this situation, one of which was to enter into bilateral arrangements with her trading partners to finance trade in their respective currencies. Such agreements were entered between China and Japan, members of BRIC, Malaysia etc. This counter-measure was perceived as a threat to the continued dominance of the US$ toilet paper regime. In the result, Obama declared at the urging of the financial elites (he does not have the grey cells to think) a foreign policy shift – the Asia Pivot to prevent a further deterioration of US$ dominance.

7. When Japan entered the agreement with China, her behaviour was deemed unacceptable since Japan was under the nuclear protection of the US. Japan was caught between a rock and a hard place. It was expected that sooner or later the US would apply the squeeze on Japan to behave in a proper manner. Applying geopolitical strategies, the US towing South Korea along provoked North Korea by launching a military exercise which included flying B-2 bombers which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. North Korea responded in the manner that was expected. Japan was exposed and in like manner reacted by seeking US protection. To muddy the waters and complicate the situation, the US engineered a Idispute between China and Japan over the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands. This was followed by the installation of a new regime in Japan by the election of the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the appointment of Haruhiko Kuroda as the Governor of the Bank of Japan (BOJ).

8. Now comes the mechanics of US counter-measures in shoring up the artificial dominance/value of the US$ toilet paper. Japan was ordered to do its part as a quid pro quo for being protected by the US’s nuclear umbrella. A new version of the Plaza Accord must be put in place – a “reverse Plaza Accord”.

9. Let me explain. In the 1985 Plaza Accord, the dollar was devalued to reduce the current account deficit and to help the US recover from the recession of the early 1980s. It was a managed devaluation and the exchange value of the Dollar versus the Yen declined by 51 per cent from 1985 to 1987 – reaching ¥151 per US$1 in March 1987. The dollar continued to slide till 1988. The effect of the strengthened Yen depressed Japan’s exports and brought about the expansionary monetary policies that resulted in the infamous asset bubbles of the late 1980s. The G-6 countries then gathered in 1987 in Paris to arrest the slide of the dollar and to manage and stabilise the international currency markets. The end result was the Louvre Accord. In the next 18 months the dollar strengthened to ¥160 per US$1.

10. However, in the current situation, the devaluation of the US$ toilet paper was the result of massive QEs so as to enable US to monetise her debts. However, for US to continue to monetise her debts and have the world’s central banks agreement to continue to hold dollar reserves, the value of the dollar must appreciate, failing which the dollar would collapse, the US defaulting on her debts, as creditors would no longer accept US$ as payment. The trick was to artificially inflate the value of the dollar without arousing any suspicions.

11. In the 1970s, following the de-coupling of the dollar from gold by President Nixon, the dollar would have collapsed in like manner as it was not backed by gold. It became pure fiat money! The trick then was to create an artificial demand for dollar which would in turn raise the value of the currency. This was effected by the proposal of Kissinger to the Arabs that if they would dollarize their oil exports, the US would guarantee their safety and survival even from the threats of Israel. When the Arabs agreed to this arrangement, every country in the world had to buy oil in US$. Countries have to exchange their currencies into US$ to buy oil. This demand for US$ strengthened the currency and prolonged the US fiat money monopoly.

12. However, this option is no longer available presently as oil is now being sold in other currencies besides the US$. The petro-dollar is no longer in dominance. In any event, the continued use of petro-dollars would spike the oil price and this would be inflationary and detrimental to the US economy as well as the world’s economy in the present economic climate – i.e. deep recession. Another means must be used.

13. This is the reason for the sudden “shock and awe” monetary policy of the new Japanese regime of Shinzo Abe and Haruhiko Kuroda. My detractors will accuse me of indulging in conspiracy theories. But, the facts speak for themselves. I had said earlier, that the G-7 countries have collectively attempted to devalue their currencies but, it did not stem the slide of the US$ because Bernanke was increasing the intensity of QE since 2008. And the EU was not willing and or able to adopt a suicide policy of massive QE as Germany was well aware of such a risk having suffered the negative effects of hyperinflation. China would not kow-tow to the US and in fact together with fellow members of BRIC was adopting counter-measures to confront Bernanke’s QE financial weapon. That left only one country who can be compelled to do the US bidding, to commit Hara-kiri to save and or prolong the US$ toilet paper regime – Japan!

14. And so, Japan launched its sudden massive QE and the desired effect is that now the US$ toilet paper has artificially appreciated in value vis-a-vis the Yen and less so with other currencies. This cannot be disputed by my detractors because:

On May 11, the financial elites of G-7 countries explicitly agreed with this kamikaze policy of Japan.

Koichi Hamada has also declared earlier that the target for this policy is to allow the dollar to rise to ¥110 per US$1 and this rise would be managed in a staggered fashion in small increments (step by step approach) thereby controlling the rate of inflation in Japan which would not be allowed to exceed the agreed target rate.

It is suggested that Japan can do this because it can utilise its huge dollar reserves of US$1.2 Trillion to manage the devaluation! According to Alan Ruskin, the global head of Group of 10 foreign-exchange strategy in New York at Deutsche Bank ASG, he said “I think we are opening up the door to look at 105 in the next few months and 110 by the end of the year …” and this surely must be interpreted to mean that Koichi Hamada’s strategy is definitely in play.

In conclusion, it is my view that such “managed artificial appreciation” of the US$ toilet paper while effective in the short run would fail in the long run because the fundamental issues of the US economy have not been addressed and resolved. Only real economic growth can reverse the dollar’s demise.

Seriously, would Bernanke stop further QE when the yen exchange rate reaches ¥110 by the year end? Has not Bernanke declared that QE would continue till 2015? And since Japan has drawn the Red Line at ¥110, can Japan risk further damage to its economy and continue to back-stop US beyond ¥110?

The US$ quadrillion derivative casino is the millstone around the US and the global economy, and as long as this is not resolved, the crisis would only get worse. Like water, after sufficient heat, the boiling point would be reached.

While I cannot forecast the precise date of the implosion, I am of the view that the end is near, sparked by a black swan event and then snowballed to its final devastation.

Buying Time in Syria

The Syrian Army’s Success on the ground. Covert Proxy Strategy has come to an almost Standstill

By Phil Greaves

Global Research, May 11, 2013


http://www.globalresearch.ca/buying-time-in-syria/5334748


The US government and its “Re-directional” middle east policy planners are buying time in Syria. The current softening of US rhetoric is merely a smokescreen to enable the US Government and its autocratic GCC (Gulf Co-Operation Council) allies to shift strategies and proxy allegiances, in their aggressive regime change objectives in Syria and Iran. Currently, US and Gulf proxies are losing ground to the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) nationwide.

In the last month to six weeks the SAA has been on a concerted nationwide offensive, targeting Salafi/Jihaddi inspired militia that have encamped in cities, towns and villages all over the country. These efforts have concentrated on two key objectives: firstly, to enable the Syrian Government and its army to fight on indefinitely, continue receiving supplies, materiel and in some instances personnel from its international allies: Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. Furthermore, the army has also concentrated on starving, and cutting off “rebel” supply routes and arms corridors, which predominantly run through Northern Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan.

Initially, the US was hoping for a “slam dunk” of regime change in Syria, a la Libya no fly zone (NFZ). Russia and China put an immediate stop to these pernicious attempts of aggression in the UNSC: a major blow to short-term US imperial designs in the region. This left the US with the option of carrying its plan forward covertly, with its regional allies and their proxies, or, attempting a “humanitarian intervention” with its own, or its regional allies conventional forces.

For many an obvious reason, the US administration chose to continue in its pursuit of the former covert strategy, primarily for domestic political appeal, (no boots on the ground!) whilst also subverting the UN to continue its illegal policy unimpeded. The Syrian Army’s success on the ground; alongside its allies unwillingness to bow to US demands in the UN, has meant this covert proxy strategy has come to an almost standstill. The US is unable to overtly arm the current disparate melee of militants: predominantly Islamic extremist’s fighting on the ground in Syria, or gain its coveted no-fly zone. This is where the strategy has become entangled, and why the US State Department is currently changing its public rhetoric and paying lip service to Russia’s defiant stance based on the 2012 Geneva Communique in the UN, calling on all sides to partake in peaceful transition. The last thing the US wants in Syria, is to allow Assad to stand in elections.

The US objective of swift regime change has drastically failed thus far in Syria, the GCC fomented extremist militia acting as shock troops have taken on the leading role in the insurgency, gaining the most in recruits, arms and funding: and ultimately success on the ground. In the long-term, and the more this dynamic is allowed to overtly foment and expand, and gains public exposure, the more counter-productive it becomes for the US. Several other reasons must be taken into consideration with regard to the US changing its overt rhetoric and short-term objectives. First, the administration cannot be seen to be overtly arming and funding militia, whose core leadership comprises of Al Qaeda ideologues and sympathisers.

In addition the Syrian Army and its allies within the “axis of resistance”, have proven a far more capable and determined fighting force than anticipated; Syria’s international allies appear unwilling to roll over and allow the US to steamroll into forming their own revamped Sykes-Picot agreement. In addition, another crucial obstruction is the western public’s refusal to be hoodwinked into another act of aggression under false pretences. As a result of this public dissatisfaction, the US Government itself, is in a state of conflict within the foreign policy and intelligence establishment on how best to implement its imperial designs.

In recent statements US Secretary of State John Kerry, has attempted to give the impression he is leaning towards Russia’s way of thinking, with many added caveats of course: this is simply diplomatic bluster. Much speculation has been afforded to the theory that Russia, still overtly supportive of the Syrian Government, has supplied the SAA with renewed and sophisticated air-defense missile batteries. Russia vaguely deny and claim they are only fulfilling previous contracts (of which the S-300 was included), “anonymous sources” confirm or speculate further, the US harps on about Israeli “security” (post Israeli aggression on Damascus) and no clear picture of Russian military objective is obtained.

Regardless, something has definitely changed in both the US’ overt rhetoric, and the media vehicles that propagate it. Much more attention is being paid to the actual ideologies of the militants fighting the SAA, and the repercussions on the whole region if the Syrian Government and its security infrastructure is overthrown. A recent report suggested the CIA is already looking to target Jahbat al Nusra: the strongest, and indeed, most overtly extreme of the “rebel” militia; the CIA is also looking to use so-called “moderate” rebels to undertake this targeting for them. It beggars belief that the US is seriously considering splitting the “opposition” insurgency against its most effective fighting force, to try to “stabilise” an already critical situation. To some extent, this is exactly what the administrations plans appear to be: the US is attempting to reinvigorate the extremist infested, and corrupt insurgency, to reshape and rebrand those it is supporting and funding to overthrow the Syrian Government.

One fact remains, and is an overall positive one for the US and its allies long-term objectives in the region. Syria is in a total state of crisis and in no position to afford Iran any defense against attack; its whole social fabric is being ripped apart by sectarian hatred, revenge, and outright brutality. This societal division, is the overarching desired outcome for the Neo-Cons and apartheid apologists that hold sway within the US foreign policy elite.

Israel’s recent airstrikes are another key indicator as to the long-term western-establishment goal of constant destabilization. In this war, Israel will, as always, act as a conduit for western foreign Policy, whilst furthering its own genocidal agenda. The US, and by extension Israel, are more than happy to abandon the Gulf fomented extremists that the US, and its Gulf allies so eagerly propagated into war. A “desirable” Henry Kissinger-esque outcome for these parties would be total annihilation of both sides, followed by quick installation of compliant strongman-puppet, and, preferably: some ethnic division, secession, and further weakening of a unified bloc of resistance to western resource/land theft, and imperialism.

The only thing stopping this outcome and its inevitable human suffering and destruction, is resistance.

But resistance of US imperialism comes at a heavy price for such out-gunned nations, and the US, Israel and their entirely undemocratic GCC allies will persist unabated in their long-term objective to overturn the Syrian Government; wipe out Hezbollah; suppress the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance, and dominate Iran.

BC PROPÕE QUE ACIONISTA RESGATE BANCO INSOLVENTE

BC QUER CREDORES EM RESGATES

Autor(es): Por Eduardo Campos | De Brasília

Valor Econômico - 06/05/2013


http://clippingmp.planejamento.gov.br/cadastros/noticias/2013/5/6/bc-propoe-que-acionista-resgate-banco-insolvente


Uma das propostas é que dificuldades financeiras sejam equacionadas com recursos do próprio banco, de seus acionistas,
grandes credores e grandes depositantes, sem uso de dinheiro público



O Banco Central prepara um anteprojeto de lei com novos mecanismos para lidar com eventuais problemas de solvência de
bancos, preenchendo, assim, vácuo criado pela extinção do Proer, o Programa de Estímulo à Reestruturação e ao
Fortalecimento do Sistema Financeiro Nacional, em 2001. Uma das propostas é que dificuldades financeiras sejam
equacionadas com recursos da própria instituição, de seus acionistas, grandes credores e grandes depositantes, sem uso
de dinheiro público.

Os regimes especiais de resolução devem ser ampliados e o BC somará instrumentos às atuais possibilidades de
intervenção, liquidação extrajudicial e regime de administração especial temporária.

"O marco legal em desenvolvimento visa garantir a continuidade dos serviços e da estrutura financeira necessária ao bom
funcionamento da economia real em caso de problema de solvência em alguma instituição sistemicamente importante", diz o
diretor de organização do sistema financeiro do Banco Central, Sidnei Correa Marques.

A nova legislação pretende abarcar um aspecto que se mostrou crítico durante os resgates de grandes instituições
internacionais desde a crise de 2008: o uso de recursos públicos.

Marques considera fundamental que uma solução desse tipo de problema seja realizada com os recursos das partes
envolvidas, algo preconizado pela Lei de Responsabilidade Fiscal (LRF) e pelas recomendações do Conselho de Estabilidade
Financeira (FSB, na sigla em inglês) em seus princípios básicos - que são os elementos considerados necessários para um
regime de resolução competente.

Entre as novas ferramentas, a que mais chama atenção é o modelo que está em fase de intensa discussão internacional
depois de sua adoção na reestruturação da dívida da Grécia e no resgate aos bancos do Chipre, o chamado "bail-in".

Com esse regime, a ideia é fazer com que um banco insolvente seja recapitalizado com recursos do seu próprio passivo,
sem a necessidade de aportes do governo.

É o oposto do "bail-out", que esteve diariamente no noticiário da crise de 2008 e que levou o Tesouro de diversos países
a situações críticas em função dos gigantescos recursos públicos injetados no sistema financeiro.

No regime de "bail-in" as perdas são absorvidas, primeiro, com recursos dos acionistas, se isso não for suficiente,
entram no jogo os instrumentos híbridos de capital e dívida. Se, ainda assim, a instituição permanecer desenquadrada,
parte-se para a conversão de determinados tipos de créditos em ações. Pela proposta, os clientes que estiverem
protegidos pelo Fundo Garantidor de Créditos (FGC) não serão afetados.

No Brasil, a crise de 2008 não custou um centavo do contribuinte no resgate de instituições financeiras. Mas o país já
teve seu momento de "bail-out" com o Proer e o Proes em meados da década de 90. Com a aprovação da Lei de
Responsabilidade Fiscal, em 2001, ficou vetado o uso de recursos públicos para salvar instituições financeiras. A
legislação que o BC propõe tem como base o artigo da LRF que prevê legislação específica para tratar desses assuntos.

Outra possibilidade em discussão é a criação de "empresas ponte" para receber ativos e passivos da instituição em
liquidação. Dessa forma, o BC conseguiria buscar um modelo de saneamento conhecido como "banco bom" e "banco ruim", no
qual os ativos bons são separados dos podres e vendidos. Outra ferramenta pode ser a suspensão temporária, por parte do
BC, das exigibilidades de créditos contra a instituição que está sob intervenção.

O anteprojeto também traz instrumentos da Lei de Falências para o arcabouço legal do BC. Entre eles está a criação do
conselho de credores, que avaliaria as propostas do liquidante, reduzindo, assim, questionamentos jurídicos posteriores
sobre a venda de ativos. Ainda está prevista uma figura de "não sucessão" de ônus, ou seja, o comprador da chamada
"parte boa" de uma instituição não herda os passivos da "antiga instituição".

"A nova lei deverá permitir o encerramento mais célere das liquidações extrajudiciais, reduzindo o impacto negativo no
sistema e permitindo que os credores recebam mais rapidamente", diz Marques.

Para o BC, esse é o momento oportuno para essa revisão legal, pois o sistema financeiro está maduro e conta com uma
série de mecanismos de proteção. "Além disso, todos os países do G-20 estão trabalhando nesse esforço conjunto para o
aperfeiçoamento de seus regimes de resolução", diz Marques.

O que não sofrerá alteração é a estrutura de responsabilização. Seguiriam em vigor a indisponibilidade de bens dos
controladores e administradores, a instauração de inquéritos administrativos, e a participação do Ministério Público na
apuração dos casos.

Para ampliar a discussão sobre os sistemas de resolução, o BC realiza, nesta segunda e terça-feira, um seminário
internacional sobre o tema. O presidente Alexandre Tombini discursa na abertura.

Esse projeto se soma a outros estudos em andamento dentro do BC e que formarão um novo marco legal para o sistema
financeiro. Há projetos visando maior poder coercitivo à autoridade monetária, por exemplo. Todas essas propostas estão
em discussão com Fazenda, CVM e Susep, mas a palavra final caberá ao Congresso.

O fim da era de ouro das commodities

Desde 1998, ele vinha em franca ascensão — o chamado superciclo, em que a demanda crescente por matérias-primas supera a oferta, elevando os preços a picos incomuns.


http://www.defesanet.com.br/geopolitica/noticia/10672/O-fim-da-era-de-ouro-das-commodities-


Nota DefesaNet
A rápida mudança do cenário de commodities abre uma série de questões ao Brasil. Como ficará a VALE? A PETROBRAS? O Pré-Sal chegará à tempo?
O editor

Bloomberg News

Ultimamente, porém, as commodities estão indo ladeira abaixo. Na última conferência de resultados do banco americano Morgan Stanley, a diretora financeira, Ruth Porat, classificou essa fraqueza como cíclica ao invés de estrutural. Mas uma mudança mais fundamental parece estar em andamento.

Duas coisas sustentaram a alta das commodities industriais. Primeiro, preços baixos desencorajaram investimentos em novas minas e campos de petróleo durante boa parte dos anos 80 e 90. Segundo, a demanda em mercados emergentes, principalmente na China, deu um salto.

Preços altos incentivaram investimentos em novas fontes. O exemplo mais óbvio foi a recuperação da produção de petróleo e gás natural nos Estados Unidos. Os gastos mundiais com recursos petrolíferos foram de US$ 700 bilhões neste ano, mais do quádruplo de dez anos atrás, segundo estimativa da consultoria IHS Herold.

Algo semelhante está acontecendo com os metais e minerais usados na indústria. A Caterpillar acabou de cortar suas previsões de lucro e receita, citando a fraca demanda por equipamentos de mineração. O excesso de capacidade vem há anos pesando sobre o preço do alumínio e já começou a atingir o do minério de ferro.

Agora, é o cobre que está sentindo os primeiros efeitos. O banco Barclays projeta que a oferta mundial do metal ultrapassou o consumo no ano passado e continuará à frente pelo menos até 2014, revertendo os déficits de 2010 e 2011. Agora que a oferta está acelerando, o crescimento da demanda diminuiu.

O baixo crescimento e o uso mais eficiente dos combustíveis, principalmente nos EUA, levam a Agência Internacional de Energia a prever que a demanda de petróleo nas economias avançadas em 2017 será menor que em 1997.

Para os que apostam na alta do petróleo, a China é o grande trunfo. Entre 1998 e 2007, o país respondeu por 29% do crescimento da demanda por petróleo, com a antiga União Soviética e o Oriente Médio sendo dois outros centros de crescimento. De fato, a agência espera que a demanda combinada dos dois ultrapasse a da China até 2017. Mas a economia dessas duas regiões está altamente atrelada às exportações dos próprios combustíveis. Assim, as estimativas do seu consumo vão depender do desempenho da China.

O consumo de petróleo da China durante esta década não deve repetir os altos volumes da última, quando ele quase dobrou. No começo daquele período, a China consumia entre 1,5 barril de petróleo para cada US$ 1.000 do seu produto interno bruto, segundo a firma Raymond James. Em 2012, esse consumo tinha caído para menos de um barril.

O crescimento do PIB da China diminuiu devido à fraqueza de mercados que recebem suas exportações, especialmente a Europa. Além disso, o governo está tentando mudar o foco da economia dos investimentos, que atualmente respondem por metade do PIB, para o consumo, que representam apenas um terço. Essa mudança será um freio considerável para o crescimento.

A demanda por metais poderia ter um desempenho ainda pior nesse cenário, considerando o quanto ela está ligada à febre de construção na China. Por exemplo, entre 2005 e 2010, a China respondeu por 150% do crescimento da demanda mundial por cobre (levando em conta o crescimento negativo de alguns países). O Barclays calcula que tal dependência permanecerá alta no período entre 2010 e 2014, com a China representando 99% do crescimento líquido.

O outro lado da moeda é uma possível aterrissagem acidentada da China. A Longview Economics, apontando para uma alavancagem elevada, estima que o setor privado da China precisará de perto de US$ 3 de financiamento para cada US$ 1 que adicionar ao PIB, mais de 2,5 vezes o nível prevalente antes da crise financeira. O risco de uma bolha de crédito estourar na China, emperrando o crescimento, é real.

Ainda há dinheiro a se ganhar com commodities. Mas isso vai requerer gerenciamento ativo de investimentos, conhecimento do mercado e ações no tempo certo. Isso está mais de acordo com as habilidades de operadores especializados do que com a abordagem de comprar e segurar que ganhou força nos últimos dez anos. Essa era de ouro das commodities chegou ao fim.

Brazil: Neoliberalism with a “Human Face”

Replicating Argentina, Brazil's Macro-economic Policy under the Control of Wall Street creditors

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, May 01, 2013

Global Research 25 April 2003



http://www.globalresearch.ca/brazil-neoliberalism-with-a-human-face/374


This article was first published by Global Research ten years ago on April 25, 2003

The inauguration of Luis Ignacio da Silva (Lula) to the presidency of Brazil is historically significant, because millions of Brazilians saw in the Workers Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores), a genuine political and economic alternative to the dominant (neoliberal) “free market” agenda.

Lula’s election embodies the hope of an entire nation. It constitutes an overwhelming vote against globalization and the neo-liberal model, which has resulted in mass poverty and unemployment throughout Latin America.

Meeting in Porto Alegre in late January at the World Social Forum, Lula’s anti-globalization stance was applauded by tens of thousands of delegates from around the World. The debate at the 2003 WSF, held barely two months before the invasion of Iraq, was held under the banner: “Another World is Possible”.

Ironically, while applauding Lula`s victory, nobody — among the prominent critics of “free trade” and corporate driven globalization– who spoke at the 2003 WSF, seemed to have noticed that President Luis Ignacio da Silva`s PT government had already handed over the reigns of macro-economic reform to Wall Street and the IMF.

While embraced in chorus by progressive movements around the World, Lula’s administration was also being applauded by the main protagonists of the neoliberal model In the words of the IMF’s Managing Director Heinrich Koeller:


I am enthusiastic [with Lula's administration]; but it is better to say I am deeply impressed by President Lula, indeed, and in particular because I do think he has the credibility which often other leaders lack a bit, and the credibility is that he is serious to work hard to combine growth-oriented policy with social equity. This is the right agenda, the right direction, the right objective for Brazil and, beyond Brazil, in Latin America. So, he has defined the right direction. Second, I think what the government, under the leadership of President Lula, has demonstrated in its first 100 days of government is also impressive and not just airing intention how they work through the process on this huge agenda of reforms. I understand that pension reform, tax reform is high on the agenda, and this is right. The third element is that the IMF listens to President Lula and the economic team, and that is our philosophy, of course, beyond Brazil. (IMF Managing Director Heinrich Koeller, Press conference, 10 April 2003, http://www.imf.org/external/np/tr/2003/tr030410.htm )

Lula appoints a Wall Street Financier to lead Brazil’s Central Bank

At the very outset of his mandate, Lula reassured foreign investors that “Brazil will not follow neighboring Argentina into default” ( Davos World Economic Forum, January 2003). Now if such is his intent, then why did he appoint to the Central Bank, a man who played a role (as president of Boston Fleet) in the Argentinean debacle and whose bank was allegedly involved in shady money transactions, which contributed to the dramatic collapse of the Argentinean Peso.

By appointing Henrique de Campos Meirelles, the president and CEO of Boston Fleet, to head the country’s Central Bank, President Luis Ignacio da Silva had essentially handed over the conduct of the nation’s finances and monetary policy to Wall Street.

Boston Fleet is the 7th largest bank in the US. After Citigroup, Boston Fleet is Brazil’s second largest creditor institution.

The country is in financial straightjacket. The key finance/banking positions in Lula’s administration are held by Wall Street appointees:
■The Central Bank is under the control of Boston Fleet,
■A former senior executive of Citigroup Mr. Casio Casseb Lima has been put in charge of the State banking giant Banco do Brazil (BB). Cassio Casseb Lima, who worked for Citigroup’s operations in Brazil, was initially recruited to BankBoston in 1976 by Henrique Meirelles. In other words, the head of BB has personal and professional links to Brazil’s two largest commercial creditors: Citigroup and Boston Fleet.

Continuity will be maintained. The new PT team in the Central Bank is a carbon copy of that appointed by (outgoing) President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The outgoing Central Bank president Arminio Fraga was a former employee of Quantum Fund (New York), which is owned by Wall Street financier (and speculator) George Soros.

In close liaison with Wall Street and the IMF, Lula’s appointee to the Central Bank of Brazil, Henrique de Campos Meirelles, has maintained the policy framework of his predecessor (who was also a Wall Street appointee) : tight monetary policy, generalized austerity measures, high interest rates and a deregulated foreign exchange regime. The latter encourages speculative attacks against the Brazilian Real and capital flight, resulting in a spiraling foreign debt.

Needless to say, the IMF program in Brazil will be geared towards the eventual dismantling of the State banking system in which the new head of Banco do Brazil, a former Citibank official, will no doubt play a crucial role.

No wonder the IMF is “enthusiastic”. The main institutions of economic and financial management are in the hands the country’s creditors. Under these conditions, neoliberalism is “live and kicking”: an “alternative” macro-economic agenda, modeled on the spirit of Porto Alegre is simply not possible.

“Putting the Fox in charge of the Chicken Coop”

Boston Fleet was one among several banks and financial institutions which speculated against the Brazilian Real in 1998-99, leading to the spectacular meltdown of the Sao Paulo stock exchange on “Black Wednesday” 13 January 1999. BankBoston, which later merged with Fleet is estimated to have made a 4.5 billion dollars windfall in Brazil in the course of the Real Plan, starting with an initial investment of $100 million.(Latin Finance, 6 August 1998).

In other words, Boston Fleet is the “cause” rather than “the solution” to the country’s financial woes. Appointing the former CEO of Boston Fleet to head the nation’s Central Bank is tantamount to “putting the fox to in charge of the chicken coop”.

The new economic team has stated that it is committed to resolving the country’s debt crisis and steering Brazil towards financial stability. Yet the policies they have adopted are likely to have exactly the opposite effects.

Replicating Argentina

It so happens that Lula’s Central Bank president, Henrique Meirelles was a staunch supporter of Argentina’s controversial Finance Minister Domingo Cavallo, who played a key role under the Menem government, in spearheading the country into a deep-seated economic and social crisis. .

According to Meirelles in a 1998 interview, who at the time was President and CEO of Bank Boston:


The most fundamental event [in Latin America] was when the stabilization plan was launched in Argentina [under Domingo Cavallo] . It was a different approach, in the sense that it wasn’t a control of prices or a control of the flow of money, but it was a control of the money supply and government finances.(Latin Finance, 6 August 1998).

It is worth noting that the so-called “control of the money supply” referred to by Meirelles, essentially means freezing the supply of credit to local businesses, leading to the collapse of productive activity.

The results, as evidenced by the Argentina debacle, was a string of bankruptcies, leading to mass poverty and unemployment. Under the brunt of Finance Minister Cavallo’s policies, in the course of the 1990s, most State owned national and provincial banks in Argentina, which provided credit to industry and agriculture, were sold off to foreign banks. Citibank and Fleet Bank of Boston were on the receiving end of these ill-fated IMF sponsored reforms.


“Once upon a time, government-owned national and provincial banks supported the nation’s debts. But in the mid- Nineties, the government of Carlos Menem sold these off to Citibank of New York, Fleet Bank of Boston and other foreign operators. Charles Calomiris, a former World Bank adviser, describes these bank privatisations as a ‘really wonderful story’. Wonderful for whom? Argentina has bled out as much as three-quarters of a billion dollars a day in hard currency holdings.” (The Guardian, 12 August 2001)

Domingo Cavallo was the architect of “dollarization”. Acting on behalf of Wall Street, he was responsible for pegging the Peso to the US dollar in a colonial style currency board arrangement, which resulted in a spiraling external debt and the eventual breakdown of the entire monetary system.

The currency board arrangement implemented by Cavallo had been actively promoted by Wall Street, with Citigroup and Fleet Bank in the lead.

Under a currency board, money creation is controlled by external creditors. The Central Bank virtually ceases to exist. The government cannot undertake any form of domestic investment without the approval of its external creditors. The US Federal Reserve takes over the process of money creation. Credit can only be granted to domestic producers by driving up the external (dollar denominated) debt.

Financial Scam

When the Argentina crisis reached its climax in 2001, major creditor banks transferred billions of dollars out of the country. An investigation launched in early 2003 pointed not only to the alleged criminal involvement of former Argentinean finance minister Domingo Cavallo, but also to that of several foreign banks including Citibank and Boston Fleet of which Henrique Mereilles was president and CEO:


“Battling to surmount a deep economic crisis, Argentina [January 2002] targeted capital flight and tax evasion, with police searching US, British and Spanish bank offices and authorities seeking explanations from an ex-president about the origins of his Swiss fortune. Claims that as much as 26 billion dollars left the country illegally late last year prompted the police actions. Later in the day, police went to Citibank, Bank Boston [Fleet] and a subsidiary of Spain’s Santander. (…) The various lawsuits in connection with illegal capital transfers name, among others, former president Fernando de la Rua, who stepped down December 20 [2001]; his economy minister Domingo Cavallo; and Roque Maccarone, who quit as central bank chief…” (AFP, 18 January 2003).

The same banks involved in the Argentinean financial scam, including Boston Fleet under the helm of Henrique Meirelles, were also involved in similar shady money transfers operations in other countries including the Russia Federation:


“[A]s many as 10 U.S. banks might have been used to divert as much as $15 billion from Russia, sources said, citing federal investigators. Fleet Financial Group Inc. and other banks are being investigated because they have accounts that belong to or are linked to Benex International Co.which is at the center of an alleged Russian money-laundering scheme.” (Boston Business Journal, 23 September 1999)

The Brazilian Financial Reforms

Everything indicates that Wall Street’s hidden agenda is to eventually replicate the Argentinean scenario and impose “dollarization” on Brazil. The ground work of this design was established under the Plan Real, at the outset of the presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1994-2002).

Henrique Meirelles, who had integrated FHC’s party the PSDB, played a key behind the scens role in setting the stage for the adoption of more fundamental financial reforms:


“In the early 1990s, I [Meirelles] was a member of the board of the American Chamber of Commerce and in charge of an effort to begin lobbying for a change in the Brazilian Constitution. At the same time I was also chairman of the Brazilian Association of International Banks and was in charge of the effort to open up the country to foreign banks and to open the flow of money. I started a broad campaign of approaching key people, including journalists, politicians, professors and advertising professionals. When I started, everyone told me it was hopeless, that the country would never open its markets, that the country should protect its industries. Over a couple of years, I spoke to about 120 representatives. The private sector was fiercely against the opening of the markets, particularly the bankers.(Latin Finance, op cit)

Amending the Constitution

The issue of Constitutional reform was central to Wall Street’s design of economic and financial deregulation.

At the outset of Fernando Collor de Melo’s presidency in 1990, the IMF had demanded an amendment to the 1988 Constitution. There was uproar in the National Congress, with the IMF accused of “gross interference in the internal affairs of the state”.

Several clauses of the 1988 Constitution stood in the way of achieving the IMF’s proposed budget targets, which were under negotiation with the Collor administration. IMF expenditure targets could could not be met without a massive firing of public- sector employees, requiring an amendment to a clause of the 1988 Constitution guaranteeing security of employment to federal civil servants. Also at issue was the financing formula (entrenched in the Constitution) of state and municipal-level programs from federal government sources. This formula limited the ability of the federal government to slash social expenditures and shift revenue towards debt servicing.

Blocked during the short-lived Collor adminstration, the issue of constitutional reform was reintroduced shortly after the impeachment of President Collor de Melo. In June 1993, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who at the time was Finance Minister in the interim government of President Itamar Franco, announced budget cuts of 50 per cent in education, health and regional development while pointing to the need for revisions to the 1988 Constitution.

The IMF’s demands regarding Constitutional reform were later embodied in Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s (FHC) presidential platform. The deregulation of the banking sector was a key component of the Constitutional reform process, which at the time had been opposed by the Workers Party in both the House and the Senate.

Meanwhile Henrique Meirelles, who at the time was in charge of BankBoston’s operations in Latin America (with one foot in FHC’s party the PSDB and the other in Wall Street), was lobbying behind the scenes in favour of constitutional reform:


“Eventually we reached an agreement that became part of the Constitutional reform. When the Constitution was first supposed to be reformed, in 1993, it didn’t happen. It didn’t get enough votes. However, after Fernando Henrique Cardoso took office, it was reformed. That particular agreement I had worked on was one of the first points in the Constitution that was actually changed. I [Meirelles] personally was involved in a change which I think at the end of the day meant the beginning of the opening of the Brazilian capital markets. In Brazil, there were restrictions on the flow of capital, on foreign capital acquiring Brazilian banks and on international banks opening branches in Brazil as mandated by the 1988 Constitution, all of which prohibited the development of the capital markets. ” (Latin Finance, 6 August 1998).

The Plan Real

The Plan Real was launched barely a few months before the November 1993 elections while FHC was Finance Minister. The fixed peg of the Real to the US dollar, in many regards, emulated the Argentinean framework, without however instating a currency board arrangement.

Under the Plan Real, price stability was achieved. The stability of the currency was in many regards fictitious. It was sustained by driving up the external debt.

The reforms were conducive to the demise of a large number of domestic banking institutions, which were acquired by a handful of foreign banks under the privatization program launched under the FHC presidency (1994-2002).

A spiraling foreign debt ultimately precipitated a financial crash in January 1999, leading to the collapse of the Real. (for further details see Michel Chossudovsky, The Brazilian Financial Scam, http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/brazil/economy/financialScam.html , October 1998. This article was published three months before the January 1999 financial collapse. See also Michel Chossudovsky, Brazil’s IMF Sponsored Economic Disaster, 12.February 1999, http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/eco/6373/1.html )

Cruel Logic of IMF Rescue Loans

IMF loans are largely intended to finance capital flight. In fact this was the logic of the mutlibillion dollar loan package granted to Brazil, immediately following the October 1998 elections which led to the reelection of FHC for a second presidential term. The loan was granted barely a few months prior to the January 1999 financial meltdown:


Brazil’s foreign currency reserves have fallen from $78 billion in July 1998 to $48 billion in September. And now the IMF has offered to “lend the money back” to Brazil in the context of a “Korean style” rescue operation which will eventually require the issuing of large amounts of public debt in G-7 countries. The Brazilian authorities have insisted that the country “is not at risk” and what they are seeking is “precautionary funding” (rather than a “bail-out”) to stave of the “contagious effects”of the Asian crisis. Ironically, the amount considered by the IMF (30 billion dollars) is exactly equal to the money “taken out” of the country (during a 3 month period) in the form of capital flight . But the central bank will not be able to use the IMF loan to replenish its hard currency reserves. The bail-out money (including a large part of the $18 billion US contribution to the IMF approved by Congress in October) is intended to enable Brazil to meet current debt servicing obligations, –ie. to reimburse the speculators. The bailout money will never enter Brazil. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Brazilian Financial Scam, op cit.)

The same logic underlies the $31.4 billion precautionary loan granted by the IMF in September 2002, barely a couple of months prior to the presidential elections. (See IMF Approves US$30.4 Billion Stand-By Credit for Brazil at http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2002/pr0240.htm ) This IMF loan constitutes “a social safety net” for institutional speculators and hot money investors.

The IMF pumps billions of dollars into the Central Bank, Forex reserves are replenished on borrowed money. The IMF loan is granted on condition the Central Bank retains a deregulated foreign exchange market coupled with domestic interest rates at very high levels.

So-called “foreign investors” are able to transfer (in dollars) the proceeds of their “investments” in short term domestic debts (at very high interest rates) out of the country. In other words, the borrowed forex reserves from the IMF are re-appropriated by Brazil’s external creditors.

We must understand the history of successive financial crises in Brazil. With Wall Street creditors in charge, the levels of external debt have continued to climb. The IMF has “come to the rescue” with new multibillion dollar loans, which are always conditional upon the adoption of sweeping austerity measures and the privatization of State assets. The main difference is that this process is now being undertaken under a president, who claims to be opposed to neoliberalism.

It should be noted, however, that the new multibillion dollar IMF “precautionary loan” granted in September 2002, was negotiated by FHC, a few months before the elections. The IMF loan and the conditionalities attached to it set the stage for a spiraling external debt during Lula’s presidential mandate. (See Brazil—Letter of Intent, Memorandum of Economic Policies, and Technical Memorandum of Understanding, at http://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/2002/bra/04/index.htm#mep , Brasília, August 29, 2002.)

Dollarization

With the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance under the control of the Wall Street establishment, this process will eventually lead Brazil into another financial and foreign exchange crisis. While the underlying logic is similar, based on the same financial manipulations as in 1998-99, in all likelihood it will be far more serious than that of January 1999.

In other words, the macro-economic policies adopted by President Luis Ignacio da Silva could well result, in the foreseeable future, in debt default and the demise of the nation’s currency, leading Brazil down the path of “dollarization”. A currency board arrangement, similar to that of Argentina could be imposed. What this means is that the US dollar would become Brazil’s proxy currency. What this means is that the country looses its economic sovereignty. Its Central Bank is defunct. As in the case of Argentina, monetary policy would be decided by the US Federal Reserve system.

While not officially part of the Free Trade Area of the America’s (FTAA) negotiations, the adoption of the US dollar as the common currency for the Western Hemisphere is being discussed behind closed doors Wall Street intends to extend its control throughout the hemisphere, eventually displacing or taking over remaining domestic banking institutions (including that of Brazil).

The greenback has already been imposed on five Latin American countries including Ecuador, Argentina, Panama, El Salvador and Guatemala. The economic and social consequences of “dollarization” have been devastating. In these countries, Wall Street and the US Federal Reserve system directly control monetary policy.

Brazil’s PT government should draw the lessons of Argentina where the IMF’s economic medicine played a key role in precipitating the country into a deep-seated economic and social crisis.

Unless the present course of monetary policy is reversed, the tendency in Brazil is towards the “Argentina scenario”, with devastating economic and social consequences.

What Prospects under the Lula Presidency?

While the new PT government presents itself as “an alternative” to neoliberalism, committed to poverty alleviation and the redistribution of wealth, its monetary and fiscal policy is in the hands of its Wall Street creditors.

Fome Zero (“zero hunger”), described as a program “to fight misery”, largely conforms to World Bank guidelines on “cost-effective poverty reduction”. The latter require the implementation of so-called “targeted” programs, while drastically slashing social sector budgets. World Bank directives in health and education require curtailing social expenditures with a view to meeting debt servicing obligations.

The IMF and the World Bank have commended President Luis Ignacio da Silva for his commitment to “strong macroeconomic fundamentals.” As far as the IMF is concerned, Brazil “is on track” in conformity with IMF benchmarks. The World Bank has also praised the Lula government: “Brazil is pursuing a bold social program with fiscal responsibility.”

”Another World is possible”?

What kind of “Alternative” is possible, when a government committed to “fighting neoliberalism”, becomes an unbending supporter of “free trade” and “strong economic medicine.”

Beneath the surface and behind the Workers Party’s populist rhetoric, the neoliberal agenda under Lula remains functionally intact.

The grassroots movement which brought Lula to power has been betrayed. And the “progressive” Brazilian intellectuals within Lula’s inner circle bear a heavy burden of responsibility in this process. And what this “left accommodation” does is to ultimately reinforce the clutch of the Wall Street financial establishment on the Brazilian State.

“Another World” cannot be based on empty political slogans. Nor will it result from a shift in “paradigms”, which is not accompanied by real changes in power relations within Brazilian society, within the State system and within the national economy.

Meaningful change cannot result from a debate on “an alternative to neoliberalism”, which on the surface appears to be “progressive”, but which tacitly accepts the “globalizers” legitimate right to rule and plunder the developing World.

Time to End Western Support for Terrorists in Syria: “Opposition” is Entirely Run by Al Qaeda

NYT: "Nowhere in Rebel-Controlled Syria is There a Secular Fighting Force to Speak Of"

By Tony Cartalucci

Global Research, April 28, 2013

Land Destroyer


http://www.globalresearch.ca/time-to-end-western-support-for-terrorists-in-syria-opposition-is-entirely-run-by-al-qaeda/5333204


In an astounding admission, the New York Times confirms that the so-called “Syrian opposition” is entirely run by Al Qaeda and literally states:


Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

From the beginning, it was clear to geopolitical analysts that the conflict in Syria was not “pro-democracy” protesters rising up, but rather the fruition of a well-documented conspiracy between the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to arm and direct sectarian extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda against the Syrian government.



Image: (Edlib News Network Enn, via Associated Press) Al Qaeda terrorists in Idlib, Syria. It is now admitted by the New York Times that the entire armed so-called “opposition” is comprised entirely of Al Qaeda, meaning the torrent of cash and weapons sent to the “opposition” by the West and its regional allies, were intentionally sent directly to listed terrorists guilty of a multitude of unprecedented atrocities.

This was documented as early as 2007 – a full 4 years before the 2011 “Arab Spring” would begin – by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article titled, “”The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” which stated specifically (emphasis added):


To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

For the past two years the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey have sent billions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into Syria along side known-terrorists from Libya, Chechnya, neighboring Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. In the Telegraph’s article titled, “US and Europe in ‘major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb’,” it is reported:


It claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November


The story confirmed the origins of ex-Yugoslav weapons seen in growing numbers in rebel hands in online videos, as described last month by The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers, but suggests far bigger quantities than previously suspected.


The shipments were allegedly paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States, with assistance on supplying the weapons organised through Turkey and Jordan, Syria’s neighbours. But the report added that as well as from Croatia, weapons came “from several other European countries including Britain”, without specifying if they were British-supplied or British-procured arms.


British military advisers however are known to be operating in countries bordering Syria alongside French and Americans, offering training to rebel leaders and former Syrian army officers. The Americans are also believed to be providing training on securing chemical weapons sites inside Syria.

Additionally, The New York Times in its article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid,” admits that:


With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.

The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.

And more recently the US State Department had announced hundreds of millions of dollars more in aid, equipment and even armored vehicles to militants operating in Syria, along with demands of its allies to “match” the funding to reach a goal of over a billion dollars. The NYT would report in their article, “Kerry Says U.S. Will Double Aid to Rebels in Syria,” that:


With the pledge of fresh aid, the total amount of nonlethal assistance from the United States to the coalition and civic groups inside the country is $250 million. During the meeting here, Mr. Kerry urged other nations to step up their assistance, with the objective of providing $1 billion in international aid.

And as this astronomical torrent of cash, weapons, and equipment was overtly sent by the West into Syria, the US State Department since the very beginning of the violence has known that the most prominent fighting group operating inside Syria was Al Qaeda, more specifically, the al Nusra front. The US State Department’s official press statement titled, “Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa’ida in Iraq,” stated explicitly that:


Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.

The State Department admits that from the very beginning, Al Qaeda has been carrying out hundreds of attacks in every major city in Syria. Clearly for those who read the 2007 Hersh piece in the New Yorker, and then witnessed the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria, the explanation is quite simple – the West intentionally and systematically funded and armed Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in Syria, then overthrow the Syrian government in an unprecedented sectarian bloodbath and subsequent humanitarian catastrophe, just as was planned years ago.

However, now, according to Western leaders, the public is expected to believe that despite the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey flooding Syria with billion in cash, and thousands of tons of weapons, all sent exclusively to “secular moderates,” somehow, Al Qaeda has still managed to gain preeminence amongst the “opposition.”

How can this be? If a 7-nation axis is arraying the summation of its resources in the region behind “secular moderates,” who then is arraying even more resources behind Al Qaeda? The answer is simple. There never were any “secular moderates,” a fact the New York Times has now fully admitted.

In its article titled, “Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy,” the New York Times admits:


Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.


Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

However, in an explanation that defies reason, the article states:


The Islamist character of the opposition reflects the main constituency of the rebellion, which has been led since its start by Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority, mostly in conservative, marginalized areas. The descent into brutal civil war has hardened sectarian differences, and the failure of more mainstream rebel groups to secure regular arms supplies has allowed Islamists to fill the void and win supporters.

To “secure regular arms supplies” from whom? According to the West, they have been supplying “mainstream rebel groups” with billions in cash, and thousands of tons of weaponry – and now according to the BBC, training as well.Where if not intentionally and directly into the hands of al-Nusra, did all of this cash, these weapons, and training go?

The NYT also admits (emphasis added):


Of most concern to the United States is the Nusra Front, whose leader recently confirmed that the group cooperated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and pledged fealty to Al Qaeda’s top leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s longtime deputy. Nusra has claimed responsibility for a number of suicide bombings and is the group of choice for the foreign jihadis pouring into Syria.

Not only is the Syrian government fighting now openly admitted Al Qaeda terrorists, but terrorists that are not even of Syrian origin.

More outrageous still, is that the New York Times fully admits that the very oil fields the European Union has lifted sanctions on and is now buying oil from in Syria (see BBC’s “EU eases Syria oil embargo to help opposition“), are completely controlled by Al Qaeda – meaning the European Union is now intentionally exchanging cash with known international terrorists guilty of horrific atrocities, in exchange for oil. The NYT reports:


Elsewhere, they [al-Nusra] have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

And:


In the oil-rich provinces of Deir al-Zour and Hasaka, Nusra fighters have seized government oil fields, putting some under the control of tribal militias and running others themselves.

The Times continues by admitting (emphasis added):


Nusra’s hand is felt most strongly in Aleppo, where the group has set up camp in a former children’s hospital and has worked with other rebel groups to establish a Shariah Commission in the eye hospital next door to govern the city’s rebel-held neighborhoods. The commission runs a police force and an Islamic court that hands down sentences that have included lashings, though not amputations or executions as some Shariah courts in other countries have done.


Nusra fighters also control the power plant and distribute flour to keep the city’s bakeries running.

This last point, “and distribute flour to keep the city’s bakeries running,” is of extreme importance, because that “flour” they are “distributing” comes admittedly, directly from the United State of America.

In the Washington Post’s article, “U.S. feeds Syrians, but secretly,” it is claimed that:


In the heart of rebel-held territory in Syria’s northern province of Aleppo, a small group of intrepid Westerners is undertaking a mission of great stealth. Living anonymously in a small rural community, they travel daily in unmarked cars, braving airstrikes, shelling and the threat of kidnapping to deliver food and other aid to needy Syrians — all of it paid for by the U.S. government.

The Washington Post then claims that most Syrians credit Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra with providing the aid:


“America has done nothing for us. Nothing at all,” said Mohammed Fouad Waisi, 50, spitting out the words for emphasis in his small Aleppo grocery store, which adjoins a bakery where he buys bread every day. The bakery is fully supplied with flour paid for by the United States. But Waisi credited Jabhat al-Nusra — a rebel group the United States has designated a terrorist organization because of its ties to al-Qaeda — with providing flour to the region, though he admitted he wasn’t sure where it comes from.

Clearly, the puzzle is now complete. Indeed Mr. Mohammed Fouad Waisi was correct, Jabhat al-Nusra, a listed terrorist organization by the US State Department, is supplying the people with flour, flour it receives by the ton directly and intentionally from the United States in direct contradiction to its own anti-terror laws, international laws, and the US State Department’s own frequent denials that it is bolstering terrorists inside of Syria.

Clearly the US and its allies are propping up terrorism, and more alarming is that the “aid” they have been providing the Syrian people, appears to have been used as a political weapon by Al Qaeda, allowing them to take, hold, and permanently subjugate territory inside Syria. It should be noted again, that the New York Times itself admits that the ranks of al-Nusra are filled with foreign, not Syrian, fighters.

Revealed is a conspiracy so insidious, so outrageous, and a web of lies so tangled, that Western governments perhaps count on their populations to disbelieve their tax money is being used to intentionally fund and arm savage terrorism while purposefully fueling a sectarian bloodbath whose death toll is sounded daily by the very people driving it up to astronomical heights. The cards are down – the US has been exposed as openly funding, arming, and supplying Al Qaeda in Syria for two years and in turn, is directly responsible for the death, atrocities, and humanitarian disasters within and along Syria’s borders that have resulted.

While the US attempts to sell military intervention on behalf of Al Qaeda in Syria, using the flimsy, yet familiar pretext of “chemical weapons,” it appears that before even one American boot officially touches Syrian soil, an already horrific crime against humanity of historic proportions has been committed by the US and its allies against the Syrian people.

A Times Editorial

Editorial: Report on torture reveals moral stain


http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-report-on-torture-reveals-moral-stain/2116225


In the aftermath of 9/11, the United States used torture against detainees that was approved and facilitated by the nation's highest-ranking officials. This damning conclusion comes from a two-year review of evidence by the nonpartisan Constitution Project. Its 577-page report makes clear that the United States lost its moral compass when the Bush administration resorted to waterboarding detainees, slamming them against walls and other inhumane practices. This independent report is a valuable contribution to setting the record straight.

The 11-member task force that produced the study was co-chaired by Asa Hutchinson, a former Republican congressman who was an undersecretary at the Department of Homeland Security in the Bush administration. By putting his name to it, Hutchinson courageously stands against the apologists in his party who claim that abusing prisoners, especially the high-value detainees who suffered waterboarding, was essential to national security and finding Osama bin Laden.

The task force flatly rejects this, citing interviews with more than 100 people including former detainees, military and intelligence officers and interrogators, and investigations in Afghanistan, Iraq and other nations. The report concludes that there is "no firm or persuasive evidence" that using abusive interrogation techniques "produced significant information of value" and there is "substantial evidence" that what was gleaned "was not useful or reliable."

Using torture, the task force concludes, was damaging to the standing of our nation and our ability to convey moral censure. It says we endangered U.S. military personnel taken captive by foreign enemies.

Of course, there have been horrific acts by U.S. personnel in other wars. But this is the first time that torture was officially sanctioned as a tool of intelligence gathering. And for those convinced by the government lawyers who twisted the definition of torture to make it appear that what the United States did didn't rise to that level, there is a 22-page appendix listing situations where the United States declared similar treatment by other countries to be torture in violation of international law.

The Constitution Project took on this investigation because the Obama administration has shamefully kept up a campaign of secrecy surrounding exactly what happened to the men held in CIA and military prisons. The administration uses the state secrets defense to prevent former abused detainees from obtaining redress from the courts or informing the public of what happened to them. So too, the Senate Intelligence Committee has refused to declassify and make public a 6,000-page review of detainee treatment, based on CIA records. Without official Washington offering an authoritative and accurate account, the task force's report is the most comprehensive public record that exists. Only by acknowledging the grave mistakes that were made will the nation be less likely to repeat them when the next serious threat occurs.

Editorial: Report on torture reveals moral stain 04/21/13 [Last modified: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:54pm]

Um passo para o precipício
– "O Euro é um cancro que corrói a Europa"
por Jacques Sapir [*]


http://www.resistir.info/europa/sapir_20abr13.html


Em francês
http://russeurope.hypotheses.org/1158


A zona Euro, sob o efeito conjugado das políticas de austeridade, afunda-se na crise. Contudo, nunca os debates sobre a política económica foram tão intensos. No entanto, eles se chocam com um imaginário dos dirigentes políticos, tanto na Alemanha como na França ou nos outros países, que permanece profundamente estruturado pelo discurso da austeridade. As fontes deste último eram tomadas até o presente como irrefutáveis. Mas um trabalho recente permite mostrar que, por trás da aparência da seriedade universitária, havia muito de ideologia.

Recentemente o desemprego atingiu os 12% da população activa [em França], mas com picos de mais de 25% na Espanha e na Grécia. A actividade continua a regredir na Espanha, Itália e Portugal e, doravante, é o consumo que começa a afundar em França, anunciando, como fora previsto neste sítio [1] , uma nova deterioração da situação económica a curto prazo.





Com efeito, como segundo país da zona Euro, a França, pelo vigor do seu consumo, nestes últimos meses havia evitado o pior para a zona Euro. Se o consumo francês continuar a contrair-se ao ritmo verificado desde o mês de Janeiro, as consequências serão importantes, tanto em França como nos países vizinhos – e em primeiro lugar na Itália e Espanha.

Uma política que conduz a Europa a um impasse

Esta deterioração geral da situação económica coloca abertamente o problema da austeridade adoptada pelo conjunto dos países desde 2011, na sequência da Grécia que a isso fora constrangida pela União Europeia, depois de Portugal e da Espanha. Mas a vontade alemã de prosseguir na via desta política é inegável e ela foi reafirmada [2] recentemente. Por que, então, uma tal teimosia? Há em primeiro lugar interesses evidentes que levam a Alemanha a defender esta política "de austeridade".

A zona euro proporciona à Alemanha cerca de 3 pontos de PIB por ano, quer através do excedente comercial, que é realizado 60% em detrimento dos seus parceiros da zona Euro quer através dos efeitos induzidos pelas exportações. Pode-se perfeitamente compreender que, nestas condições, a Alemanha queira manter a existência da zona Euro. Ora, se Berlim quisesse que a zona euro funcionasse como devia, ser-lhe-ia preciso aceitar a passagem a um federalismo orçamental extenso e a uma União de transferências. É uma evidência conhecida pelos economistas [3] , mas também bem além. No mês de Outubro de 2012, no quadro do Clube Valdaï, o presidente Vladimir Putin havia sublinhado que não se podia fazer funcionar uma união monetária em países tão heterogéneos sem um poderoso federalismo orçamental [4] . Mas, se a Alemanha devesse aceitar este federalismo, ela deveria em consequência aceitar transferir uma parte importante da sua riqueza para os seus parceiros. Apenas para a Espanha, Grécia, Itália e Portugal, as transferências necessárias para repor o nível destas economias em relação ao da Alemanha e da França representariam entre 245 e 260 mil milhões de euros, ou seja, entre 8 e 10 pontos de PIB por ano e isto durante pelo menos dez anos [5] . Montantes deste nível, e não é impossível que sejam ainda superiores [6] , são absolutamente exorbitantes. A Alemanha não tem os meios para pagar semelhante soma sem por em perigo o seu modelo económico e destruir seu sistema de reformas. Ela deseja portanto conservar as vantagens da zona euro mas sem pagar o preço. Eis porque ela, na realidade, sempre recusou a ideia de uma "União de transferências". Além disso, o problema não é tanto o que a Alemanha "quer" ou "não quer"; é o que ela pode suportar que importa. E ela não pode suportar uma punção de 8% a 10% da sua riqueza. Deixemos pois de pensar que "a Alemanha pagará", velha cantilena da política francesa que data do tratado de Versalhes em 1919, e encaremos a realidade de frente.

A Alemanha tem desde já reticências importantes sobre a União bancária, que ela havia aceitado a contra-gosto no Outono de 2012. Pela voz do seu ministro das Finanças, acaba de declarar que considerava que seria preciso modificar os tratados existentes para que esta União bancária pudesse ver a luz do dia [7] . Certamente é possível modificar os textos fundadores, mas todos estão conscientes de que levará tempo. Dito de outra forma, a Alemanha atrasa para 2015 e mais provavelmente 2016 a entrada em vigor da União bancária que ela, além disso, reduziu amplamente o perímetro. Pode-se considerar que os argumentos da Alemanha sobre a "constitucionalidade" da União Bancária são pretextos. Talvez seja o caso, mas a Sra. Merkel tem algumas boas razões para querer assegurar a perfeita legalidade dos textos. A criação recente do novo partido eurocéptico "Alternativa para a Alemanha", um partido que as sondagens colocam actualmente nos 24% das intenções de voto, constitui uma ameaça crível para os equilíbrios políticos na Alemanha [8] .

Nestas condições, compreende-se bem que não haja outras opções para a Alemanha senão defender uma política de austeridade para a zona Euro, apesar das consequências económicas e sociais absolutamente catastróficas que esta política engendra. Daí a pretender que a Alemanha desejaria "expulsar" os países do "Sul" da Europa, há apenas um passo. Simplesmente, ela não pode pagar por eles. Deste ponto de vista, atribuir à Sra. Merkel um chamado "programa secreto" a respeito, acreditar que vai travar uma luta heróica para manter estes países na zona Euro, é uma destas asneiradas magníficas de que certos políticos têm o segredo.

Mas há também uma dimensão ideológica, pretensamente "fundamentada" na teoria económica.

A fonte da política de austeridade

A cantilena de que o peso da dívida compromete o crescimento – e de que só uma política de austeridade pode aliviar o peso desta dívida – faz parte destas evidências aparentes que enchem a "sabedoria das nações". Esta dita evidência havia encontrado uma forma de justificação num texto publicado por dois autores muito conhecido (um deles foi o Economista Chefe do FMI), Carmen Reinhart e Kenneth Rogoff [9] . As conclusões deste texto, publicado a seguir, eram que acima de um rácio Dívida/PIB superior a 90% o impacto da dívida sobre o crescimento era muito negativo. A conclusão era portanto evidente: seria preciso desendividar-se se se atingissem tais níveis. Esta foi a lógica adoptada em França pelo governo de Jean-Marc Ayrault que desde o segundo semestre de 2013 reforçou a austeridade orçamental e fiscal. Diga-se de passagem, isto ia contra toda uma série de estudos indicando que a austeridade tinha consequências dramáticas sobre o crescimento. Isto foi registado neste sítio [10] . Mas os partidários da austeridade extrema podiam sempre afirmar que, quaisquer que pudessem ser as consequências da austeridade, o imperativo do desendividamento era uma verdadeira prioridade para reencontrar o crescimento. Este é, muito precisamente, o discurso mantido por François Hollande e Jean-Marc Ayrault.

Contudo, aquele documento continha erros importantes que foram revelados num contra-estudo redigido por três economistas [11] , o que provocou uma certa comoção no pequeno mundo dos economistas [12] . Em primeiro lugar, Reinhart e Rogoff excluíram arbitrariamente certos anos na amostragem que constituíram e que se supõe cobrir o período 1946-2009. Três países importantes são assim excluídos para os anos imediatos ao pós-guerra, a Austrália, o Canadá e a Nova Zelândia. Ora, nestes três países encontra-se em simultâneo um rácio de dívida elevado e uma taxa de crescimento elevada. A seguir, os dois autores do estudo ponderam seus dados de maneira muito curiosa, o que leva, também aí, a diminuir a influência sobre os cálculos de países onde há uma dívida pública importante e um crescimento forte. Finalmente, a replicação dos dados do estudo original que foi feita pelos três economistas mostra que se verificou um erro não desprezível numa das páginas Excel utilizadas por Reinhart e Rogoff [13] . O resultado é que Herndon, Ash e Pollin descobrem que os países com um rácio de dívida em relação ao PIB de 90% e mais tiveram historicamente um crescimento de 2,2% e não de -0,1% como afirmavam Reinhart e Rogoff [14] .

O erro relativo ao ficheiro Excel foi certamente o que provocou mais comentários, mas trata-se na realidade de um erro menor. Em contrapartida, a omissão de certos países em certos períodos assim como as ponderações utilizadas são indícios bem mais graves de que Reinhart e Rogoff "arranjaram" os seus dados para obter resultados conforme à sua ideologia. Isto lança uma dúvida bem mais profunda e sobre o método de certos economistas e sobre a seriedade das pessoas que os seguem.

As consequências desastrosas das políticas de austeridade





Todos os países, uns a seguir aos outros, lançaram-se em políticas suicidas de desvalorização interna, políticas que as equivalentes às políticas de deflação dos anos trinta que levaram Hitler ao poder. Assim acontece na Espanha e na Grécia, onde o desemprego e a austeridade devastam a sociedade [15] . Mas as consequências não se limitam a isso. De facto, a política de austeridade está em vias de levantar os povos uns contra os outros. O paradoxo aqui é total. A Europa, no sentido da União Europeia, que apresenta habitualmente como um factor de paz no continente, demonstra doravante ser um factor de agravamento dos conflitos e do despertar dos velhos ódios.

No caso da França, as consequências da austeridade são claras. Se se quiser absolutamente reduzir o custo do trabalho para tentar restaurar a competitividade da indústria sem desvalorizar, é claro que será preciso baixar os salários e as prestações sociais. Mas então será o consumo, que já se reduz como vemos actualmente, que afundará. Inevitavelmente veremos as consequências sobre o crescimento; hoje as estimativas mais críveis indicam que para a economia francesa o ano 2013 traduzir-se-á na melhor das hipóteses numa estagnação e mais provavelmente numa contracção de -0,4% do PIB. As últimas projecções do FMI mostram igualmente que as perspectivas de crescimento para 2013 se reduzem fortemente. Um afastamento de -0,4% do PIB entre as previsões feitas em Janeiro e aquelas feitas em Abril é na realidade muito significativo da trajectória na qual estamos empenhados.

O resultado será, naturalmente, uma alta importante do desemprego. Se quisermos que nossos custos baixem em 20%, será preciso provavelmente aumentar o desemprego pela metade, ou seja, chegar a mais de 15% da população activa, ou 4,5 milhões de desempregados no sentido da categoria "A" da DARES e 7,5 milhões para as categorias A, B e C incluindo todas as categorias de desempregados. Além disso, na zona euro, a Espanha e a Itália já fazem concorrência à França pela deflação salarial. Seria preciso portanto fazer melhor que Madrid e Roma, deixar atingir não 15% mas 20% de desemprego. Qual o homem político que assumirá a responsabilidade? Quais serão as consequências políticas?





No momento, nossos dirigentes, e em particular em França, resignam-se. O Presidente da República, François Holland, põe todas as suas esperanças numa hipotética retomada americana para aliviar o peso do fardo da austeridade. Entretanto ele já teve de admitir que esta não ocorrerá no 2º semestre de 2013, como havia anunciado anteriormente, e atrasou a sua previsão para o princípio de 2014. Mas, tal como o horizonte que se afasta diante do andarilho, a retomada americana não cessa de se atrasar. É uma ilusão acreditar que a procura externa virá hoje nos salvar das perdas. O crescimento americano é bem mais fraco do que o previsto e o FMI reduziu em baixa suas previsões a respeito. Quando ao crescimento chinês, ele enfraquece-se de mês em mês. Hollande espera que seremos salvos pela cavalaria, mas a cavalaria não virá, ou então, como nas trágicas jornadas de Junho de 1940 "demasiado pouco, demasiado tarde".

Mais do que nunca, a questão da sobrevivência da zona Euro está colocada. As tendências para o seu estilhaçamento amplificam-se. Vê-se que os problemas de países tão diversos como a Grécia, a Espanha, Portugal e a Itália vão convergir a curto prazo. É altamente provável que experimentaremos uma crise violenta durante o Verão de 2013, o mais tardar no começo do Outono. É tempo de saldar as contas. O Euro não induziu o crescimento esperando aquando da sua criação. Ele é hoje um cancro que corrói uma parte da Europa. Se se quiser salvar a ideia europeia enquanto ainda é tempo, é preciso rapidamente soar a dissolução da zona euro.

Notas

[1] J. Sapir, "Chômage: la marée noire qui nous menace", billet publié sur le carnet Russeurope le 03/03/2013, URL: http://russeurope.hypotheses.org/974

[2] AFP e Nouvel Observateur, " Merkel rejette toujours une politique de relance ", 15 avril 2013, tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/... . Ver também: www.huffingtonpost.fr/...

[3] Ver, por exemplo M. Aglietta, Zone Euro: éclatement ou fédération, Michalon, Paris, 2012

[4] J. Sapir, "La diplomatie russe, entre Asie et Euro(pe)", nota publicada no sítio Russeurope em 27/10/2012, URL: http://russeurope.hypotheses.org/390

[5] J. Sapir, "Le coût du fédéralisme dans la zone Euro", nota publicada no sítio Russeurope em 10/11/2012, URL: http://russeurope.hypotheses.org/453

[6] P. Artus, " La solidarité avec les autres pays de la zone euro est-elle incompatible avec la stratégie fondamentale de l'Allemagne : rester compétitive au niveau mondial ? La réponse est oui ", NATIXIS, Flash-Économie, n°508, 17 juillet 2012.

[7] Euractiv.fr, " Économie & finance Union bancaire: l'Allemagne demande un nouveau traité ", 16 avril 2013, URL : www.euractiv.fr/...

[8] I. Mouilleseaux, " Ce discret parti populiste allemand pourrait-il avoir la peau de l'euro ? ", Atlantico.fr, 11 avril 2013, URL, www.atlantico.fr/...

[9] C. M. Reinhart et K. S. Rogoff, " GROWTH IN A TIME OF DEBT ", NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES, Working Paper 15639, janvier 2010 , http://www.nber.org/papers/w15639

[10] J. Sapir, "Le FMI et l'aveu de François Hollande sur la croissance", nota publicada no sítio Russeurope em 20/02/2013, URL: http://russeurope.hypotheses.org/895

[11] T. Herndon, M. Ash et R. Pollin, " Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth ? A critique of Reinhart et Rogoff ", Political Economy Research Institute, 15 avril 2013, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Boston.

[12] G. Vina e S. Kennedy, " Finance Chiefs Endorse Cuts as Reinhart-Rogoff Challenged ", Bloomberg, 19 avril 2013, URL : www.bloomberg.com/...

[13] J. Fox, " Reinhart, Rogoff, and How the Macroeconomic Sausage Is Made ", Harvard Business Reviex Blog, 17 avril 2013, URL : http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2013/04/reinhart-rogoff-and-how-the-ma.html . Mike Konczal, " Researchers Finally Replicated Reinhart-Rogoff, and There Are Serious Problems ", Next New Deal, 16 avril 2013, URL : www.nextnewdeal.net/...

[14] T. Herndon, M. Ash et R. Pollin, " Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth ? A critique of Reinhart et Rogoff ", po.cit..

[15] www.metrofrance.com/...

20/Abril/2013

[*] Autor de Faut-il sortir de l'euro?

O original encontra-se em http://russeurope.hypotheses.org/1158

Este artigo encontra-se em http://resistir.info/ .

21/Abr/13

April 10, 2013

Does Obama Want More War?
North Korea’s Justifiable Anger
by STANSFIELD SMITH


http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/10/north-koreas-justifiable-anger/


The corporate media reduces the DPRK (North Korea) to the Kim family and prefaces their names with the terms “madman”, “evil” and “brutal”. Such vilifications of foreign leaders are used here not only to signify they are target for US overthrow. They are meant to intimidate and isolate anti-war activists as being out in left field for ever wanting to oppose a war against countries ruled by “madmen” – be they Saddam, Fidel, Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Qaddaffi.

Yet to a sensible person, it is crazy that the US, with nuclear weapons thousands of miles from home, in South Korea, denies North Korea has a right to have its own nuclear weapons on its own land – particularly when the North says it is developing nuclear weapons only as a deterrent because the US won’t take its own weapons out of the Korean peninsula.

Missing in what passes for discourse on the DPRK in the corporate media is that the US was conducting month-long war maneuvers last March in Korea, now extended into April, using stealth bombers, undetectable by radar, capable of carrying nuclear weapons. And this year these are not “deterrent” war maneuvers, but “pre-emptive war” maneuvers.

Would the US government and people get a little “irrational” if a foreign country that previously had killed millions of our people, sent nuclear capable stealth bombers off the coasts of New York City, Washington DC, Houston, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, there to fly around for a month in preparation for a possible nuclear attack on us? For what is called, in warped US language, war “games”?

The US may have killed 20% of the population of Korea, said General Curtis Lemay, who was involved in the US air war on Korea. If so, that is a higher rate of genocidal slaughter than what the Nazis inflicted on Poland or the Soviet Union. The Korean War may be unknown ancient history to us, but it is no more ancient history to Koreans than the Nakba is to Palestinians.

North Korea knows that history, and it is warning the US they know what to expect and are arming themselves to prevent it. Are the DPRK leaders “paranoid” or taking justifiable precautions?

What kind of deranged people call war preparations a “war game”? North Korea doesn’t think it’s a “game.” Over 4 million died in the last war to reunify their country that the US divided. If men had an annual rite called “group rape games” wouldn’t we think it a criminal misogynist pathology, and wouldn’t women be justified in being outraged and arming themselves in self-defense?

An accurate reading of the events leading up to the present situation shows that North Korea is responding to US military escalation, and in particular to US refusal to negotiate. This includes a peace treaty to end the Korean War, any steps towards reunifying Korea, the end to the US occupation of South Korea and ending the annual month-long US-South Korean war maneuvers. Even today, it includes US refusal to talk in order to lower the tensions.

North Korea was hit with US/UN Security Council sanctions for a missile launch last year. South Korea sent off a missile this year; were there any sanctions?

Since World War II there have been 9000 missile launches. 4 were by the DPRK. There have been 2000 atomic bomb tests. 3 were by DPRK. No country was sanctioned by the UN Security Council for this. No country except the DPRK. Why wouldn’t the North Koreans be incensed by this double standard, especially when the US has nuclear weapons in South Korea?

The US kill rate in the 1950-53 Korean War equaled more than one 9-11 every day, day after day, for the whole 1100 day war. US people had a scar from one 9-11. So what kind of war scars do Koreans have?

Korea is divided because our country invaded and divided it after the Japanese surrender. The leaders of the DPRK had been fighting the Japanese since the early 1930s, and 200,000 had lost their lives. When Korean liberation was at hand in 1945, the US intervened and blocked it.

The US was supposed to leave in 1948, along with the Soviet Union, but because Kim Il Sung was likely to win planned nation-wide elections, the US made the division permanent and blocked national elections, just as it did later in Vietnam. This lead to the Korean War, the cause of the present militarization: A foreign country divided and occupied their country against their will.

We should play our part to improve the human rights situation in Korea, not only in the North but in the South as well. Both societies are more closed and controlled than our own. Whether being occupied by foreign troops, threatened with war and war maneuvers, or subjected to harsh economic sanctions, this does not facilitate free and open societies.

If we really want more rights for the people of the DPRK then we should stop pointing a gun at their head. If we listened to Kim Jong Un’s message delivered a month ago, ignored by President Obama, “We don’t want war. Let’s talk,” that would only foster a more open society there – and in South Korea, just as we know it would here in the US.

Stansfield Smith is an anti-war and Latin America solidarity activist in Chicago who recently returned from a trip to North Korea [Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK)], with Koryo Tours. He can be reached at: stansfieldsmith@yahoo.com

April 10, 2013
The Super-Priority Status of Derivatives: Winner Takes All
by ELLEN BROWN


http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/10/winner-takes-all/


Shock waves went around the world when the IMF, the EU, and the ECB not only approved but mandated the confiscation of depositor funds to “bail in” two bankrupt banks in Cyprus. A “bail in” is a quantum leap beyond a “bail out.” When governments are no longer willing to use taxpayer money to bail out banks that have gambled away their capital, thebanks are now being instructed to “recapitalize” themselves by confiscating the funds of their creditors, turning debt into equity, or stock; and the “creditors” include the depositors who put their money in the bank thinking it was a secure place to store their savings.

The Cyprus bail-in was not a one-off emergency measure but was consistent with similar policies already in the works for the US, UK, EU, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, as detailed in my earlier articles here and here. “Too big to fail” now trumps all. Rather than banks being put into bankruptcy to salvage the deposits of their customers, the
customers will now be put into bankruptcy to save the banks.

Why Derivatives Threaten Your Bank Account

The big risk behind all this is the massive $230 trillion derivatives boondoggle managed by US banks. Derivatives are sold as a kind of insurance for managing profits and risk; but as Satyajit Das points out in Extreme Money, they actually increase risk to the system as a whole.

In the US after the Glass-Steagall Act was implemented in 1933, a bank could not gamble with depositor funds for its own account; but in 1999, that barrier was removed. Recent congressional investigations have revealed that in the biggest derivative banks, JPMorgan and Bank of America, massive commingling has occurred between their depository arms and their unregulated and highly vulnerable derivatives arms. Under both the Dodd Frank Act and the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, derivative claims have super-priority over all other claims, secured and unsecured, insured and uninsured. In a major derivatives fiasco, derivative claimants could well grab all the collateral, leaving other claimants, public and private, holding the bag.

The tab for the 2008 bailout was $700 billion in taxpayer funds, and that was just to start. Another $700 billion
disaster could easily wipe out all the money in the FDIC insurance fund, which has only about $25 billion in it. Both
JPMorgan and Bank of America have over $1 trillion in deposits, and total deposits covered by FDIC
insurance are about $9 trillion. According to an article on Bloomberg in November 2011, Bank of America’s holding
company then had almost $75 trillion in derivatives, and 71% were held in its depository arm; while J.P. Morgan had $79
trillion in derivatives, and 99% were in its depository arm. Those whole mega-sums are not actually at risk, but the
cash calculated to be at risk from derivatives from all sources is at least $12 trillion; and JPM is the biggest player, with 30% of the market.

It used to be that the government would backstop the FDIC if it ran out of money. But section 716 of the Dodd Frank Act
now precludes the payment of further taxpayer funds to bail out a bank from a bad derivatives gamble. As summarized in a letter from Americans for Financial Reform quoted by Yves Smith:

Section 716 bans taxpayer bailouts of a broad range of derivatives dealing and speculative derivatives activities.
Section 716 does not in any way limit the swaps activities which banks or other financial institutions may engage in. It simply prohibits public support for such activities.

There will be no more $700 billion taxpayer bailouts. So where will the banks get the money in the next crisis? It seems the plan has just been revealed in the new bail-in policies.

All Depositors, Secured and Unsecured, May Be at Risk

The bail-in policy for the US and UK is set forth in a document put out jointly by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) and the Bank of England (BOE) in December 2012, titled Resolving Globally Active, Systemically
Important, Financial Institutions.

In an April 4th article in Financial Sense, John Butler points out that the directive does not explicitly refer to
“depositors.” It refers only to “unsecured creditors.” But the effective meaning of the term, says Butler, is belied
by the fact that the FDIC has been put on the job. The FDIC has direct responsibility only for depositors, not for the
bondholders who are wholesale non-depositor sources of bank credit. Butler comments:

Do you see the sleight-of-hand at work here? Under the guise of protecting taxpayers, depositors of failing institutions are to be arbitrarily, de-facto subordinated to interbank claims, when in fact they are legally senior to those claims!

. . . [C]onsider the brutal, unjust irony of the entire proposal. Remember, its stated purpose is to solve the problem
revealed in 2008, namely the existence of insolvent TBTF institutions that were “highly leveraged and complex, with
numerous and dispersed financial operations, extensive off-balance-sheet activities, and opaque financial statements.”
Yet what is being proposed is a framework sacrificing depositors in order to maintain precisely this complex, opaque,
leverage-laden financial edifice!

If you believe that what has happened recently in Cyprus is unlikely to happen elsewhere, think again. Economic policy officials in the US, UK and other countries are preparing for it. Remember, someone has to pay. Will it be you? If you are a depositor, the answer is yes.

The FDIC was set up to ensure the safety of deposits. Now it, it seems, its function will be the confiscation of
deposits to save Wall Street. In the only mention of “depositors” in the FDIC-BOE directive as it pertains to US policy, paragraph 47 says that “the authorities recognize the need for effective communication to depositors, making it clear that their deposits will be protected.” But protected with what? As with MF Global, the pot will already have been gambled away. From whom will the bank get it back? Not the derivatives claimants, who are first in line to be paid; not the taxpayers, since Congress has sealed the vault; not the FDIC insurance fund, which has a paltry $25 billion in it. As long as the derivatives counterparties have super-priority status, the claims of all other parties are in jeopardy.

That could mean not just the “unsecured creditors” but the “secured creditors,” including state and local governments.
Local governments keep a significant portion of their revenues in Wall Street banks because smaller local banks lack the capacity to handle their complex business. In the US, banks taking deposits of public funds are required to pledge
collateral against any funds exceeding the deposit insurance limit of $250,000. But derivative claims are also secured
with collateral, and they have super-priority over all other claimants, including other secured creditors. The vault may be empty by the time local government officials get to the teller’s window. Main Street will again have been plundered by Wall Street.

Super-priority Status for Derivatives Increases Rather than Decreases Risk

Harvard Law Professor Mark Row maintains that the super-priority status of derivatives needs to be repealed. He writes:

. . . [D]erivatives counterparties, . . . unlike most other secured creditors, can seize and immediately liquidate
collateral, readily net out gains and losses in their dealings with the bankrupt, terminate their contracts with the
bankrupt, and keep both preferential eve-of-bankruptcy payments and fraudulent conveyances they obtained from the
debtor, all in ways that favor them over the bankrupt’s other creditors.

. . . [W]hen we subsidize derivatives and similar financial activity via bankruptcy benefits unavailable to other
creditors, we get more of the activity than we otherwise would. Repeal would induce these burgeoning financial markets
to better recognize the risks of counterparty financial failure, which in turn should dampen the possibility of another
AIG-, Bear Stearns-, or Lehman Brothers-style financial meltdown, thereby helping to maintain systemic financial
stability.

In The New Financial Deal: Understanding the Dodd-Frank Act and Its (Unintended) Consequences, David Skeel agrees. He
calls the Dodd-Frank policy approach “corporatism” – a partnership between government and corporations. Congress has
made no attempt in the legislation to reduce the size of the big banks or to undermine the implicit subsidy provided by
the knowledge that they will be bailed out in the event of trouble.

Undergirding this approach is what Skeel calls “the Lehman myth,” which blames the 2008 banking collapse on the decision to allow Lehman Brothers to fail. Skeel counters that the Lehman bankruptcy was actually orderly, and the derivatives were unwound relatively quickly. Rather than preventing the Lehman collapse, the bankruptcy exemption for derivatives may have helped precipitate it. When the bank appeared to be on shaky ground, the derivatives players all rushed to put in their claims, in a run on the collateral before it ran out. Skeel says the problem could be resolved by eliminating the derivatives exemption from the stay of proceedings that a bankruptcy court applies to other contracts to prevent this sort of run.

Putting the Brakes on the Wall Street End Game

Besides eliminating the super-priority of derivatives, here are some other ways to block the Wall Street asset grab:

(1) Restore the Glass-Steagall Act separating depository banking from investment banking. Support Marcy Kaptur’s H.R.
129.

(2) Break up the giant derivatives banks. Support Bernie Sanders’ “too big to jail” legislation.

(3) Alternatively, nationalize the TBTFs, as advised in the New York Times by Gar Alperovitz. If taxpayer bailouts to
save the TBTFs are unacceptable, depositor bailouts are even more unacceptable.

(4) Make derivatives illegal, as they were between 1936 and 1982 under the Commodities Exchange Act. They can be unwound by simply netting them out, declaring them null and void. As noted by Paul Craig Roberts, “the only major effect of closing out or netting all the swaps (mostly over-the-counter contracts between counter-parties) would be to take $230 trillion of leveraged risk out of the financial system.”

(5) Support the Harkin-Whitehouse bill to impose a financial transactions tax on Wall Street trading. Among other uses, a tax on all trades might supplement the FDIC insurance fund to cover another derivatives disaster.

(5) Establish postal savings banks as government-guaranteed depositories for individual savings. Many countries have
public savings banks, which became particularly popular after savings in private banks were wiped out in the banking
crisis of the late 1990s.

(6) Establish publicly-owned banks to be depositories of public monies, following the lead of North Dakota, the only
state to completely escape the 2008 banking crisis. North Dakota does not keep its revenues in Wall Street banks but
deposits them in the state-owned Bank of North Dakota by law. The bank has a mandate to serve the public, and it does
not gamble in derivatives.

A motivated state legislature could set up a publicly-owned bank very quickly. Having its own bank would allow the state to protect both its own revenues and those of its citizens while generating the credit needed to support local business and restore prosperity to Main Street.

For more information on the public bank option, see here. Learn more at the Public Banking Institute conference June 2-4 in San Rafael, California, featuring Matt Taibbi, Birgitta Jonsdottir, Gar Alperovitz and others.

ELLEN BROWN is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books,
she shows how a private banking oligarchy has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we
the people can get it back. Her websites are http://WebofDebt.com, http://EllenBrown.com, and
http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

World Apr 5, '13

THE ROVING EYE
The South also rises
By Pepe Escobar

The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South
by Vijay Prashad


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-050413.html

http://redecastorphoto.blogspot.com.br/2013/04/pepe-escobar-raia-o-sul.html


It is not so far-fetched to imagine Walter Benjamin's Angel of History succumbing to the temptation, and stressing that the time of the Global South has finally come.

Oh yes, it will be a long, arduous and winding road. But would the Google/Facebook generation need only one textbook detailing the stuff of dreams, trials and tribulations of the developing world in the early 21st century, this would be it, Vijay Prashad's just published The Poorer Nations.

Call it the post-modern, digital follow-up to Frantz Fanon's classic The Wretched of the Earth.

This is an absolutely essential book to be read alongside another delight written by a global Asian, Pankaj Mishra's From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt Against the West and the Remaking of Asia, which uses key figures such as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Liang Qichao and Rabindranath Tagore to tell an extraordinary story.

Prashad, director of international studies at Trinity College, Connecticut, and author of the splendid The Darker Nations, which should be read as a preamble to this book, sets the scene right from the start - using the requisite Fanon quote; by 1961, what was configured was a fight between the Third World Project ("for peace, for bread and for justice") and the Atlantic Project. Key actors: the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the de facto secretariat of the Third World Project, and the Group of 77 developing nations, created in 1964 to act on behalf of NAM in the United Nations.

The founders of the NAM enjoyed iconic status in the post-colonial world; Jawaharlal Nehru in India, Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Sukarno in Indonesia, Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia. Yet they knew this was an uphill battle. As Prashad notes, "the UN had been hijacked by the five permanent members of the Security Council. The IMF [International Monetary Fund] and the World Bank had been captured by the Atlantic powers, and the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, precursor to the World Trade Organization] was designed to undermine any attempt by the new nations to revise the international economic order".

As for the Atlantic Project, a 1969 quote from Henry Kissinger - co-destructor of Cambodia, Pinochet enabler, disgusted Saudi ally (the "most feckless and gutless of the Arabs") and praiser-in-chief of the Iranian Shah ("a tough, mean guy") - would suffice: "Nothing important can come from the South. The axis of history starts in Moscow, goes to Bonn, crosses over to Washington, and then goes to Tokyo. What happens in the South is of no importance."

Atlanticists were fiercely against the "no importance" Third World Project, but also against social democracy and communism. Their Holy Grail was to wallow in easy profits provided by a new global geography of production, "technological shifts that enabled firms to take advantage of differential wage rates" - most of all, those very low wages paid all across East Asia.

So the stage was set for the emergence of neoliberalism. Here Prashad moves in parallel with the indispensable David Harvey, detailing how the Global South became ripe to be fully (re)exploited; bye bye national liberation ideas of collective good.

Keep the barbarians out
With the IMF currently part of the troika dictating austerity to most of Western Europe (alongside the European Commission and the European Central Bank), it's easy to forget that in 1944 things were already pretty warped. The developing world had no say whatsoever in Bretton Woods, not to mention any sort of control over the UN's five-member Security Council. It was the silence of the lambs; the wolves prevailed, and inequality was set in stone.

Prashad proceeds with the indispensable details of how the US dollar became the effective world currency, with the US swinging the price of the dollar globally, regardless of any consequences; the formation of the Group of Seven as essentially an anti-developing world mechanism (and not anti-Soviet); and of course the much-dreaded Trilateral Commission, set up by Chase Manhattan's David Rockefeller to impose the will of the North against the South.

And guess who was the Trilateral's intellectual architect? The ineffable Zbigniew Brzezinski, later president Jimmy Carter's consigliere. Dr Zbig wanted to "contain the "contagious threat of global anarchy". Divide and rule, once again; the periphery needed to be put in its place.

By the way, one should always remember that in his 1997 epic The Grand Chessboard, Dr Zbig, who became the foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama in 2008, wrote, "The three grand imperatives of imperial geo-strategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." For a long while the "vassals" were easily contained; but Dr Zbig, one step ahead of Kissinger, was already planning how to contain the two key "barbarians", ascending Eurasian powers Russia and China.

The Group of Seven anyway was a roaring success, pushing its "theory of governance" everywhere, implemented by - who else - the Bretton Woods mafia. Prashad neatly defines it: "What went by the name of neoliberalism was less a coherent economic doctrine than a fairly straightforward campaign by the propertied classes to maintain or restore their position of dominance", via the David Harvey-coined "accumulation by dispossession", now also known by millions of Europeans under the codename "austerity".

The numbers tell the story. In 1981, the net flow of capital to the Third World was $35.2 billion. In 1987, $30.7 billion left the Third World for Western banks. Praise the Lord and his law set in stone, also known as Structural Adjustment, based on "conditionality" (savage privatization, deregulation, destruction of social services, financial "liberalization").

Paraphrasing Dylan, when you got nothing, you still got this nothing to lose. There was never any political strategy by the North to deal with the debt crisis of the 1980s. The Global South lambs were only allowed in a sorry procession to receive their structural adjustment consecrated host one by one.

But still that was not enough. With the fall of the USSR, Washington was free to develop Full Spectrum Dominance. Those who did not fully abide were branded "rogue states" - as in Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and even, for a while, Malaysia (because it would not bow to the IMF).

But then, slowly but surely, the Global South began to rise. Prashad details the reasons - the commodity boom driven by China; commodity profits improving Latin American finances; more foreign direct investment roaming the world. The Global South started trading more within itself.

Then, in June 2003, at the margins of the Group of Eight gathering in Evian, France, emerged something called IBSA (the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue). IBSA was keen to "maximize the benefits of globalization" and promote sustained economic growth. Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim defined it at the time as "an ideology in the best sense of the word - an ideology of democracy, diversity, tolerance, a search for cooperation".

In parallel, China was - what else - booming. It's essential to remind anyone at this point of that fateful November 1978 trip by Deng Xiaoping to Singapore, where he was hosted by Lee Kuan Yew; Prashad could have built a whole chapter around it. This was the clincher. Deng knew right away that he would milk the guanxi ("connections") of the Chinese diaspora for all it's worth. I'll never forget my very own first visit to Shenzhen only one month after Deng's fabled Southern Tour of January 1992. That's when the boom really started. At the time, I felt I was mostly neck-deep in Maoist China.

Fast forward to China now helping to develop Africa. Vast swathes of the developing world would not consider blindly adopting a zhongguo moshi - the Chinese Model. It's more like Prashad introducing this wonderful quote from Donald Kaberuka, a former minister of finance in Rwanda and now president of the African Development Bank: "We can learn from [the Chinese] how to organize our trade policy, to move from low to middle income status, to educate our children in skills and areas that pay off in just a couple of years."

BRIC by BRIC
Which brings us to the BRICS, created as a group in 2009 out of the BRIC-IBSA union - and now the top locomotive of the Global South.

By then, inevitably, Blame China had already become an established fine art in Washington; the Chinese must imperatively become consumers. They are, and they will - but in their own rhythm, and following their own political model.

Even the IMF already admits that by 2016 the US may cease to be the world's largest economy. So the great Fernand Braudel was already right when he wrote The Perspective of the World: Civilization and Capitalism, Fifteenth- Eighteenth Century, stressing this would be the "sign of autumn" for Atlantic hegemony.

Of course there are huge problems with the BRICS, as Prashad details. Their domestic policies can indeed be interpreted as a sort of "neoliberalism with Southern characteristics". They are far from being an ideological alternative to neoliberalism. They have been helpless to counteract the overwhelming military hegemony of the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (see, for instance, the Libya fiasco). And they are not the embryo of a revolutionary shift in the world order.

But at least they are "allowing a breath of fresh air to oxygenate the stagnant world of neoliberal imperialism".

The fresh air will circulate in the form of a new development bank, a BRICS Bank of the South version of the South American Banco del Sur, founded in 2009 (here's Prashad's critical take. China and Brazil have set up a $30 billion currency swap deal to pay for trade, bypassing the US dollar. Beijing and Moscow are deepening their strategic partnership. (See BRICS go over the wall, Asia Times Online, March 26, 2013.)

The BRICS as they stand - three major commodities producers plus two major commodities consumers trying to find a way out of a Western-conducted disaster - are just a start. They are already evolving as a powerful geopolitical actor stressing multi-polarity. They are bound to be joined by the next BRICS - the MIST (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey). And don't forget Iran. Time for BRICS MIIST?

What's graphically obvious is that the Global South has had enough - from the ravages of casino turbo-capitalism to NATO playing Robocop from North Africa to Southwest Asia, not to mention Eurasia being encircled by that Dr Strangelove chimera - a missile shield.

The Global South remains fraught with absurdities; one just has to think of the oil and gas GCC petro-monarchies - those paragons of "democracy" - now configured as an annex to NATO. Few developments lately have been so appalling as the Arab League licking their NATO master's boots, breaking international law to install dodgy Syrian "rebels" in the chair of a sovereign state, one of its very own founding members.

Weird scenes inside the goldmine
The fall of neoliberalism will be bloody - and it will take time. Prashad attempts an objective analysis in terms of the unity of the Global South, drawing on the work of Indian Marxist Prabhat Patnaik.

Patnaik is a sound fellow. He knows that "a coordinated global resistance is not on the horizon". Instead, "he emphasizes the centrality of building resistance within the nation-state, and his analysis can easily be extended to regions (he writes mainly of India, but the analysis he provides is equally applicable to the Bolivarian experiments in Latin America)".

So the road map spells tackling the "peasant question", which is essentially about land and rights; and to concentrate on the immediate struggles of improving people's living and working conditions. Inevitably Prashad has to refer to Bolivian vice president Alvaro Garcia Linera, one of Latin America's top contemporary intellectuals.

In many aspects, where the emancipation of the Global South is more advanced is in parts of South America; I was hugely impressed when I was in Bolivia in early 2008. Prashad neatly summarizes Linera's analysis of how the process develops:
It begins with a crisis of the state that enables a ''dissident social bloc'' to mobilize the people into a political project. A ''catastrophic stand-off'' develops between the bloc of power and the bloc of the people, which in the case of Latin America was able to be resolved for the moment on the side of the people. The new government must then ''convert opposition demands into acts of state,'' and build a deeper and broader hegemony by ''combining the ideas of mobilized society with material resources provided by or via the state.'' The turning point (''point of bifurcation''), for Garcia Linera, comes through a ''series of confrontations'' between the blocs that are resolved in unexpected ways, with either the consolidation of the new situation or the reconstitution of the old. We are at or near the point of bifurcation. What will come next cannot be predicted.
What is definitely known by now by the best minds in Asia, Africa and Latin America, is that there was never an end of history, as parroted by pathetic orphans of Hegel; and there was never an end of geography, as parroted by "world is flat" globalization dancing fools. The Global South's intellectual liberation from the North is finally on. And it's irreversible. There's no turning back to the old order. If this was a movie, it would be 1968 replayed all over again - full time, all the time; let's be realists, and demand, and implement, the impossible.

The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South by Vijay Prashad. Verso, March 2013. ISBN-10: 1844679527. Price US$26. 300 pages.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

(Copyright 2013 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Seria bom se fosse verdade
– Cinco mitos sobre a trajetória recente e as perspectivas do trabalho doméstico no Brasil
por Henrique Júdice Magalhães [*]


http://www.resistir.info/brasil/trabalho_domestico.html


1. A quantidade de empregadas domésticas está em queda livre, contínua e irreversível.
2. O peso relativo do serviço doméstico também despencou. Pela primeira vez, ele deixa de ser a principal ocupação das brasileiras que trabalham, caindo para a terceira posição.
3. Por causa da escassez de mão-de-obra, decorrente da alta oferta de emprego em outras atividades, a remuneração do trabalho doméstico disparou.
4. A Emenda 72 iguala os direitos das domésticas aos dos demais trabalhadores .
5. O aumento do custo da força de trabalho, consequência da ampliação de direitos, levará à diminuição da quantidade de vagas no serviço doméstico e/ou à substituição de trabalhadoras mensalistas por diaristas.
Algumas conclusões

O Congresso Nacional promulgou, em 2 de abril de 2013, a mais importante reforma social verificada no Brasil desde 1988: a Emenda Constitucional 72, que altera o regime normativo do serviço doméstico e, embora sem nivelá-lo ao padrão geral, estende a quem o exerce garantias tão elementares quanto os limites de duração do trabalho e a proteção contra acidentes.

A maioria dessas conquistas – casos do FGTS, do seguro acidentário, do adicional noturno e do seguro-desemprego, entre outras – não terá consequências práticas antes da edição de uma lei regulamentadora. Na maioria dos casos, nem depois, já que mais de 70% das potenciais beneficiárias trabalham sem registro (PNAD 2011). Ainda assim, a elevação do status constitucional dessas trabalhadoras (usa-se aqui o feminino como plural porque as mulheres são mais de 90% da categoria), às quais antes se reconheciam somente nove dos 34 direitos trabalhistas declarados na própria Constituição brasileira como fundamentais e que agora passam a ser detentoras de 25, tem um significado social que só não é maior porque faltou ao parlamento e ao governo coragem para impulsionar a equiparação plena. A dimensão do que se conquistou – ou, melhor dizendo, do que se começou a conquistar – mede-se, assim como a do que falta, pelo contingente humano envolvido: segundo dados oficiais provavelmente subdimensionados (PNAD 2011), o Brasil tem 6,6 milhões de trabalhadoras domésticas, número só inferior, em termos absolutos, ao da Índia, cuja população é seis vezes maior [1] . Em termos relativos, não há país no mundo com tamanho peso dessa atividade sobre o conjunto da população ocupada: elas são, segundo o mesmo indicador, nada menos que um sexto (15,5%) das brasileiras que trabalham.

A EC 72 teve, ainda durante sua tramitação, o efeito de despertar o interesse da imprensa e de algumas agências oficiais pela situação das trabalhadoras de casas particulares. São exemplos disso sucessivas publicações da Secretaria de Políticas para Mulheres (SPM), único órgão do governo a bater-se pela ampliação desses direitos; alguns releases da presidência do Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE); e o Comunicado 90 do Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada – IPEA, intitulado Situação atual das trabalhadoras domésticas no país . A conjugação entre a precariedade dos indicadores disponíveis sobre o assunto - diretamente proporcional à desatenção que ele recebeu do Estado e da intelligentsia durante séculos, não obstante sua importância quantitativa e qualitativa - e certos interesses partidários produziu, contudo, uma série de inferências equivocadas que vão sendo repetidas sem maior exame e que terminam por prejudicar o efetivo enfrentamento do problema. Essas suposições – analisadas a seguir – partem do mesmo ponto a que chegam: a crença em que existe, no Brasil, um progresso social que as evidências, se não desmentem de todo, reduzem à devida dimensão.

Este artigo destina-se portanto a três fins: problematizar essas afirmativas, desfazendo equívocos; oferecer um balanço das conquistas advindas da Emenda 72 e das lacunas remanescentes; e dizer algo sobre a estrutura social brasileira, que tem no peso e no tratamento legal e fático do serviço doméstico um dos mais precisos e negligenciados indicadores de seu caráter.

Passemos, pois, à análise dos mitos propagados sobre o serviço doméstico profissional.

1. A quantidade de empregadas domésticas está em queda livre, contínua e irreversível.

Essa afirmativa baseia-se unicamente na comparação entre as pesquisas nacionais por amostra de domicíio (PNADs) de 2009 e 2011 [2] . Uma anáise de um intervalo maior não permite concluir isso e muito menos que o emprego doméstico tende à extinção, como vão dizendo alguns afoitos ( www.ihu.unisinos.br/... ). O que de fato há é uma oscilação do número de trabalhadoras domésticas ocupadas, perceptível quando se comparam os últimos cinco ou dez anos.


Ano Trabalhadores ocupados no serviço doméstico remunerado na semana de referência (em milhões)
Total Mulheres
2002 6,04 5,6
2003 6,08 5,68
2004 6,47 6,04
2005 6,66 6,2
2006 6,78 6,3
2007 6,7 6,25
2008 6,63 6,2
2009 7,22 6,7
2011 6,65 6,16
_______________________________________________________________________
Fonte: PNAD. Elaboração própria. Em 1994, 2000 e 2010, não houve PNAD.


Esses dados mostram que 2009 foi um ano atípico, com um crescimento sem paralelo nem explicação aparente do total de pessoas ocupadas no setor. O resultado de 2011 representa uma queda significativa apenas em comparação com esse ponto fora da curva, sendo, porém, superior aos de 2002 a 2004 e situando-se no mesmo patamar verificado em 2003 e entre 2005 e 2008.

2. O peso relativo do serviço doméstico também despencou. Pela primeira vez, ele deixa de ser a principal ocupação das brasileiras que trabalham, caindo para a terceira posição.

Nos 20 anos que vão de 1992 a 2011, a proporção de trabalhadoras de casas particulares sobre o total da população feminina ocupada oscilou entre os 15,6% (2011) e 18% (2001). Mas também aqui não há uma redução constante, muito menos linear, e sim um sobe-e-desce. Tampouco é verdadeiro que, antes de 2011, o serviço doméstico tenha sempre ocupado a primeira posição entre os grupos ocupacionais da PNAD, como afirma a SPM em um recente comunicado institucional ( www.mulheres.gov.br/... ). E, principalmente, é falso que ele tenha deixado de ser a atividade que mais trabalhadoras ocupa.
Ano Proporção de empregadas domésticas sobre o total de mulheres ocupadas (%) Posição do serviço doméstico na distribuição da população feminina entre os grupos de ocupação da PNAD
1992 16,2 2º
1993 16,6 2º
1995 17,2 2º
1996 17,5 2º
1997 17,8 2º
1998 16,9 2º
1999 17,2 2º
2001 18 1º
2002 17,4 1º
2003 17,3 1º
2004 17,3 1º
2005 17,1 1º
2006 16,8 1º
2007 16,6 3º
2008 15,8 3º
2009 17 1º
2011 15,6 3º
_____________________________________________________________
Fonte: PNAD. Elaboração própria.


Nas 17 edições da PNAD abrangidas na tabela acima, o serviço doméstico ocupou sete vezes a primeira posição, sete a segunda e três a terceira. Descontada a anomalia de 2009, só esteve em primeiro lugar entre os grupos em que o IBGE divide a população trabalhadora de 2001 a 2006 – ou seja, logo após um processo de supressão contínua de postos de trabalho em outros setores, propiciado pela ação prolongada do coquetel de abertura comercial, juros altos e dólar baixo do governo FHC em combinação com os efeitos da crise de 1999. Até o advento desta última, a atividade que mais mulheres ocupava era a agricultura; a partir de 2007, e com exceção de 2009, os primeiros lugares passaram a caber às atividades de "comércio e reparação” e "educação, saúde e serviços sociais" – nessa ordem em 2007 e 2011, na inversa em 2008.

O peso do trabalho doméstico sobre a ocupação feminina mantém, nesses 20 anos, uma relativa estabilidade. Não é o caso de ignorar que, em 2008 e 2011, ele atinge seu vale histórico. Porém, a oscilação ainda é pequena se comparada à da agricultura, cuja participação despencou [3] , ou à do setor de comércio e reparação, que cresceu significativamente. Basta notar que, conforme a mesma PNAD, uma em cada seis brasileiras que trabalham ainda o fazem em casas de terceiros.

É certo, no entanto, que a proporção real de pessoas – sobretudo mulheres – empregadas nessa atividade é um tanto maior que a retratada na tabela. Afinal, quando se trata de uma ocupação com um predomínio avassalador do trabalho sem registro [4] , a margem de imprecisão dos dados oficiais, mesmo baseados na autodeclaração, como a PNAD, aumenta notavelmente. Sem ir muito longe, basta lembrar o costume, bastante difundido entre os estratos médios e altos da sociedade brasileira, de tirar meninas de suas famílias – sobretudo em áreas rurais – e levá-las para a cidade onde, a troco de comida e vestimenta, passam a lavar, passar, varrer, cozinhar, etc. para seus captores. Até 2008, isso era autorizado pelo art. 248 do Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente (ECA) [5] ; com a expedição do Decreto 6.481, que regulamenta a Convenção 182 da OIT [6] , proibiu-se o trabalho de menores em casa alheia. Antes de 2008, não seria de se esperar que o(a)s chefes desses domicílios declarassem ao IBGE tal modalidade de exploração porque o próprio ECA atribuía a ela caráter familiar, e não trabalhista, conferindo ao apropriador a guarda da adolescente subraída [7] e, consequentemente, a pátria potestade sobre ela (!!!). Menos ainda é de se supor que o façam agora que isso passou a ser catalogado oficialmente como o que de fato é: crimes de subtração de incapaz e redução a condição análoga à de escravo.

Por fim, "comércio e reparação" engloba, como é fácil perceber, atividades distintas. O mesmo vale, em muito maior medida, para "educação, saúde e serviços sociais", que, claramente, não é uma categoria profissional ou ramo de atividade, mas a soma de três, todas majoritariamente femininas. Que esse grupo tenha superado o serviço doméstico em número de mulheres ocupadas significa apenas que a soma de todas as professoras, pedagogas, enfermeiras, auxiliares e técnicas de enfermagem, médicas, dentistas, psicólogas, fonoaudiólogas, fisioterapeutas e assistentes sociais do país mais as secretárias, telefonistas, recepcionistas e restante pessoal administrativo feminino das respectivas empresas ou instituições [8] supera ligeiramente o número de trabalhadoras em casa alheia detectadas na PNAD.

O serviço doméstico continua sendo, portanto, como desde 2001, a atividade que, de longe, mais força de trabalho feminina absorve.

3. Por causa da escassez de mão-de-obra, decorrente da alta oferta de emprego em outras atividades, a remuneração do trabalho doméstico disparou.

A remuneração das trabalhadoras domésticas de fato cresceu, na última década, bem mais que a do restante dos assalariados. Nunca esquecendo que os salários no Brasil são muito baixos (o salário mínimo, R$ 678 [NR 1] , é pouco maior que a metade do argentino e ligeiramente inferior aos da fase de esgotamento da ditadura de 64 [9] ), essa elevação é um dado positivo cujas causas importariam pouco ou nada diante do fato em si, não fosse por radicarem numa iniquidade que gera uma ilusão de ótica, fazendo a melhoria parecer maior do que realmente é.

As trabalhadoras domésticas registradas ganham, quase sempre, salário mínimo ou algo próximo a ele; as não registradas, como demonstrado na PNAD, bem menos. Ao dizer que "em 2009, as trabalhadoras formalizadas apresentavam renda [NR 2] média de R$ 568,00, isto é, mais de 100 reais acima do salário mínimo nacional", o IPEA incorre no erro metodológico de tomar como referência a renda quando nem toda ela advém do trabalho [10] ou desse trabalho. Em sua composição, entram todos os ganhos que alguém aufere: pensões alimentícias, prestações previdenciárias, benefícios assistenciais, remuneração de bicos, aluguéis, etc. Se o que se deseja medir são os rendimentos do trabalho doméstico, é preciso tomar por base os salários – e, para o mesmo ano de 2009 [11] , o Anuário Estatístico da Previdência Social (AEPS) fornece uma cifra média de R$ 501 [12] , valor que superava em R$ 36, e não em "mais de 100 reais", o salário mínimo nacional de então (R$ 465). Essa diferença positiva de R$ 36 explica-se, em grande medida, por outro fator ignorado pelo IPEA: os pisos salariais (isto é, salários mínimos) estipulados naquele ano para o serviço doméstico pelos estados de São Paulo (R$ 505), Paraná (R$ 610), Rio Grande do Sul (R$ 511) e Rio de Janeiro (R$ 512), que concentram, 55% dos contribuintes do INSS [13] . Como falamos de trabalhadoras registradas – que, por essa condição, não ganham menos que o mínimo legal – , um valor médio tão próximo do piso constitui uma evidência cabal de que a remuneração da grande maioria delas é igual a este. Como os salários mínimos subiram, nos últimos anos, bem mais do que o salário médio, está aí a explicação da diferença percentual entre o incremento remuneratório das empregadas domésticas e o dos demais assalariados.

E daí? Qual o problema se essa elevação decorre mais do aumento do salário mínimo que de uma relação favoráel de oferta e demanda, como sustentado pelo IBGE ( www1.folha.uol.com.br/... )? Nenhum, se as empregadas domésticas não fossem as únicas assalariadas do país a receber só o mínimo. Qualquer outro empregado que ganhe menos de R$ 971,78 recebe também, se tiver filhos com menos de 14 anos ou inváidos, o salário-famíia, cujo valor real, usando como deflator o INPC, esteve congelado entre 2004 e 2011 e caiu 30% em 2012 [14] . Tomando como exemplo um empregado comum (celetista) [NR 3] ) e uma domética, ambos integrantes de famílias-tipo brasileiras (com dois filhos) e remuneração igual ao piso nacional, os ganhos auferidos pelo primeiro em razão de seu trabalho (salário mínimo + salário famíia) aumentaram 61,5% de 2003 a 2013; os da segunda, 70,5%.

Isso acontece porque, embora os dois recebam o mesmo salário, a remuneração efetiva do celetista tem em sua composição uma parcela que não aumenta e inclusive diminui (salário-família). Como as trabalhadoras domésticas recebem apenas a parcela que aumenta, seus acréscimos percentuais são maiores. A ilusão de ótica reside no fato de que, não obstante isso, a massa monetária incorporada a suas remunerações foi e é sempre menor que a dos trabalhadores regidos pela CLT. Em 2013, ano em que o salário-família atingiu o menor peso relativo de sua história face ao salário mínimo, uma empregada doméstica com dois filhos remunerada pelo piso ganha, por mês R$ 46,72 (R$ 560,64 no ano) menos que um celetista em iguais condições – uma diferença proporcional de 6,9% (15,4% em 2004).

É importante assinalar esses aspectos não apenas para que se tenha a real dimensão do incremento de ganhos verificado na última década, mas também como anteparo à mistura de má-fé e analfabetismo matemático que campeia na imprensa monopolista brasileira. Não será nada surpreendente se Veja, a Folha de São Paulo ou as organizações Globo "noticiarem", daqui a dois ou três anos, a redução desse incremento, insinuando alguma conexão entre ela e a ampliação de direitos de modo a fazer crer que está terá tido efeito negativo. Isso porque uma vez efetivada a PEC 478, as trabalhadoras de casas particulares passarão a receber o salário-família. Se este permanecer congelado, os aumentos percentuais da remuneração delas, com exceção do primeiro ano (no qual se verificará um salto face à situação atual) cairão, e muito. Medidos, porém, em quantidade de moeda, que é o que importa, eles serão maiores do que hoje.

4. A Emenda 72 iguala os direitos das domésticas aos dos demais trabalhadores.

Consta na ementada EC 72 que ela "altera a redação do parágrafo único do art. 7º da Constituição Federal para estabelecer a igualdade de direitos trabalhistas entre os trabalhadores domésticos e os demais trabalhadores urbanos e rurais". Esse era, de fato, o intuito inicial do autor da proposta, o deputado Carlos Bezerra (PMDB-MT). Sua proposta original (PEC 478 de 2010) ia à raiz da diferenciação nefasta contra a categoria, suprimindo o dispositivo constitucional que a faz possível: o parágrafo único do art. 7º. Com auxílio ou sob pressão de alguns juízes do Trabalho, a deputada Benedita da Silva (PT-RJ), relatora da comissão parlamentar formada para discutir a proposta, esvaziou parcialmente o projeto, frustrando a equiparação.

Na reunião de 23 de maio de 2012 da referida comissão, os juízes Fernando Luiz Gonçalves Rios Neto e Solange Barbosa de Castro Coura sustentaram que alguns dos direitos trabalhistas estatuídos como fundamentais no art. 7º da Constituição são incompatíveis com o serviço doméstico e que a revogação de seu parágrafo único seria entendida pela ramificação trabalhista do Poder Judiciário (isto é, por eles e por seus colegas) não como equiparação do status constitucional das trabalhadoras em casa alheia ao dos demais assalariados, mas como supressão dos poucos direitos ali assegurados até então a elas. Essa posição foi reafirmada pelo então presidente do Tribunal Superior do Trabalho (TST), João Oreste Dalazen.

Em vez de denunciá-los à opinião pública, ao CNJ ou de resolver o problema usando a fórmula da deputada Gorete Pereira (PR-CE), que alterava a parte inicial do art. 7º para explicitar que as 34 garantias fundamentais ali estabelecidas caberiam aos trabalhadores "urbanos e rurais, inclusive os domésticos" [15] , Benedita apresentou, entre junho e dezembro de 2012, três substitutivos que apenas alteravam o parágrafo único do artigo em questão sem revogá-lo e ampliavam o rol de garantias das trabalhadoras de casas particulares sem igualá-lo ao dos outros trabalhadores.

O primeiro estendia-lhes 17 dos 25 direitos faltantes sem condicionar nenhum à regulamentação. Entre os oito que ficaram de fora, havia apenas um que realmente não faria sentido estender ao trabalho doméstico: a promoção da contratação de mulheres, uma vez que elas já são mais de 90% da categoria e não há razão para incentivar que continuem a fazer esse tipo de serviço, ainda mais considerando que seu estatuto legal é ainda inferior à CLT. A suposta incompatibilidade, todavia, serviu de pretexto para que se continuassem a negar a essas trabalhadoras também os pisos salariais por categoria (prejudicando, v.g., as profissionais de enfermagem que cuidam de doentes a domicílio, contratadas por eles ou por suas famílias); a jornada reduzida para o trabalho em revezamento de horários; os adicionais de periculosidade e insalubridade (em prejuízo das que trabalham expostas a substâncias nocivas à saúde, ou seja, quase todas [16] ); a proibição de trato discriminatório em razão da natureza da atividade exercida; a participação nos lucros (que, embora não existam, por definição, no serviço doméstico, existem nas atividades de empresas cujos sócios contratam, por meio e em nome delas, empregadas para suas casas particulares) e a proteção contra a automação (aqui entendida não como proibição desta, mas como garantia de compensações e medidas de recolocação para os que venham a perder seus postos de trabalho em razão dela).

No segundo substitutivo, excluiu-se também a igualdade de direitos entre empregadas e avulsas, impedindo a extensão às diaristas do que se passava a reconhecer às trabalhadoras com registro em carteira. De todas as modificações impostas ao projeto original, essa foi a mais grave pois, das afirmativas atualmente formuladas com tanta ligeireza em âmbitos oficiais sobre o serviço doméstico no Brasil, a única que não é uma lenda completa é justamente a de que existe uma tendência – por certo menor do que o alardeado – à substituição de trabalhadoras mensalistas por diaristas: o Comunicado 90 do IPEA, embora baseado numa aproximação sujeita a enome margem de erro [17] , mostra um expressivo crescimento, entre 1999 e 2009, desse regime de contratação – que correspondia, ao fim desse último ano, a quase um terço dos empregos domésticos. Além disso, foram condicionados à regulamentação, sem que se estabelecesse prazo ou norma transitória para vigorar enquanto ela não for elaborada, direitos como FGTS, seguro-desemprego, adicional noturno, salário-família e seguro contra acidentes de trabalho.

As condições dessa futura e incerta regulamentação ficaram estabelecidas no terceiro substitutivo, datado de dezembro, que foi o que a Câmara aprovou e enviou ao Senado; ali, passou a constar que ela deve assegurar facilidades tributárias aos empregadores. Essa determinação lembra as indenizações a proprietários de escravos previstas nas leis de 1871 (ventre livre) e 1885 (sexagenários) e embute, assim como elas, um problema a um só tempo moral e econômico: por que o Estado brasileiro deveria subsidiar a contratação de trabalhadoras para exercer abaixo do padrão geral de direitos e garantias praticado no país e em exclusivo benefício do conforto pessoal dos empregadores, já que o serviço doméstico nem sequer gera riqueza? Esse problema acaba relativizado por outra iniquidade: afinal, se o que esse mesmo Estado mais faz há cinco anos é conceder favores fiscais injustificáveis a monopólios, renunciando a mais de R$ 60 mil milhões em contribuições previdenciárias, passa a não soar tão absurdo que os empregadores domésticos recebam alguma regalia; ao menos, sua contrapartida (uma elevação substancial das garantias da maior e mais desprotegida das categorias profissionais do país) é mais palpável que a do rebaixamento geral da arrecadação do INSS, chegando até a parecer um preço aceitável.

Ocorre, no entanto, que pelo menos em relação a dois dos mais importantes entre os direitos básicos agora estendidos às trabalhadoras de casa alheia, esse condicionamento não faz o menor sentido, e isso pela singela razão de que o salário-família e o seguro-desemprego não são pagos pelo empregador, mas pela Seguridade Social. O mesmo vale para a licença-maternidade, que as trabalhadoras domésticas já têm e Benedita pretendia relegar também a esse limbo. Essa garantia foi salva no Senado, na última hora, pela intervenção de Paulo Bauer (PSDB-SC).

5. O aumento do custo da força de trabalho, consequência da ampliação de direitos, levará à diminuição da quantidade de vagas no serviço doméstico e/ou à substituição de trabalhadoras mensalistas por diaristas.

Ainda que todos os direitos agora estendidos às trabalhadoras domésticas passassem a vigorar de imediato e sem nenhuma compensação econômica ao empregador, o aumento do custo de manutenção do emprego não passaria de 10%, (8% correspondentes ao depósito mensal do FGTS, se é que não se adotará um percentual menor que o dos celetistas, mais 1 ou 2% ao seguro de acidentes [18] ). O preço da demissão aumentaria um pouco mais, já que ela enseja uma multa rescisória de 40% do valor devido ao FGTS no curso da relação de trabalho – que, diluída ao longo desta, faria o acréscimo de despesa subir de 9 para 12,2 ou 13,2%, aos quais podem-se somar o custo de equipamentos como luvas e calçados de proteção. Ante o dado de que a grande maioria das trabalhadoras em questão ganha salário mínimo ou algo próximo a ele, isso seria muito pouco para ensejar a mudança de perfil que vem sendo anunciada. No entanto, nem esse aumento ocorrerá, pois o acesso das empregadas de casas particulares aos direitos em questão virá acompanhado por facilidades fiscais aos empregadores.

O acréscimo de despesa destes últimos é menor que o incremento de garantias constitucionais das empregadas porque algumas delas (salário-família, seguro-desemprego) são pagas, como mencionado anteriormente, pela Seguridade Social. Outras (proibição explícita do trabalho infantil e da discriminação por sexo, idade ou cor da pele) só chegariam a ter alguma consequência econômica, e mesmo assim depois de anos, se infringidas. E outras tantas (teto de jornada, adicional noturno, adicional de horas extras) até teriam impacto, mas apenas se configurado seu fato gerador. Para não pagar horas extras, basta não usufruir do trabalho alheio por mais de 44 horas semanais, lembrando que a Constituição brasileira admite a compensação horária dentro da semana e que oito horas diárias de trabalho podem significar dez entre os horários de entrada e saída, já que se desconta o intervalo para refeição no cômputo da jornada. E para não arcar com o adicional noturno, basta não exigir que a empregada trabalhe após as 22h nem antes das 5h, se é que o parâmetro a ser adotado para as trabalhadoras domésticas não será pior que o dos celetistas. Para aqueles empregadores que necessitem ou creiam necessitar dos serviços de uma empregada doméstica por tal quantidade de tempo e em tais horários, a substituição de mensalistas por diaristas não é uma solução viável, pois a remuneração destas últimas é, em proporção ao tempo de trabalho, sabidamente maior [19] .

Isto posto, e embora faltem dados quantitativos consistentes, existe, de fato, uma tendência empiricamente perceptível à substituição de empregadas mensalistas por diaristas, que decorre de uma transformação cultural: embora ainda longe de aceitar a ideia de cuidar da própria casa, as gerações mais jovens dos estratos médios têm uma noção de privacidade algo distinta da de seus pais e avós e não se sentem confortáveis com a presença de pessoas externas a seu núcleo em suas casas durante a totalidade do dia ou da semana, chegando mesmo a ter algum escrúpulo (ou medo) de recorrer à apropriação clandestina de menores. Isso é igual a dizer que a sociedade brasileira transita, hoje, de forma ainda incipiente, da família expandida – à qual, durante centenas de anos, as trabalhadoras domésticas integraram-se na condição servil de agregadas – à nuclear. Isso, e não o aumento do custo da força de trabalho, pode levar a um acréscimo do número de trabalhadoras contratadas por dia em detrimento da contratação por mês.

Seja como for, a constatação dessa tendência – ainda que sobredimensionada – deveria dar azo à equiparação das garantias das diaristas às das trabalhadoras remuneradas em base mensal, e não ao manejo da possibilidade de usá-las para elidir obrigações trabalhistas. No embalo da EC 72, a intempérie trabalhista e previdenciária a que encontram-se relegadas as trabalhadoras domésticas remuneradas por dia deveria começar a ser encarada como o que é: uma infâmia perpetrada sem qualquer suporte conceitual ou normativo pelo braço judicial do Estado brasileiro.

A relação de assalariamento é concebida na legislação brasileira nos mesmos termos em que o é no mundo dos fatos: considera-se empregado quem, a troco de dinheiro ou remuneração in natura, trabalha com regularidade em condições de subordinação, não importando se a remuneração se dá em base mensal, semanal, diária ou atrelada ao desempenho. Mesmo quando ausente o segundo desses elementos (regularidade), a Constituição brasileira, como já visto, assegura aos trabalhadores que preencham os outros dois a mesma cobertura trabalhista e previdenciária dos assalariados em sentido estrito. Exemplos conhecidos são os portuários e alguns trabalhadores rurais contratados em época de safra: a inexistência de vínculo permanente com um empregador determinado não significa, para essas pessoas, ausência de subordinação, já que não se traduz no poder de determinar as condições de tempo, local e modo em que carregarão e descarregarão navios ou colherão cacau. Isso é que diferencia o status laboral/legal desses trabalhadores – chamados de avulsos – face ao dos profissionais liberais ou autônomos.

No caso das trabalhadoras de casas alheias, nada disso é tido em conta. As que prestam serviços esporádicos a contratantes diversos não estão cobertas pela legislação trabalhista e previdenciária porque a Constituição deixa e deixará, por obra e graça da senhora Benedita, de assegurar-lhes a igualdade de direitos face às trabalhadoras com vínculo empregatício. Mas mesmo as que trabalham em caráter regular para uma mesma pessoa ou família não têm, muitas vezes, nenhum direito reconhecido, ainda que sejam, a toda evidência, empregadas.

Isso acontece porque enquanto a CLT determina que é empregado, com todas as garantias daí decorrentes, quem trabalha sob a direção alheia mediante remuneração em caráter não-eventual , a Lei 5.859, que rege o trabalho em casas particulares, dispõe que é empregada doméstica quem trabalha sob a direção alheia mediante remuneração em caráter contínuo . Apegando-se a essa diferença meramente vocabular, a justiça do Trabalho considera que só existe continuidade – e, portanto, relação de emprego doméstico – quando a trabalhadora presta serviços a seu patrão em todos os dias da semana ou, pelo menos, em dias consecutivos, isentando de qualquer obrigação trabalhista ou fiscal quem contrate uma trabalhadora para prestar serviços domésticos três vezes por semana, não importa quantos anos ou décadas dure esse liame. A consequência dessa cretinice hermenêutica é manter alguns milhões de brasileiras sem qualquer dos direitos elementares inscritos na Constituição, quer se trate dos agora estendidos à categoria ou dos que ela já detinha. A correção disso é algo tão premente quanto foi durante anos, e continua sendo, a equiparação das trabalhadoras de casas particulares ao restante dos assalariados.

Algumas conclusões

Longe de se encontrar em extinção, o trabalho em casa alheia é, e não está num horizonte visível que deixe de ser, um elemento fundante da estrutura social brasileira – o que revela, de forma incontrastável, o caráter profunda e basalmente arcaico e desigual dessa estrutura, tanto pelo lado da oferta de trabalho (já que se trata de uma ocupação intrinsecamente precária) quanto pelo da demanda (que implica que alguns milhões de brasileiros são animicamente incapazes de limpar a própria casa, passar a própria roupa, fazer a própria comida ou cuidar dos próprios filhos).

A tentativa de fazer crer que isso esteja em vias de deixar de ser assim é uma manifestação oficial e coletiva do que Freud chamou de negação – um mecanismo de defesa do ego que consiste na "tentativa de não aceitar na consciência algum fato que perturba" e "na tendência de fantasiar que certos acontecimentos não são, de fato, do jeito que são, ou que na verdade nunca aconteceram" [20] . Com efeito, é difícil para um governo e uma sociedade autocomplacentes, triunfalistas e dependentes da opinião externa como se tornou o Brasil na última década explicar ao mundo o fato de que existe aqui um contingente de trabalhadoras com status constitucional de subcidadãs comparável ao da Índia. É certo, por outro lado, que o próprio fato de que isso cause desconforto já é um progresso numa sociedade que convivia de forma naturalizada com a semiescravidão doméstica havia centenas de anos. O aforismo implicado aqui é o de que a hipocrisia é, como dizia o duque La Rochefoucauld, uma homenagem que o vício presta évirtude.

Falar em trabalho escravo ou semiescravo não éuma licença retórica. A própria ministra-chefe da SPM, Eleonora Menicucci, recorreu a esse termo quando declarou a O Globo que "estamos definitivamente retirando as mulheres trabalhadoras domésticas do sistema de escravidão no nosso país" [21] . Que alguém com sua posição reconheça publicamente a existência e a gravidade desse quadro é algo meritório e provavelmente inédito na história do Brasil. E é, principalmente, uma elogiável mudança de postura face ao veto de Lula em 2006, por sugestão dos Ministérios da Previdência e do Trabalho e Emprego, à extensão do salário-família, FGTS, multa por demissão e seguro-desemprego às trabalhadoras domésticas, que o Congresso aprovara já naquele ano [22] .

O diagnóstico de Menicucci só não é ainda mais exato e valioso porque ela deixa-se contaminar pelo triunfalismo e cede à tentação de sobredimensionar os méritos do governo que integra ao usar a palavra "definitivamente" quando, como demonstrado, para isso ainda falta muito, a começar pela efetivação das disposições da Emenda 72 pendentes de regulamentação. O que se aprovou esta semana está para a situação das trabalhadoras domésticas como algumas leis anteriores à Abolição (ventre livre, sexagenários, Eusébio de Queirós) estão para ela: importantes, embora contraditórias e pouco efetivas; positivas, mas insuficientes.

É difícil entender porque não se chegou à equiparação plena entre as garantias das trabalhadoras domésticas e as do restante dos trabalhadores. Afinal, não houve contra ela mais que uma resistência difusa, no mais das vezes envergonhada, de alguns estratos médios reacionários. A oposição parlamentar e a imprensa monopolista – que, como se diz na Argentina, não comem vidro – , mostraram-se, ao menos em público, simpáticas ou neutras. Até a revista Veja, que assumiu desde a eleição de Lula o papel de porta-voz dos setores fascistas das classes médias, deixou de lado o habitual discurso raivoso e, embora permitindo-se alguma conjectura sobre os efeitos da ampliação de garantias sobre o nível de emprego, saudou-a como um progresso civilizatório.

O recuo verificado face ao teor inicial da proposta tampouco pode ser explicado pela heterogeneidade ideológica do bloco parlamentar oficialista. Muito ao contrário, tanto o projeto inicial de equiparação plena quanto a redação alternativa que a preservaria face ao obstáculo imposto por setores do Judiciário partiram de integrantes da ala direita desse bloco (PMDB e PR). O parcial esvaziamento da iniciativa original foi obra da relatora do projeto, Benedita da Silva, ex-empregada doméstica e figura emblemática do PT. Mesmo a entidade corporativa dos juízes do Trabalho (Anamatra) já defendeu, em mais de uma ocasião, a equiparação plena. O fato de a EC 72 ter sido aprovada por unanimidade no Senado e por 347 votos contra 2 na Câmara também indica que não era necessário qualquer recuo: o Congresso teria votado, sem maiores resistências, a equiparação. Que ela não tenha sido conquistada, é algo que, portanto, deve-se debitar principalmente à pusilanimidade do governo e do PT.

Não é útil, porém, à compreensão do problema restringir o foco da anáise ao PT. A postura adotada pela oposição parlamentar e extraparlamentar de direita e de esquerda torna facilmente compreensível que o mesmo governo que, por covardia atávica, frustrou parcialmente o que seria uma conquista de dimensões incalculáveis para a classe trabalhadora colha todos os benefícios políticos da extensão limitada de garantias que se acabou por aprovar.

À parte a atuação do senador Paulo Bauer em defesa da licença-maternidade, o PSDB não teve, durante a tramitação do projeto que resultou na EC 72, idéia melhor do que tentar impor à reivindicação judicial dos direitos das trabalhadoras domésticas um prazo curto de prescrição – proposta rejeitada e que, a rigor, pouco ou nada mudaria, posto que o Judiciário já o aplica mesmo sem respaldo na lei [23] . Após a aprovação da emenda, já anuncia que procurará, na regulamentação, isentar os empregadores domésticos da multa rescisória calculada sobre o saldo do FGTS [24] . Considerando, em todo caso, a índole e a vida pregressa da oposição de direita, já é bastante que ela não tenha se oposto pura e simplesmente à ampliação de garantias.

Muito pior que isso é constatar que, durante toda a fase de discussão do que veio a se tornar a Emenda 72, os esforços da bancada do Partido do Socialismo e da Liberdade (PSoL), única organização não-oficialista de esquerda com representação parlamentar, estavam postos, de forma excludente, no reparte das presidências das comissões temáticas da Câmara. Nem seu senador, nem seus três deputados levantaram em qualquer momento a voz contra as alterações emplacadas por Benedita e pelos demais membros da comissão especial. Da parte do PSTU e outras seitas autorreferentes menores que propõem-se fazer passar por oposição de esquerda ao governo petista, o assunto tampouco recebeu – como por ocasião dos vetos de 2006 – maior atenção, embora envolvesse questões de interesse da maior das categorias profissionais existentes no Brasil. Como cereja do bolo, um dos melhores intelectuais dessa esquerda (Ricardo Antunes) escreve em O Estado de São Paulo , quatro dias antes da aprovação da emenda, um artigo em que, a par de repetir com certo toque de erudição algumas simplificações oficialistas ora problematizadas (equiparação plena, "primeira abolição", tendência à substituição de empregadas mensalistas por diaristas), ainda aponta para as potenciais consequências negativas do suposto fim do trabalho doméstico (ao menos em sua configuração mais arcaica) sobre a divisão sexual do trabalho nos estratos médios da sociedade brasileira [25] .

A EC 72, portanto, merece ser saudada como a mais importante reforma social verificada no Brasil desde o advento da Constituição de 1988. Mas deve ser posta, ao mesmo tempo, sob exame crítico e, sobretudo, sob observação atenta no que toca à sua regulamentação e, o que não é menos importante, ao tratamento judicial que receberá. Sua existência é talvez, o primeiro sinal seguro de que o Brasil vive algum progresso sócio-cultural. Suas falhas, a história de sua tramitação e a postura dos diversos setores do espectro políico perante ela indicam, entretanto, o caráter ainda incipiente desse progresso.
Notas
[1] Comparação entre a PNAD 2011 e o Report on Employment & Unemployment Survey 2009-10.
[2] Em 2010, a PNAD não foi realizada por ser ano de censo.
[3] A causa principal disso, é bom que se diga, não é a urbanização: a comparação entre as PNADs de 1992 e 2001 aponta uma queda de 34% no peso da atividade agrícola sobre o total da ocupação feminina (de 24,7 para 16,2%), sendo que os censos dos anos imediatamente anteriores (1991 e 2000) indicam redução de apenas 23% na relação entre a população do campo e o total de habitantes do país. (de 24,5% para 18,7%). Já a comparação entre os censos de 2000 e 2010 mostra uma queda de 16,6% na relação entre a população rural e o total de pessoas que vivem no território brasileiro (de 18,7 para 15,6%), enquanto a redução do peso da atividade agrícola sobre a ocupação feminina no mesmo período (PNADs de 2001 e 2011) foi de 30,8% (de 16,2 para 11,2%).
[4] Segundo a PNAD 2011, 71% das trabalhadoras domésticas não estão registradas.
[5] http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8069.htm . Tal artigo tipificava como simples infração, punível com multa administrativa, "deixar de apresentar à autoridade judiciária de seu domicílio, no prazo de cinco dias, com o fim de regularizar a guarda, adolescente trazido de outra comarca para a prestação de serviço doméstico".
[6] A Convenção 182 versa sobre as Piores Formas de Trabalho Infantil e obriga os Estados aderentes a elaborar uma relação de atividades tidas como particularmente nocivas para crianças e adolescentes e a comprometer-se com sua abolição em caráter prioritário.
[7] Nos termos do ECA, "a guarda obriga a prestação de assistência material, moral e educacional à criança ou adolescente, conferindo a seu detentor o direito de opor-se a terceiros, inclusive aos pais" (art. 33) e "destina-se a regularizar a posse de fato", isto é, o rapto (§ 1º). Em termos práticos, sua concessão a pessoas estranhas à família de origem do menor diferencia-se da adoção por apenas um elemento: o direito à herança, que existe para a criança ou adolescente adotado, mas não para aquela que está apenas sob a guarda de terceiro. Que isso se mescle com uma relação de trabalho, é um típico exemplo da presença de elementos feudais na estrutura sócio-econômica brasileira.
[8] Os grupos ocupacionais da PNAD são estabelecidos com base na Classificação Nacional de Atividade Econômica (CNAE), que toma por base a atividade-fim do empregador, e não na Classificação Brasileira de Ocupações (CBO), referenciada ao trabalho efetivamente exercido pelo trabalhador. Assim, quem exerce tarefas burocrático-administrativas numa escola ou num hospital é computado como trabalhador em educação ou em saúde.
[9] Segundo a Nota Técnica 118 ( www.dieese.org.br/notatecnica/2012/notaTec118salarioMinimo2013.pdf ) do Departamento Intersindical de Estatística e Estudos Sócio-Econômicos (DIEESE), o salário mínimo brasileiro atingiu, em 2013, seu maior valor desde 1984; em 1983, em plena crise econômica internacional deflagrada no ano anterior (1982), após dois choques petrolíferos sucessivos (1973 e 1979) e ao fim de duas décadas de queda livre iniciadas com o golpe de 64, ele equivalia a R$ 689.
[10] Informação mais detalhada sobre os componentes do cálculo da renda encontra-se nas notas técnicas da PNAD.
[11] 2009, por ser um ano atípico para o emprego doméstico, pode não ser o melhor paradigma, somente sendo mencionado aqui porque os dados da PNAD que se discutem neste tópico são relativos a esse ano. Seja como for, em 2011 o salário médio das empregadas domésticas foi, segundo o AEPS, de R$ 616. Embora o salário mínimo nacional fosse de R$ 545, cabe aqui a mesma ponderação sobre os pisos regionais, que eram de R$ 736 (Paraná), R$ 639 (Rio de Janeiro), R$ 610 (Rio Grande do Sul) e R$ 600 (São Paulo).
[12] Não se ignora que o AEPS, por basear-se em informações repassadas pelos empregadores ao INSS quando do recolhimento de contribuições, pode apresentar distorções para baixo em virtude do costume que têm alguns empregadores de declarar, para fim de pagamentos ao fisco previdenciário, um salário menor que aquele com que efetivamente remuneram seus empregados. Ainda assim, parece ser, quando se trata de empregados com registro, uma fonte mais confiável para fins de aferição de seus salários que as informações da PNAD sobre renda, ou mesmo sobre rendimentos do trabalho, baseadas em autodeclaração.
[13] Desafortunadamente, o AEPS não traz a desagregação desse dado entre as categorias de segurados da Previdência. Porém, é difícil que a proporção de empregadas domésticas concentradas nesses estados seja menor que a de segurados em geral.
[14] O valor do salário-família é definido pela remuneração bruta do empregado. Em tese, há duas faixas de valor mas, em 2011, o limite máximo da menor delas (à qual corresponderia um salário-família mais alto) foi superado pelo salário mínimo, o que fez com que os trabalhadores até então nela situados passassem todos à faixa seguinte, com a consequente redução do valor auferido.
[15] Embora trabalhem obrigatoriamente em zona urbana ou rural, os trabalhadores domésticos são considerados, na sistemática consagrada entre os profissionais do direito no Brasil, uma categoria à parte, nem urbana e nem rural para fins de direitos e garantias.
[16] O produto de limpeza residencial mais utilizado no Brasil é a chamada água sanitária, que vem a ser nada menos que cloro em estado puro.
[17] Conforme referido no próprio Comunicado 90, seus autores usaram como critério de aferição do número de diaristas a informação sobre a quantidade de empregos prestada pelas entrevistadas. Aquelas que declararam trabalhar para mais de um empregador foram classificadas como diaristas; as que informaram ter um só empregador, como mensalistas.
[18] As alíquotas de contribuição ao seguro de acidentes de trabalho são de 1, 2 ou 3% conforme o grau de risco da atividade. É improvável que o governo venha a considerar o serviço doméstico como atividade de risco alto (alíquota de 3%) ou mesmo médio (2%).
[19] A renda das trabalhadoras computadas como diaristas pelo critério do Comunicado 90 do IPEA é superior, em todas as edições da PNAD, à das classificadas como mensalistas; mesmo tendo presente a crítica formulada aqui ao uso da renda, e não do salário, como parâmetro, não há porque pensar que essa diferença não corresponda, ao menos em parte, à remuneração pelo trabalho. A isto acresça-se que as diaristas, frequentemente, são contratadas para limpeza ou para lidar com roupas, não estando obrigadas, por exemplo, a cozinhar.
[20] www.psiqweb.med.br/...
[21] g1.globo.com/...
[22] www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/Msg/Vep/VEP-577-06.htm .
[23] legis.senado.gov.br/mateweb/arquivos/mate-pdf/123669.pdf .
[24] www1.folha.uol.com.br/...
[25] www.estadao.com.br/...

[NR 1] €259
{NR 2] No Brasil chamam de renda aos rendimentos de actividades não rentistas, como os salariais.
[NR 2] Celetista: o trabalhador regido pela Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho (CLT), a lei trabalhista geral brasileira. Além dos contratos temporários, o Brasil tem três regimes trabalhistas: o da CLT, o do serviço doméstico e o dos funcionários públicos.

[*] Pesquisador em temas de Trabalho e Seguriança Social. Atuou como consultor da Organização Internacional do Trabalho (OIT) e do Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social do Brasil (MDS) contratado pelo Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento (PNUD). Foi também pesquisador-bolsista do Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA) no âmbito do Programa Nacional de Pesquisa para o Desenvolvimento (PNPD).

Este artigo encontra-se em http://resistir.info/ .

(Não enfrenta contradições estruturais.)


05/04/2013
Reforma agrária tem novos critérios definidos

JOÃO CARLOS MAGALHÃES

DE BRASÍLIA

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/1257594-reforma-agraria-tem-novos-criterios-definidos.shtml

Depois de dois anos, a gestão Dilma Rousseff deu forma legal ao seu novo modelo de reforma agrária.

Portarias publicadas nos últimos dois meses delinearam o projeto já em andamento de desacelerar a obtenção de áreas para tentar melhorar os precários assentamentos, apelidados pelo ministro Gilberto Carvalho (Secretaria-Geral) de "favelas rurais".

As normas indicam uma reforma agrária para ajudar a cumprir a principal promessa de Dilma: erradicar a miséria (ganho mensal per capita de R$ 70) até 2014.

Antes, para desapropriar uma fazenda, a Presidência precisava ter somente um laudo demonstrando que o local era improdutivo. Agora, com as novas regras, será necessário também um estudo que comprove a capacidade de geração de renda do imóvel.

Paralelamente, o governo calculará por meio de um laudo de vistoria e avaliação o custo do imóvel por família --com limites fixados em outra portaria. No bioma amazônico no Norte, por exemplo, esse valor é de R$ 90 mil.

Além de improdutiva, a terra terá de ser capaz de sustentar seus ocupantes e ter um preço considerado aceitável.

Para combater a miséria, todos os assentados agora têm de estar no Cadastro Único de programas sociais (que dá direito a receber o Bolsa Família, por exemplo).

Entre os fatores a combinar para a escolha das áreas para reforma agrária, constam a "densidade de população em situação de pobreza extrema" e a "existência de ações no âmbito do plano Brasil sem Miséria".

Além dos pobres, outro foco são os jovens, sob o argumento de renovar o programa. Uma das normas estabelece cota de 5% das áreas obtidas para pessoas de até 29 anos, em assentamentos com ao menos 20 lotes. Casais gays terão os mesmos direitos dos heterossexuais.

As normas concretizam o que já vinha ocorrendo na prática. Favorecida por uma fraca pressão política, resultado do encolhimento das organizações de sem-terra, Dilma é a presidente que menos assentou em mais de 20 anos.

"O governo Dilma não enfrenta o latifúndio", diz Alexandre Conceição, da coordenação nacional do MST.

O presidente do Incra, Carlos Guedes, defende o novo modelo como "uma mudança profunda" e "um aperfeiçoamento importante".

Editoria de
Arte/Folhapress

A tragédia da Grécia:
Uma acusação à teoria económica neoliberal, à elite política interna e ao duo UE/FMI
por C. J. Polychroniou [*]


http://www.resistir.info/grecia/polychroniou_mar13.html


Não há nenhuma outra disciplina nas ciências sociais que repouse tão pesadamente sobre dados estatísticos e fórmulas matemáticas e ainda assim seja tão lamentavelmente incompetente em analisar e prever os acontecimentos e processos que estuda do que a própria "lúgubre ciência" ("dismal science"). A crise financeira global de 2007-08 é um grande exemplo. Virtualmente todos os economistas profissionais da corrente dominante foram apanhados com as calças arriadas quando o Lehman Brothers entrou em colapso, disparando uma crise financeira à escala mundial. A razão para isto é que a maior parte dos economistas convenceu-se, com base nos fantásticos modelos de engenharia financeira desenvolvidos nos últimos 20-30 anos, que o capitalismo havia evoluído para um sistema sócio-económico estável e livre de crises. Agora que o dinheiro podia ser criado a partir do ar (chamam a isto o "esquema dos derivativos"), grandes e poderosas instituições financeiras podiam acumular riqueza sem gerar nova riqueza e predadores financeiros podiam pilhá-la à vontade.

Na verdade, aos olhos dos profetas da nova era económica, a redescoberta do deus perdido do homem (i.e., mercados livres) significando simetria e perfeição (i.e., estabilidade permanente e acumulação sem fim) abriu um caminho para a realização de uma ordem económica livre da fragilidade contratual e da destruição do ciclo de negócios associado ao perturbado capitalismo do passado. Modelos de equilíbrio geral com dinâmica estocástica (uma abordagem académica cujas "bases científicas" são no mínimo dúbias) e outros modelos deterministas construídos em torno da noção de mercados racionais e eficientes (ex., a hipótese das expectativas racionais), todos eles carregados com suposições normativas ahistóricas e asociais, não deixavam espaço para questionar os mecanismos de engenharia financeira e o admirável novo mundo prometido pelos sumos sacerdotes do capitalismo de livre mercado (Polychroniou 2008). A seguir, os economistas e sábios da corrente dominante (mainstream) nunca viram a aproximação do mais recente desastre financeiro, muito embora a vingança da economia real sobre a economia de papel seja um cenário que se tenha verificado incontáveis vezes na história do capitalismo moderno. Este é o preço pago por substituir economia política por teoria económica matemática e análises econométricas estreitas, ignorando a história e a teoria social, e por zombar da percepção filosófica da natureza humana.

Basta dizer, se economistas contemporâneos se incomodassem a ler mesmo o primeiro volume de Das Kapital de Marx, ou considerassem seriamente as sombrias advertências de Marshall contra a transformação da análise económica em modelos matemáticos formais, ou prestassem atenção à fundamentada abordagem de Keynes da procura agregada e do ciclo de negócios ou à hipótese da instabilidade financeira de Minsky (qualquer uma destas opções poderia ter permitido isso), teríamos sido poupados às loucuras associadas com o particularmente absurdo empreendimento de transformar uma ciência social numa física newtoniana e apresentar o universo capitalista como um progresso infindável rumo à acumulação ilimitada, com a ajuda da alquimia do livre mercado. Podíamos também ter evitado as incontáveis crises financeiras e económicas que se verificaram desde a ascensão de uma ilusória mas perigosa ordem sócio-económica neoliberal.

Mas a ignorância da história e da política atravessa a análise económica e formulação de políticas como uma linha vermelha, a qual nos faz perguntar o que impede o capitalismo contemporâneo de entrar em colapso sob o peso das suas próprias contradições (realmente, sabemos a razão, e não é nenhuma outra senão a intervenção maciça da própria instituição que os neoliberais gostariam de ver canibalizada até os ossos: o estado) – ou, alternativamente, o que impede os milhões de desempregados, os social e economicamente incapacitados e aqueles relegados para trás pelas implacavelmente desorientadas políticas do "gotejamento económico", da "austeridade fiscal" e dos "mercados não subjugados" de se levantarem para desafiar as cada vez mais crescentes desigualdades na distribuição do rendimento e da riqueza por todos os países capitalistas ocidentais (as razões para isto são, confessadamente, muito mais complicadas e esquivas).

No mundo real da elaboração da política económica, as análises e projecções do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) constituem o melhor exemplo dos deuses que fracassaram – isto é, previsões económicas baseadas na fé cega em políticas neoliberais e no dogma do mercado livre. As projecções do FMI são notórias por serem sistematicamente insensatas, precisamente porque são fixadas sobre exigências de "ajustamento estrutural" que impõem o anti-crescimento, que tipicamente produzem devastação económica maciça, como evidenciado por incontáveis exemplos por todo o mundo. Ainda assim, comprometidos com objectivos ideológicos e políticos (perversos) ao invés da evidência científica objectiva, a instituição permanece teimosamente apegada à prescrição do mesmo remédio para economias aflitas não importa de que origem geográfica ou que características sócio-económicas e culturais únicas que possam possuir. Na visão do mundo neoliberal do FMI, "um tamanho único ajusta-se a todos". Não é de surpreender, portanto, que os pacientes tratados pelos bons médicos do FMI habitualmente acabem em coma (eles chamam a isso "estabilização"). Os tratamentos de choque aplicados pelo FMI a economias doentes têm um objectivo explícito: reverter o padrão médio de vida a fim de criar condições altamente favoráveis para os negócios e o investimento internacional e para aumentar a taxa de lucro da elite corporativa e financeira interna. É claramente uma abordagem de guerra de classe, oculta na retórica do mais sagrado do que tu acerca dos benefícios gerais de uma ordem económica neoliberal e acerca de como direitos laborais, disposições sociais de bem estar e salários decentes constituem um empecilho para economia.

A catástrofe económica a desdobrar-se na Grécia – a qual está prestes a tornar-se uma crise humanitária dentro da periferia de uma das regiões económicas mais ricas do mundo – diz muito acerca do dano que os decisores políticos com orientação neoliberais do FMI e da União Europeia (UE) podem provocar através da elite política interna, a qual arca com grande responsabilidade pelos males crónicos da economia grega e por terem transformado a Grécia num estado baseado na "legalidade corrupta". Durante os últimos três anos, a Grécia foi a cobaia para as receitas políticas de uma UE neoliberal sob o comando da Alemanha e seus aliados do Norte. Uma crise de dívida pública foi utilizada como oportunidade para desmantelar o estado social, liquidar empresas públicas lucrativas e activos do estado a preços de saldo, privar o trabalho até dos seus direitos mais básicos após décadas de árduas lutas e para reduzir substancialmente salários e pensões, criando de facto uma república das bananas – tudo o com apoio de um segmento significativo da classe industrial/financeira grega e com a assistência da elite política interna, a qual desde o início da crise confiou fortemente na acção ditatorial a fim de executar os comandos dos credores estrangeiros do país.

O ardil, desde o princípio, foi tratar o problema grego como uma crise de liquidez provocada pela incapacidade do governo interno para restringir a despesa pública, acumulando défices fiscais maciços (mais de 15 por cento no fim de 2009, embora agora haja bases para acreditar que o governo Papandreu intencionalmente inchou o défice a fim de fabricar um argumento convincente para reformas neoliberais e para a submissão da Grécia ao domínio do FMI) e rácios dívida-PIB incríveis (acima de 126 por cento em 2009) que assustaram investidores internacionais em títulos do governo, remetendo os diferenciais de yields entre títulos gregos e alemães para as nuvens e no essencial vedando indefinidamente à Grécia o acesso aos mercados de crédito.

Não há dúvida de que governos gregos nos últimos 30 ou mais anos demonstraram-se tão incompetentes e corruptos quanto qualquer governo sobre a terra poderia ser, com a classe política dominante utilizando o estado e seus cofres como um meio de enriquecer-se e enriquecer seus parceiros capitalistas parasitas, assim como de satisfazer as necessidades e pedidos da sua clientela política a fim de manter um exército de eleitores fieis ao partido. É um tipo de corrupção política que está intrinsecamente ligada tanto ao capitalismo (Bratsis 2003) como às suas próprias idiossincrasias internas, de outra forma não seria possível explicar porque práticas perversas semelhantes não são toleradas em toda sociedade capitalista. Governos e sector privado malbarataram fundos estruturais da UE com temerária despreocupação, permitindo no processo que se verificasse a destruição de sectores vitais (ex., agricultura). Também é verdadeiro que, a partir do momento em que a Grécia aderiu ao euro, os custos baratos dos empréstimos demonstraram-se um grande incentivo para um impressionante crescimento baseado na procura do consumidor através do endividamento e apoiando-se num sector estatal cada vez mais corrupto e ineficiente a fim de efectuar permutas benéficas entre a política e os negócios. O caso do antigo ministro da Defesa do PASOK, Akis Tsochatzopoulos, que está agora a cumprir pena por ter montado uma operação de lavagem maciça de dinheiro com base em esquemas de comissões que aparentemente lhe renderam mais de 100 milhões de euros em subornos, é simplesmente o topo do iceberg: ele é apenas um, um "infeliz" político que caiu como vítima numa campanha da actual elite grega no sentido de lançar "areia para os olhos". A "Lista Lagarde", de mais de 2000 gregos com gordas contas bancárias além-mar, tem sido passada de um responsável do governo para outro desde 2010, desde que foi entregue ao então ministro das Finanças grego pela sua colega francesa, Christine Lagarde, com o objectivo expresso de perseguir evasores fiscais. O dispositivo electrónico contendo a informação foi copiado com nomes removidos e desde então a elite política está a fazer tudo o que pode para proteger os nomes que nela permanecem (os quais sem dúvida incluem também os de numerosos políticos) recusando-se a tratar do assunto de uma maneira que cumpra a lei. Na verdade, quando um jornalista grego obteve a lista e procedeu à publicação dos nomes na sua revista semanal foi preso sob a acusação de violar leis da privacidade (foi posteriormente libertado aguardando julgamento em Junho).

Não se pode negar que a elite política grega está podre até o tutano e que a cultura política está em terrível necessidade de reforma. Durante cerca de 40 anos, os dois partidos políticos que dirigiram o país, Nova Democracia (conservadores) e o PASOK (socialistas), utilizaram as mesmas tácticas sem escrúpulos e, na maioria dos casos, impôs as mesmas políticas económicas destrutivas, tornando virtualmente impossível julgar qual dos dois partidos é mais corrupto ou mais perigoso para os interesses do país. Ambos estiveram envolvidos em vários grandes escândalos centrados na exploração de recursos do estado a fim de transferir riqueza do sector público para o privado, enriquecerem-se e redistribuírem riqueza da base para o topo.

Até muito recentemente, escândalos financeiros e corrupção constituíam grandes fontes de criação de riqueza na Grécia (embora mínimas em comparação com fraudes financeiras nos Estados Unidos). Outrora o país foi um paraíso para a lavagem de dinheiro, enquanto subornos e comissões permaneciam como componente integral do modo como a sociedade efectuava seus negócios. O impacto destas tendências e práticas sobre a democracia foi severo. Com os líderes dos dois partidos a alternarem-se a prender eleitores numa relação a longo prazo baseada não em proporcionar bens públicos e uma ordem social justa mas sim em promessas de redistribuição de recursos tendo em vista a fidelidade ao partido, o bem comum dissolveu-se numa multidão de interesses estreitos sem ligação comum e frequentemente as acções de um grupo de interesse violavam os direitos de outros. [1] O resultado final foi a emergência de uma cultura política que apresentava níveis perigosos de auto-engrandecimento e irresponsabilidade social – e, finalmente, a formação de uma cidadania altamente apolítica: os cidadãos retiraram-se para os seus próprios enclaves pessoais, sentindo-se impotentes ou simplesmente não desejosos de enfrentar as forças envolvidas na destruição económica e decomposição social do país. Sindicatos trabalhistas, os quais em tempos anteriores à crise costumavam empenhar-se em protestos simbólicos apelando à greve dos seus membros, agora têm dificuldade até para organizar uma greve porque apenas uns poucos milhares de pessoas incomodam-se em aparecer – tudo isto quando mais de 1,3 milhão de gregos numa força de trabalho total de 3,7 milhões de pessoas estão desempregados. Em suma, renderam-se totalmente à "troika" – a Comissão Europeia, FMI e Banco Central Europeu – e às políticas mortais de austeridade. É o que se pode dizer, portanto, do grande mito do radicalismo grego.

Contudo, apesar de tudo o que foi dito acima ser verdadeiro, a crise grega é muito mais do que o simples resultado de práticas corruptas do governo, embora a corrupção, incluindo evasão fiscal, seja um grande componente dos males económicos que o país hoje enfrenta. É também a história de um estado cleptocrático e de uma elite capitalista parasita que foi apanhada na teia da concepção defeituosa da eurozona (ver Papadimitriou e Wray 2012) quando a crise financeira estado-unidense de 2007-08 atingiu as costas europeias. É igualmente a história de uma economia que não cumpriu os pré requisitos para entrar numa alegada área de moeda óptima (Mundell 1961; McKinnon 1963; Kenen 1969), nem fez grande tentativa de ajustar-se adequadamente. Mas é também a história do fracasso geral do projecto global neoliberal, da financiarização da economia e da ortodoxia do livre mercado (Polychroniou 2012a). Na verdade, de que outra forma poderiam países da eurozona com economias tão diferenciadas (Grécia, uma economia estatista e altamente corrupta; Irlanda, uma perfeita representante do capitalismo neoliberal; Espanha, uma seguidora fiel dos ditames da UE acerca de défices e dívida) acabar por sofrer o mesmo destino?

A razão é perfeitamente simples: porque todos eles orbitaram a mesma entidade central, o buraco negro do capitalismo neoliberal europeu. Assim, diferenças políticas e ideológicas entre partidos social-democratas e conservadores há muito que se esvaneceram. Portanto, na Grécia, Espanha, Portugal e alhures, governos "social-democratas" há muito abandonaram até a desculpa de serem agentes de reforma progressista (Polychroniou 2012b). Daí a facilidade com que tais governos cooperaram com os ditames da UE/FMI na imposição de cortes e medidas de austeridade sem precedentes que reduziram drasticamente o padrão de vida para o povo trabalhador dos seus respectivos países.

Em suma, a crise grega (1) apresenta-se como uma grave crise orçamental e da dívida pública (durante as décadas de 1980 e 1990, as despesas anuais do governo excederam a receita numa média de mais de 8 por cento do PIB, ao passo que a dívida nacional excedeu os 100 por cento do PIB) resultante dos problemas estruturais profundas e de longo prazo da economia grega e das deformidades do seu sistema política e cultural; (2) representa uma crise europeia devido aos intrincados laços comerciais e financeiros entre a Grécia e os outros estados membros da eurozona; e (3) reflecte o fracasso fatal do projecto neoliberal, o qual se institucionalizou por toda a estrutura operacional da UE, enquanto o FMI continua a ser o mais poderoso mundial impositor do fundamentalismo do mercado.

No cerne da visão neoliberal está uma ordem societal e mundial baseada na priorização do poder corporativo, nos mercados livres e no abandono dos serviços públicos. A afirmação neoliberal é que as economias funcionariam mais eficazmente, produzindo maior riqueza e prosperidade económica para todos, se aos mercados fosse permitido funcionar sem intervenção do governo. Esta afirmação baseia-se na ideia de que mercados livres são inerentemente justos e podem criar meios eficazes a baixo custo de produzir bens de consumo e serviços. Consequentemente, uma economia intervencionista ou administrada pelo estado é esbanjadora e ineficiente, estrangulando crescimento e inovação devido ao constrangimento da inovação e do espírito empresarial.

Esta é a versão de neoliberalismo desenvolvida por Milton Friedman e a Escola de Chicago e habitualmente associada ao regime de Pinochet no Chile e, posteriormente, às políticas de mercado livre de Margaret Thatcher e Ronald Reagan – uma revolução ideológica que foi longa na formação mas que ganhou ascendência sobre o keynesianismo com o surgimento da estagflação (Jones 2012). E é de longe a mais perigosa ideologia do nosso tempo, espalhando destruição com a sua "teoria económica do desastre social" (Polychroniou 2012c).

A política de terra queimada da Alemanha e o "par de monstros gémeos" do capitalismo neoliberal

Em Abril de 2010 a Grécia foi excluída dos mercados internacionais de títulos e enfrentava a perspectiva de um incumprimento. Meses antes, o governo Papandreu havia abordado o FMI para que concedesse seu "know-how técnico e experiência" à UE pela administração de uma dose de terapia de choque. A Grécia precisava ser "resgatada" e os europeus precisavam não só da perícia do FMI como também de acrescentar um elemento de legitimidade ao experimento de austeridade que estava prestes a ser executado num estado membro periférico. Neste contexto, o convite ao FMI para juntar-se à cirurgia económica num paciente doente europeu serviu finalidades múltiplas.

Os curandeiros neoliberais foram rápidos a expedir um julgamento acerca das raízes da crise grega – alegadamente, um sector público inchado que desperdiçava demasiados recursos sobre cidadãos preguiçosos ou improdutivos e comprometendo o potencial do sector privado – e não perdeu tempo em recomendar medidas brutais de austeridade. E se os factos não se ajustassem a esta narrativa? Na verdade, todos os dados disponíveis mostram que o sector público grego, ainda que ineficiente e corrupto, era realmente mais pequeno do que o sector público de muitos outros países europeus; que os gregos trabalhavam em média mais do que a maior parte dos outros europeus; e que mesmo a produtividade grega nos anos que precederam a crise comparava-se favoravelmente à da Alemanha (Papadimitriou, Zezza, and Duwicquet 2012). E se houvesse enormes desequilíbrios na eurozona, com os estados do núcleo a incidirem em enormes excedentes e os periféricos em enormes défices? (Bibow 2012)? A Grécia foi julgada como a única responsável pelo triste estado da sua condição orçamental na era do euro e tinha de ser punida, tanto como castigo pelos seus pecados como a título de advertência aos seus primos sulistas de que o mesmo destino os aguardava se não colocassem o seu próprio orçamento em ordem.

É esta perspectiva cínica e brutal que levou a Grécia a tornar-se um relutante sujeito de teste para a visão neoliberal da UE e manteve o jogo da Alemanha em andamento quando as coisas se tornaram ásperas na Eurolândia. A maior parte dos bancos alemães estavam super-expostos à dívida grega e quase insolventes. O salvamento de Maio de 2010 com a soma de 110 mil milhões de euros (com uma taxa de juro usurária de 5 por cento) foi orquestrado pela UE e o FMI – o par de monstros do capitalismo neoliberal – numa aparente tentativa de manter a Grécia em dia com os seus pagamentos de dívidas a bancos estrangeiros, portanto a rejeição até da mais ligeira consideração de uma reestruturação de dívida, embora isto tivesse sido o modo mais rápido e mais seguro para permitir à Grécia algum espaço para respirar. Ajudar a sua economia a recuperar através da implementação coordenada de um plano de desenvolvimento em grande escala também teria sido apropriado numa união económica e monetária.

Na verdade, tais movimentos poderiam ter assegurado a confiança dos investidores internacionais em títulos na estabilidade do euro e poderia mesmo ter impedido o contágio ao resto da periferia. Eles certamente teriam impedido a propagação de um contágio evitável da periferia para o centro, o qual está claramente a caminho desde o ano passado. Mas com a adopção de uma política punitiva, o contágio na periferia tornou-se inevitável. Com as economias deficitárias na periferia envoltas num colete de força de austeridade, as economias excedentárias do centro foram obrigadas a sentir os efeitos das suas políticas insanas e brutais. As economias tanto da Alemanha como da França contraíram-se no último trimestre de 2012. O PIB na eurozona como um todo caiu em 0,5 por cento no ano passado e, mais significativo, 2012 ficará na história como o primeiro ano desde 1995 no qual nenhum trimestre produziu crescimento (Blenkinsop e Breidthardt 2013)

Na verdade, como política, o esquema do salvamento demonstrou ser um fracasso funesto sob todos os aspectos possíveis, salvo assegurar que pagamentos de dívida continuassem a fluir para bancos estrangeiros. O programa de macro estabilização bruta e as duras medidas de austeridade que acompanharam o empréstimo à Grécia (equivalendo a 11 por cento do PIB do país) tiveram sobre os mercados o efeito oposto do pretendido e sufocaram todas as perspectivas de recuperação para a economia grega: a procura caiu na vertical devido à combinação mortal de cortes orçamentais maciços, reduções em salários e pensões, e aumentos fiscais drásticos, levando a que milhares de pequenos negócios fossem à bancarrota e obrigando várias multinacionais a mudarem suas instalações de produção para países vizinhos dos Balcãs, provocando com isso taxas de desemprego explosivas, receitas do estado em diminuição drástica e aumentando substancialmente o rácio dívida-PIB (Polychroniou 2012c). A política executada pelo duo UE/FMI é tão fundamentalmente defeituosa que Keynes deve estar a rolar no seu túmulo.

Ainda assim, aparentemente, dogmas económicos devem ser respeitados não importa que resultados produzam Assim, na mente dos fanáticos neoliberais eles deveriam ser prosseguidos até o fim amargo. Portanto, menos de dois anos depois, um segundo "salvamento" de 130 mil milhões de euros foi estendido à Grécia sitiada, com termos e condições que são muito mais duros do que a primeira tentativa de "resgate". A política do "pague enquanto sangra" e "sofra pelos seus pecados" executada pelo par de monstros agora deveria estar clara para todos.

Na redacção do documento para o chamado "Segundo Programa de Ajustamento Económico para a Grécia", os lacaios neoliberais da UE afirmaram que "a Grécia fez progressos mistos na direcção dos ambiciosos objectivos do primeiro programa de ajustamento" (European Commission 2012, 1). No lado positivo, observa-se que o défice geral do governo foi reduzido "de 15,75 por cento do PIB em 2009 para 9,25 por cento em 2011". No lado negativo, a recessão "foi muito mais profunda do que a projectada anteriormente" porque, é afirmado, factores tais como "inquietação social" e "incapacidade administrativa" (incluindo uma falta de eficácia no combate à evasão fiscal) "atrasaram a implementação".

O programa "fiscal e de ajustamento estrutural" anti-crescimento foi perfeitamente concebido e teria produzido todos os resultados antecipados se o governo fosse mais capaz de executar as políticas (talvez devesse ter ordenado à polícia e ao exército que prendessem todos os administradores públicos e os alvejassem por desobedecerem aos comandos da troika) e se a cidadania não tivesse feito algum estardalhaço acerca do programa de austeridade encenando manifestações aqui e ali ou ocupando a praça frente ao edifício do parlamento grego. Na essência, é isto o que diz a declaração acima.

As desculpas esfarrapadas dos burocratas da UE pelo facto de o programa de consolidação orçamental ter provocado um declínio económico muito mais drástico do que o "projectado antecipadamente" são negadas claramente pelas recentes concessões parciais feitas pelo FMI: de que as políticas executadas na Grécia acabaram por ter efeitos muito mais adversos sobre a economia porque este calculou mal o impacto do multiplicador fiscal. Na verdade, o sumário executivo do "Segundo Programa de Ajustamento Estrutural para a Grécia" continua a declarar inequivocamente que, as perspectivas de êxito do segundo programa são preocupantes pois os "riscos de implementação ... permanecem muito altos" mas o êxito do programa "depende principalmente da Grécia" (European Commission 2012, 4).

A teoria económica neoliberal aplicada à Grécia pela Alemanha, pela UE e pelo FMI não causou simplesmente um maior declínio no PIB grego do que o "originalmente projectado" ou apenas fez a dívida crescer substancialmente mais no decorrer dos últimos dois anos (de 126,8 por cento em 2010 para 180 por cento em 2012). Ela também produziu uma catástrofe económica e social de proporções sem paralelo em tempos de paz na Europa. Em Maio de 2010, quando o primeiro "salvamento" foi aprovado e as medidas de austeridade arrancaram em alta velocidade, a taxa de desemprego na Grécia situava-se nos 12 por cento. Desde então ela ascendeu para 27 por cento e a taxa de desemprego juvenil atingiu os 62 por cento. Segundo a Autoridade de Estatística Grega (2012), o número real de desempregados atingiu 1,35 milhão em Novembro de 2012, com o número de empregados a situar-se nos 3,64 milhões.

Também a pobreza está a propagar-se rapidamente, afectando todos os grupos na sociedade, incluindo crianças. Num recente relatório divulgado pelo Eurostat (citado em ekathimerini.com 2013), 31 por cento dos gregos tinham em 2011 um padrão de vida próximo da linha de pobreza, enquanto o Instituto do Trabalho da Confederação Geral Grega do Trabalho (INE-GSEE 2012a, 1) declara na sua publicação mensal Enimerosi que no fim do ano passado (2012) 3,9 milhões de pessoas haviam caído abaixo da linha de pobreza.

Os níveis de rendimento dos trabalhadores também levaram uma grande pancada nos últimos dois a três anos, e há mais reduções salariais a virem. Segundo dados de investigação divulgados pelo INE-GSEE (2012b, 21), os rendimentos caíram em 22,8 por cento ou 19 mil milhões de euros, durante 2010-11, com um declínio projectado de 33 mil milhões de euros no rendimento disponível em 2012.

O objectivo do programa de "ajustamento estrutural" da UE/FMI em relação ao mercado de trabalho grego (emprego e salários) é claro como cristal: liberalização total, salário mínimo comparável aos da Bulgária e Roménia (dois países dos Balcãs relativamente atrasados e com níveis de corrupção iguais aos da Grécia) e uma potencial proibição de greves. Os primeiros dois elementos da subversiva política neoliberal para o mercado de trabalho estão bem avançados, enquanto o terceiro está em preparação. Mais uma vez, estas medidas têm um selo oficial de aprovação do governo grego, incluindo a actual administração, uma coligação de três partidos consistente do líder do partido conservador como primeiro-ministro e líderes do Partido Socialista e do Democrático de Esquerda como vice-presidentes. Além disso, como com toda administração grega desde o estalar da crise, o Ministério das Finanças serve como cavalo de Tróia para infligir a política de terra queimada da UE e FMI à economia da Grécia e ao seu povo.

Nenhum governo são, certamente nenhum comprometido com o interesse nacional, teria concordado com os termos do primeiro ou do segundo memorando de entendimento redigido pela UE e o FMI. No começo da crise, as oportunidades para adoptar uma rota alternativa de acção eram, muito ironicamente, esmagadoramente a favor de Grécia e, assim, teria sido lógico para o governo grego da altura fazer jogo duro com a Alemanha e a UE. Mas o dolorosamente amadorístico e angustiosamente incompetente governo que fora encarregado de cuidar do interesse nacional optou por amarrar uma âncora ao pescoço do país enquanto estava em águas profundas e então aguardar que este pudesse nadar de volta à costa. Era uma proposta perdedora desde o princípio. Agora, com a própria Europa a afundar na mais profunda recessão, a única alternativa para o povo grego é encontrar a fortaleza e coragem para enfrentar a brutalidade em curso do experimento de austeridade e através de meios não violentos e democráticos mudar as coisas. A teoria económica do desastre social não tem lugar na sociedade de hoje. Esperançosamente, a Alemanha e o resto da UE virão a perceber isto antes que seja demasiado tarde para o projecto europeu e todos os seus cidadãos.
Nota
[1] Na Grécia anterior à crise era comum minorias de estudantes fazerem greves por períodos prolongados enquanto a faculdade olhava para o outro lado e os seus administradores escondiam-se atrás das secretárias; ou vários grupos a perturbarem serviços públicos ou negócios no sector privado; e violações rotineiras das leis do emprego e do trabalho em sectores centrais da economia, incluindo muitos negócios que não pagavam as contribuições para a segurança social dos seus empregados enquanto o estado olhava para o outro lado.

Referências
Bibow, J. 2012. "The Euro Debt Crisis and Germany's Euro Trilemma." Working Paper No. 721. Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. May.
Blenkinsop, P., and A. Breidthardt. 2013 . "Euro Zone Economy Falls Deeper than Expected into Recession." Reuters, February 14.
Bratsis, P. 2003. "Corrupt Compared to What? Greece, Capitalist Interests, and the Specular Purity of the State." Discussion Paper No. 8. The Hellenic Observatory of the European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science. August.
ekathimerini.com. 2013. "3.4 Million Greeks near Poverty Line in 2011, Eurostat Reports." February 14. Disponível em www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_03/12 /2012_472690.
European Commission. 2012. "European Economy: The Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece." Occasional Papers 94. March.
Greek Statistical Authority. 2012. "Labour Force Survey: November 2012." Press Release, December 3.
INE-GSEE (Labour Institute of the Greek General Confederation of Labour). 2012a. Enimerosi , no. 200 (December).
———. 2012b. The Greek Economy and Employment: Yearly Report.
Jones, D. S. 2012. Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Kenen, P. B. 1969. "The Theory of Optimum Currency Areas: An Eclectic View." In Mundell, R. A., and A. K. Swoboda, eds. Monetary Problems of the International Economy , 41–60. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McKinnon, R. I. 1963. "Optimum Currency Areas." American Economic Review 53, no. 4 (September): 717–25.
Mundell, R. A. 1961. "A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas." American Economic Review 51, no. 4 (September): 657–65.
Papadimitriou, D. B., and L. R. Wray. 2012. "Euroland's Original Sin." Policy Note 2012/8. Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. July.
Papadimitriou, D. B., G. Zezza, and V. Duwicquet. 2012. Current Prospects for the Greek Economy: Interim Report . Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. October.
Polychroniou, C. J. 2008. "The 'Masters of the Universe' Outsmart Themselves." Economic and Political Weekly 43 (October 25): 14–15.
———. 2012a. "The Greek and the European Crisis in Context." New Politics 13, no. 4 (Winter): 49–56.
———. 2012b. "The Mediterranean Conundrum: Crisis in the European Periphery." Economic and Political Weekly 21 (May 26): 35-41.
———. 2012c. "Greece's Bailouts and the Economics of Social Disaster." Policy Note 2012/11. Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y.: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. September.

Do mesmo autor:
http://www.resistir.info/grecia/polychroniou_set12.html , 08/Set/12
http://www.resistir.info/europa/polychroniou_set11_p.html , 21/Jan/12
http://www.resistir.info/crise/polychroniou_06dez11.html , 12/Jan/12
http://www.resistir.info/europa/eurozone_crisis_17abr12.html , 17/Abr/12
http://resistir.info/grecia/polychroniou_24mai12.html , 04/Jun/12

[*] Economista, investigador no Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

O original encontra-se em http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?docid=1725

Este artigo encontra-se em http://resistir.info/ .

04/Abr/13

Syria: Democracy vs. Foreign Invasion. Who is Bashar Al Assad?
A Syrian's Perspective: Bashar al-Assad's Democratic Movement
By Arabi Souri
Global Research, March 31, 2013
alchemicalnursery.org


http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-democracy-vs-the-foreign-invasion-who-is-bashar-al-assad/5329181


Bashar al-Assad has been systematically demonized by the mainstream and so-called alternative media who claim that he is a brutal dictator.

Actually Bashar is a reformer who has done much to further the causes of democracy and freedom. It is the “opposition” and their foreign supporters which represent the most repressive elements of the former ruling party in Syria.

To fully understand this its is helpful to look at the historical context of the current crisis. The so-called “spontaneous popular uprising” started in Daraa on March 15th, 2011. The court house, police stations, governor’s house, and other public buildings were looted and torched by the “peaceful protestors” in the first week of the crisis. The people in Homs then began to protest in solidarity with Daraa, but this was uncharacteristic of peaceful Homs and many Syrians knew that it was a fake revolution.

About 110 unarmed police officers were murdered in Daraa and Homs, sparking anger against the “revolutionaries.” There was an incident in the city Baniyas where an Alawite truck driver was attacked by an armed mob, skinned, and paraded through the city. This was strongly resented by almost all Syrians and since then not a single major city actually rebelled against the government.

The foreign backed “revolutionaries” would attack a neighborhood, police station, or army base, from across the borders of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq. Then they would claim that the city was in rebellion.

But the Syrians, seeing the same lies in all the western and Arab news stations, and the exiled rotten officials adopting the ‘revolution’, mostly took an anti-revolution stance. That is why whenever the rebels would infest a town or city you would immediately hear of a massacre to punish the residents for not supporting them. Of course the mainstream media would claim that it was Assad forces punishing the town that dared to oppose him!

Assad took advantage of the revolution to introduce his packages of reforms, putting aside those in the old guards who opposed them. Many of the old guard then joined the opposition abroad.

The opposition demanded the removal of article 8 from the Syrian constitution making the Baath Party head of the government. Instead of just deleting it Bashar Assad had the constitution re-written buy a specialized committee of Syrian experts from all parties in Syria and with input from all Syrians.

A referendum was held and the new constitution was approved with almost 90% of a voter turnout of 60%.

Assad then enacted a Media Law that would allow more freedom of expression and the establishment of new independent media outlets. Assad eased requirements on the formation of political parties, excluding sectarian based parties. We now have at least nine new political parties.

Municipal elections were held in December 2011. Many of those who won seats were assassinated or threatened throughout the country by the same revolutionaries who claimed to want democracy. Parliamentary elections were held in May 2012 with no eligibility restraints on the candidates.
Many new members of parliament have also been assassinated by the FSA including the wife and three daughters of parliament elect trustee Abdulla Mishleb in the infamous Houla massacre.

Historical Context: Syria in the 1980s

Recent events can be better understood in the context of Syrian history. Bashar al-Assad is the son of late president Hafez al-Assad. Hafez was described by western mainstream media as a tyrant and oppressor but he was not nearly as bad as any other leader in his time like Thatcher, Reagan, or any of the region’s rulers including Turkey’s military rule.The current anti-Assad opposition often refer to the 1982 Hama ‘massacre’.

They claim that Hafez besieged the city and then bombed it killing up to 40,000 civilians. I lived in Damascus at that time and you must understand the conditions in the country at the time to know what really happened.

1) The Muslim Brotherhood was engaged in a war of terror at that time, nothing less than what the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is doing now. The Muslim Brotherhood’s forces were called the ‘Fighting Vanguard’ (Arabic “Al Taleea Al Muqatleh”). Many of the present leaders of the FSA are the same men who led the Fighting Vanguard in the 80s; and they were as savage as their sons now. One of the Fighting Vanguard’s bombings included the Azbakiyeh Bombing in Damascus which took the lives of over 175 civilians and injured hundreds more, and there were many other terror attacks.

2) The entire Hama episode was led by Hafez al-Assad’s younger brother (Bashar al-Assad’s uncle) Rifaat Assad. Rifaat was heading the Saraya Difaa (later to become the Republican Guard). At that time the Syrian minister of defense was Mustapha Tlass, and the Syrian minister of foreign affairs was Abdul Halim Khaddam. All three of them: Riffaat al-Assad, Mustapha, and Abdul Khaddam are leading and financing the political opposition against Bashar from abroad right now.In the current conflict Mustapha’s son Manaf Tlass was sent to negotiate a settlement with his cousins who were rebelling in Rastan.

3) But instead of negotiating he gave them weapons from the Republican Guards caches and leaked secrets causing the deaths of many Republican Guard soldiers at the hands of the FSA.Thirty years after the fighting in Hama a report by US intelligence was declassified revealing that the death toll didn’t even reach 2,000. That number included 400 Muslim Brotherhood Fighting Vanguard militants; many Syrian Army soldiers and officers; Baath Party and other state officials; and a number of civilians who were caught in the fire.

4) Syria was under harder sanctions than it is now. Syria has been under increasingly severe western sanctions since 1956, 15 years before Hafez Assad took power.

Late Hafez Assad followed a more complex policy regarding foes and foreign agents in his government than Bashar does. Hafez would keep his foes in their posts but under his watchful eyes.

When Bashar was selected by the Syrian Parliament to succeed his father in 2000 he removed all of the treasonous foes and foreign agents that Hafez had maintained in office.Bashar’s first reform was to ease some political restrictions, allowing politicians to move more freely. In June 2000 the Damascus Spring was started. It lasted until Autumn 2001 by which time most of the treasonous opposition’s foreign funding, and relations with the US Department of State and corporate think tanks had been exposed. The corrupt officials and their families were expelled from Syria and settled in foreign countries.

They used their massive accumulations of wealth to mount political opposition to Bashar from abroad. In 2003 the US was occupying Iraq.

US Secretary of State Collin Powell visited Bashar and handed him a list of demands including:

1. Cutting all ties with the five main Palestinian factions in Syria,

2. Severing Syria’s relations with Iran in exchange for a promise of better relations with some Arab states.

3. Signing a peace treaty with Israel similar to one Syria had already refused.

4. Removing books from schools with any enmity towards Israel.

5. Allowing western banks and companies unhindered access to Syrian markets and resources along with other neo-liberal reforms.

Bashar refused these demands in the face of the nearly 200,000 coalition troops across the Syrian border in Iraq. Instead Bashar sought to hinder the occupation of Iraq and demanded that the occupying forces withdraw. Because of the proximity of Damascus to the western boarder with Lebanon Syria has the strategic need to secure this border. None the less in 2000 Bashar started withdrawing Syrian troops from Lebanon where they had battled Israeli forces.

The troops were reduced from 35,000 in the year 2000 to 14,000 in early 2004.In 2005 Lebanese Prime Minster Rafic Hariri was assassinated with the help of members of the Lebanese Future Movement party and likely the help of the US and France. This was a political blow to Assad within Lebanon, and he was also blamed for the assassination using media manipulation and prepared activists.

Tens of thousands of Lebanese took to the streets to condemn the killing of Hariri including members of Syria’s closest allies Hizbullah and Amal.The media claimed that the crowds were against the Syrian Army presence in Lebanon. US and France tried to pressure Assad into reinforcing the Syrian Army in Lebanon to stabilize the country but Bashar withdrew all Syrian troops from Lebanon.

This background gives the context accompanying president Assad’s reform attempts in Syria, where he had to face foreign powers from abroad and their agents from within.

The current crisis is not a civil war or rebellion, but a foreign aggression against a sovereign nation.

About the author: The author was born and lived in Damascus, Syria. He moved to Germany ten years ago and runs a company that organizes tourist groups to Syria. Before the conflict he went to Syria often to stay for days and months. He has been an outspoken defender of the Syrian government and has been targeted by the Free Syrian Army who destroyed his property and threatened his life, and so writes under the name Arabi Souri. This article was edited by Seth Rutledge.

quarta-feira, 27 de março de 2013
Lawrence Davidson:
“Algo de podre no estado de Israel”

25/3/2013, Lawrence Davidson, To the point analysis
“The Holy Land Gets Skunked”
Traduzido pelo pessoal da Vila Vudu

Lawrence Davidson

http://redecastorphoto.blogspot.com.br/search?updated-max=2013-03-27T22:54:00-03:00&max-results=8

Em Língua Inglesa:
http://www.tothepointanalyses.com/2211


Diz-se que o diabo arrasta com ele um fedor de fogo e enxofre. Os feitos do diabo são frequentemente descritos como “o mal mais alucinado” [1]. E quem pareça (seja ou não seja) inocente é sempre descrito como “cheirando a rosas”. Parece haver, pois, associação antiga entre feitos e fedores.

O exército israelense recentemente se empenhou em demonstrar essa associação. Dia 6 de março, o Middle East Monitor noticiou que:

...o exército de Israel atacou casas de palestinos na vila de Nabi Saleh com jatos de água podre de esgoto, como punição aos palestinos que organizavam protestos semanais contra o Muro do Apartheid construído em terra roubada. O grupo de defesa de direitos humanos B’Tselem publicou um vídeo (a seguir) no qual se veem caminhões-tanques blindados israelenses, armados com “canhões d’água”, lançando água podre de esgotos sobre casas de palestinos.

Israel lança merda sobreas pessoas.
Assista:




A água podre de esgoto é líquido tão mal-cheiroso que não há quem não se afaste para o mais longe que possa, de quem feda como fede aquela água podre. Não é a primeira vez que o exército de Israel usa esse tipo de tática imunda.

Os colonos sionistas orgulham-se muito da prática de lançar os esgotos bem longe das próprias colônias, quase sempre erguidas nas áreas mais altas, diretamente nos campos e cidades palestinas, nos vales abaixo. Ao que tudo indica, são práticas conhecidas e, muito provavelmente, aprovadas pelo estado de Israel.

Duvido que muitos dos israelenses envolvidos nessas manobras tenham algum dia lido O Inferno, de Dante. Naquele poema épico, o inferno é lugar afogado em esgoto e podridão: as ações dos israelenses parecem desejar reproduzir o mesmo cenário. Estarão os israelenses dedicados a converter em inferno a Terra Santa? Sim, pelo menos no que tenha a ver com os palestinos. Por isso os colonos e os soldados copiam os passos dos amaldiçoados de Dante.

David Ward

Até onde vai o fedor das ações dos israelenses? Com certeza chega até Londres. Recentemente, o deputado David Ward, do partido Democrático Liberal escreveu num livro de visitas do Memorial do Holocausto que:

...tendo visitado Auschwitz duas vezes (...) muito me entristece ver que os judeus, vítimas de níveis inacreditáveis de perseguição durante o Holocausto, já estivessem, poucos anos depois de libertados daqueles campos de morte, a infligir tais atrocidades aos palestinos no novo Estado de Israel e que continuem a fazer o mesmo até hoje, diariamente, na Cisjordânia e em Gaza.

A referência que Ward fez a “os judeus” é qualificada, porque nem todos os judeus apoiam o sionismo, nem a ideia de que Israel tenha algum direito a ocupar “Judéia e Samaria”, muito menos a comandar pogroms como se veem hoje, em ações de limpeza étnica em áreas que o estado israelense controla. A verdade é que cada dia mais e mais judeus norte-americanos manifestam-se contra o que Israel faz na Palestina.

Mas Ward acerta no que diz do comportamento do “estado judeu”. E é possível que a generalização errada, na frase de Ward, seja resultado da propaganda israelense, que nunca se cansa de repetir que Israel representa(ria) todos os judeus do mundo.

Mas nem todos dão sinais de desgostar do fedor que emana do estado de Israel: há os que gostam. O partido Liberal Democrático do deputado Ward chamou-o às falas, pelo crime de ter denunciado que os crimes do mal mais alucinado continua a ser praticados contra os palestinos, por autoproclamados representantes de todos os judeus.

Teria bastado uma advertência discreta, que lembrasse Ward de que, em todos os casos, devem-se evitar generalizações. Mas, usando processo semelhante ao que se vê nos regimes totalitários, o partido Liberal Democrático ordenou que o deputado

...procure a divisão do partido chamada Amigos de Israel, para informar-se sobre o correto linguajar que os deputados devem empregar sempre que falarem sobre o conflito Israel-palestinos.

O deputado obedeceu e distribuiu as exigidas desculpas públicas. Meu nariz fareja aí um horrível fedor de censura.

Mas uma coisa é punir alguém por chamar a atenção para o abjeto comportamento de Israel. Outra, diferente, é insistir no desatino de pretender que o que é insano e abjeto seria justo e bom. Haveria alguém suficientemente cínico, impiedoso, a ponto de impor a outros seres humanos esse tipo de castigo nauseabundo e em seguida elogiar o castigo e todo o fedor, ante as câmeras de televisão de todo mundo? Parece que há. Parece que vive em Washington, onde negar os fedores que emanam de Israel é prática quase unânime. Parece que é presidente dos EUA.

Dia 15/3, antes de partir para visitar Israel, o presidente Obama disse, em entrevista ao Canal 2 da televisão israelense (ver a seguir, em inglês e legendado em ídiche), que admira muito “os valores centrais” de Israel.



Em análise que publicou depois, o jornalista israelense Gideon Levy – que tem nariz honesto e fareja podridões onde as haja – perguntou:

Gideon Levy

...de que valores Obama falava? De desumanizar os palestinos? Da atitude contra migrantes africanos? Da arrogância? Do racismo? Do nacionalismo? Obama admira isso? Será que jamais, antes, ouviu falar de ônibus segregados (palestinos não entram)? Será que jamais antes ouviu falar de comunidades convivendo no mesmo território, uma com todos os direitos, a outra sem nenhum direito? Terá esquecido... tudo?!

Dizer que admira “os valores centrais” de um dos países mais racistas do mundo, onde há muro e políticas de apartheid, significa, isso sim, trair todos os valores centrais do movimento pelos direitos civis nos EUA – o movimento que tornou possível o milagre-Obama.

O caso é que, chegado a Israel, o presidente Obama disse que o apoio dos EUA àquela Israel que Levy descreve será “eterno”, forever. Deve-se acrescentar que, ao mesmo tempo, o presidente insistiu que os palestinos parem de querer o fim das construções nas colônias em território ocupado e das correspondentes políticas de esgoto podre... ou jamais terão qualquer conversação de “paz” com os israelenses.

No que tenha a ver com Israel, nem o presidente Obama, nem a maior parte dos políticos no Congresso dos EUA são capazes de ver a diferença entre o certo e o errado, entre o justo e o “mal mais alucinado”. Por isso vivem num mundo à parte, estanque, só deles, cujos parâmetros e “valores” são definidos e “ensinados” a eles por um lobby sionista ao qual se deram poderes orwellianos.

Nesse mundo excepcional, abunda o duplipensar. Racismo, apartheid, limpeza étnica e o uso tático de água podre de esgotos e Skunk desaparecem, substituídos por imaginários “valores centrais” que cheiram a rosas.


O presidente, se quiser, que se afogue o quanto queira, privadamente, nos fedores mais nauseabundos, e chame-os de cheiro de rosa o quanto queira. Mas quando tenta vender a nós todos a falcatrua, é a credibilidade de seus discursos que se vai pelo esgoto. Lembremos o que George Orwell ensinou sobre o mau uso do discurso político.

Usada para o mal mais desatinado, a fala política torna possível “defender o indefensável” e “foi construída para fazer mentiras soarem como verdades, para tornar respeitável o assassinato e para dar ao vento aparência de solidez”. A isso está reduzida a fala da maioria dos políticos, no que tenha a ver com Israel/Palestina.

Que isso continuará forever, como quer o presidente Obama, é puro exagero, hipérbole. Considere-se um recente relatório da CIA, que questiona a capacidade do estado sionista para conseguir sobreviver outros vinte anos.

A verdade é que o fedor que emana de Israel indica podridão sociopolítica intestina, tão podre quanto as táticas podres que Israel usa contra moradores não judeus. Mais cedo ou mais tarde, qualquer homem, qualquer mulher que ainda preserve boa consciência humana (e melhor se mantiverem também nariz honesto e em funcionamento) passarão a recusar a ter qualquer associação ou contato com esse estado, na prática, já estado de apartheid.


Nota dos tradutores

[1] Orig. “most foul”. A expressão aparece em Hamlet, ato 1, cena 5, quando o espectro do rei assassinado conta a Hamlet sobre o crime de que foi vítima: Murder most foul, as in the best it is, but this most foul, strange and unnatural” [aprox. “Assassinato é sempre [o mal] mais alucinado, mas esse do qual falo é o mais alucinado de todos, estranho, contra a natureza”]. Foul sempre significa “mau”, em algum sentido. O espectro diz a Hamlet que, dentre os assassinatos, sempre o pior dos crimes, assassinar o próprio irmão é o crime pior.
Postado por Castor Filho

World Mar 26, '13
THE ROVING EYE
BRICS go over the wall
By Pepe Escobar


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-260313.html

Em Língua Portuguesa:

http://redecastorphoto.blogspot.com.br/search?updated-max=2013-03-26T19:42:00-03:00&max-results=8


Reports on the premature death of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have been greatly exaggerated. Western corporate media is flooded with such nonsense, perpetrated in this particular case by the head of Morgan Stanley Investment Management.

Reality spells otherwise. The BRICS meet in Durban, South Africa, this Tuesday to, among other steps, create their own credit rating agency, sidelining the dictatorship - or at least "biased agendas", in New Delhi's diplomatic take - of the Moody's/Standard & Poor's variety. They will also further advance the idea of the BRICS Development Bank, with a seed capital of US$50 billion (only structural details need to be finalized), helping infrastructure and sustainable development projects.

Crucially, the US and the European Union won't have stakes in this Bank of the South - a concrete alternative, pushed especially by India and Brazil, to the Western-dominated World Bank and the Bretton Woods system.

As former Indian finance minister Jaswant Singh has observed, such a development bank could, for instance, channel Beijing's know-how to help finance India's massive infrastructure needs.

The huge political and economic differences among BRICS members are self-evident. But as they evolve as a group, the point is not whether they should be protecting the global economy from the now non-stop crisis of advanced casino capitalism.

The point is that, beyond measures to facilitate mutual trade, their actions are indeed becoming increasingly political - as the BRICS not only deploy their economic clout but also take concrete steps leading towards a multipolar world. Brazil is particularly active in this regard.

Inevitably, the usual Atlanticist, Washington consensus fanatics - myopically - can see nothing else besides the BRICS "demanding more recognition from Western powers".

Of course there are problems. Brazil, China and India's growth slowed down. As China, for instance, became Brazil's top trading partner - ahead of the US - whole sectors of Brazilian industry have suffered from the competition of cheap Chinese manufacturing.

But some long-term prospects are inevitable. BRICS will eventually become more forceful at the International Monetary Fund. Crucially, BRICS will be trading in their own currencies, including a globally convertible yuan, further away from the US dollar and the petrodollar.

That Chinese slowdown
It was Goldman Sachs' Jim O'Neill who coined the term BRIC (no South Africa then) in 2001. It's enlightening to check what he thinks about it now.

O'Neill points out that China, even growing by a "mere" 7.7% in 2012, "created the equivalent of another Greek economy every 11-and-a-half weeks". China's slowdown was "structural and cyclical" - a "planned downturn" to control overheating and inflation.

The BRICS push is part of an irresistible global trend. Most of it is decoded here, in a new United Nations Development Programme report. The bottom line; the North is being overtaken in the economic race by the global South at a dizzying speed.

According to the report, "for the first time in 150 years, the combined output of the developing world's three leading economies - Brazil, China and India - is about equal to the combined GDP of the long-standing industrial powers of the North".

The obvious conclusion is that, "the rise of the South is radically reshaping the world of the 21st century, with developing nations driving economic growth, lifting hundreds of millions of people from poverty, and propelling billions more into a new global middle class."

And bang in the middle of this process, we find an Eurasian epic; the development of the Russia-China strategic relationship.

It's always about Pipelineistan
Russian President Vladimir Putin is taking no prisoners; he wants to steer the BRICS towards "a full-scale strategic cooperation mechanism that will allow us to look for solutions to key issues of global politics together".

This will imply a common BRICS foreign policy - and not only selective coordination on some themes. It will take time. It will be hard. Putin is very much aware of it.

What makes it even more fascinating is that Putin advanced his ideas during last week's three-day visit to Moscow by new Chinese President Xi Jinping. He went out of his way to stress Russian-Chinese relations now are "the best in their centuries-long history".

That's not exactly what hegemonic Atlanticists want to hear - still eager to frame the relationship in Cold War terms.

Xi retributed in style; "We did not come to see you for nothing" - as is partially detailed here. And wait till China's creative drive starts yielding dividends.

Inevitably, Pipelineistan is at the heart of the ultimate BRICS complementary relationship.

China's need of Russia's oil and gas is a matter of national security. Russia wants to sell more and more of it, diversifying away from the West; moreover, Russia would more than welcome Chinese investment in its Far East - the immense Trans-Baikal region.

And by the way, the "yellow peril" is not taking over Siberia - as the West would have it. There are only 300,000 Chinese living in Russia.

A direct consequence of the Putin-Xi summit is that from now on Beijing will pay in advance for Russian oil - in exchange for a share in a number of projects, for instance as in CNPC and Rosneft jointly exploring offshore blocks in the Barents Sea and other blocks onshore Russia.

Gazprom, for its part, clinched a long awaited gas deal with CNPC; 38 billion cubic meters a year delivered by the ESPO pipeline from Siberia starting in 2018. And by the end of 2013, a new Chinese contract with Gazprom will be finalized, involving gas supply for the next 30 years.

The geopolitical ramifications are immense; importing more gas from Russia helps Beijing to gradually escape its Malacca and Hormuz dilemma - not to mention industrialize the immense, highly populated and heavily dependent on agriculture interior provinces left behind in the economic boom.

That's how Russian gas fits into the Chinese Communist Party's master plan; configuring the internal provinces as a supply base for the increasingly wealthy, urban, based in the east coast, 400 million-strong Chinese middle class.

When Putin stressed that he does not see the BRICS as a "geopolitical competitor" to the West, it was the clincher; the official denial that confirms it's true. Durban may be solidifying just the beginning of such a competition. It goes without saying that Western elites - even mired in stagnation and bankruptcy - won't let any of their privileges go without a fierce fight.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

(Copyright 2013 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Mar 22, '13

The Battle of Cyprus
By Ellen Brown


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GECON-01-220313.html


"If these worries become really serious, … small savers will take their money out of banks and resort to household safes and a shotgun.'' Martin Hutchinson on the attempted European Union raid on private deposits in Cyprus banks. [1] The deposit confiscation scheme has long been in the making. Depositors in the United States could be next.

On Tuesday, March 19, the national legislature of Cyprus overwhelmingly rejected a proposed levy on bank deposits as a condition for a European bailout. Reuters called it "a stunning setback for the 17-nation currency bloc'', but it was a stunning victory for democracy. As Reuters quoted one 65-year-old pensioner, ''The voice of the people was heard.''

The European Union had warned that it would withhold 10 billion euros (US$13 billion) in bailout loans, and the European Central Bank (ECB) had threatened to end emergency lending assistance for distressed Cypriot banks, unless depositors - including small savers - shared the cost of the rescue. In the deal rejected by the legislature, a one-time levy on depositors would be required in return for a bailout of the banking system. Deposits below 100,000 euros would be subject to a 6.75% levy or ''haircut'', while those over 100,000 euros would have been subject to a 9.99% ''fine.'' [2]

The move was bold, but the battle isn't over yet. The EU has now given Cyprus until Monday to raise the billions of euros it needs to clinch an international bailout or face the threatened collapse of its financial system and likely exit from the euro currency zone.

The deal pushed by the ''troika'' - the EU, ECB and International Monetary Fund - has been characterized as a one-off event devised as an emergency measure in this one extreme case. But the confiscation plan has long been in the making, and it isn't limited to Cyprus.

In a September 2011 article in the Bulletin of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand titled ''A Primer on Open Bank Resolution'', Kevin Hoskin and Ian Woolford discussed a very similar haircut plan that had been in the works, they said, since the 1997 Asian financial crisis. [3] The article referenced recommendations made in 2010 and 2011 by the Basel Committee of the Bank for International Settlements, the ''central bankers' central bank'' in Switzerland.

The purpose of the plan, called the Open Bank Resolution (OBR), is to deal with bank failures when they have become so expensive that governments are no longer willing to bail out the lenders. [4] The authors wrote that the primary objectives of OBR are to:
ensure that, as far as possible, any losses are ultimately borne by the bank's shareholders and creditors …
The spectrum of ''creditors'' is defined to include depositors:
At one end of the spectrum, there are large international financial institutions that invest in debt issued by the bank (commonly referred to as wholesale funding). At the other end of the spectrum, are customers with cheque and savings accounts and term deposits.
. Most people would be surprised to learn that they are legally considered ''creditors'' of their banks rather than customers who have trusted the bank with their money for safekeeping, but that seems to be the case. According to Wikipedia,
In most legal systems, … the funds deposited are no longer the property of the customer. The funds become the property of the bank, and the customer in turn receives an asset called a deposit account (a checking or savings account). That deposit account is a liability of the bank on the bank's books and on its balance sheet. Because the bank is authorized by law to make loans up to a multiple of its reserves, the bank's reserves on hand to satisfy payment of deposit liabilities amounts to only a fraction of the total which the bank is obligated to pay in satisfaction of its demand deposits. [5]
The bank gets the money. The depositor becomes only a creditor with an IOU. The bank is not required to keep the deposits available for withdrawal but can lend them out, keeping only a ''fraction'' on reserve, following accepted fractional reserve banking principles. When too many creditors come for their money at once, the result can be a run on the banks and bank failure.

The New Zealand OBR said the creditors had all enjoyed a return on their investments and had freely accepted the risk, but most people would be surprised to learn that too. What return do you get from a bank on a deposit account these days? And isn't your deposit protected, in the United States, against risk by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation deposit insurance? Not anymore, apparently. As Martin Hutchinson observed in Money Morning, ''if governments can just seize deposits by means of a 'tax' then deposit insurance is worth absolutely zippo''. [6]

The real profiteers get off
Felix Salmon wrote in Reuters of the Cyprus confiscation:
Meanwhile, people who deserve to lose money here, won't. If you lent money to Cyprus's banks by buying their debt rather than by depositing money, you will suffer no losses at all. And if you lent money to the insolvent Cypriot government, then you too will be paid off at 100 cents on the euro. ...

The big winner here is the ECB, which has extended a lot of credit to dubiously-solvent Cypriot banks and which is taking no losses at all.
It is the ECB that can most afford to take the hit because it has the power to print euros. It could simply create the money to bail out the Cyprus banks and take no loss at all. But imposing austerity on the people is apparently part of the plan. Salmon writes:
From a drily technocratic perspective, this move can be seen as simply being part of a standard Euro-austerity program: the EU wants tax hikes and spending cuts, and this is a kind of tax. …

The big losers are working-class Cypriots, whose elected government has proved powerless. … The Eurozone has always had a democratic deficit: monetary union was imposed by the elite on unthankful and unwilling citizens. Now the citizens are revolting: just look at Beppe Grillo. [7]
But that was before the Cyprus government stood up for the depositors and refused to go along with the plan, in what will be a stunning victory for democracy if they can hold their ground.

It can happen here
Cyprus is a small island, of little apparent significance. But one day, the bold move of its legislators may be compared to the Battle of Marathon, the pivotal moment in European history when their Greek forebears fended off the Persians, allowing classical Greek civilization to flourish. The current battle on this tiny island has taken on global significance. If the technocrat bankers can push through their confiscation scheme there, precedent will be established for doing it elsewhere when bank bailouts become prohibitive for governments.

That situation could be looming even now in the United States. As Gretchen Morgenson warned in a recent article on the 307-page Senate report detailing last year's US$6.2 billion trading fiasco at JPMorganChase: ''Be afraid.'' The report resoundingly disproves the premise that the Dodd-Frank legislation has made the US system safe from the reckless banking activities that brought the economy to its knees in 2008. Morgenson writes:
JPMorgan … Is the largest derivatives dealer in the world. Trillions of dollars in such instruments sit on its and other big banks' balance sheets. The ease with which the bank hid losses and fiddled with valuations should be a major concern to investors. [8]
Pam Martens observed in a March 18 article that JPMorgan was gambling in the stock market with depositor funds. She writes, ''trading stocks with customers' savings deposits - that truly has the ring of the excesses of 1929.'' [9]

The large institutional banks not only could fail; they are likely to fail. When the derivative scheme collapses and the US government refuses a bailout, JPMorgan could be giving its depositors' accounts sizable ''haircuts'' along guidelines established by the BIS and Reserve Bank of New Zealand.

The bold moves of the Cypriots and such firebrand political activists as Italy's Grillo are not the only bulwarks against bankster confiscation. While the credit crisis is strangling the Western banking system, the BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia, India and China - have sailed through largely unscathed. According to a May 2010 article in The Economist, what has allowed them to escape are their strong and stable publicly-owned banks. [10]

Professor Kurt von Mettenheim of the Sao Paulo Business School of Brazil writes, ''The credit policies of BRIC government banks help explain why these countries experienced shorter and milder economic downturns during 2007-2008.'' [11] Government banks countered the effects of the financial crisis by providing counter-cyclical credit and greater client confidence.

Russia is an Eastern European country that weathered the credit crisis although being very close to the eurozone. According to a March 2010 article in Forbes:
As in other countries, the [2008] crisis prompted the state to take on a greater role in the banking system. State-owned systemic banks … have been used to carry out anti-crisis measures, such as driving growth in lending (however limited) and supporting private institutions. [12]
In the 1998 Asian crisis, many Russians who had put all their savings in private banks lost everything; and the credit crisis of 2008 has reinforced their distrust of private banks. Russian businesses as well as individuals have turned to their government-owned banks as the more trustworthy alternative. [13] As a result, state-owned banks are expected to continue dominating the Russian banking industry for the foreseeable future. [14]

The entire eurozone conundrum is unnecessary. It is the result of too little money in a system in which the money supply is fixed, and the eurozone governments and their central banks cannot issue their own currencies. There are insufficient euros to pay principal plus interest in a pyramid scheme in which only the principal is injected by the banks that create money as ''bank credit'' on their books.

A central bank with the power to issue money could remedy that systemic flaw, by injecting the liquidity needed to jumpstart the economy and turn back the tide of austerity choking the people.

The push to confiscate the savings of hard-working Cypriot citizens is a shot across the bow for every working person in the world, a wake-up call to the perils of a system in which tiny cadres of elites call the shots and the rest of us pay the price. When we finally pull back the veils of power to expose the men pulling the levers in an age-old game they devised, we will see that prosperity is indeed possible for all.

Notes:
1. See here.
2. See here.
3. See A Primer on Open Bank Resolution
4. See Open Bank Resolution
5. See here.
6. See here.
7. See here.
8. See here.
9. See here.
10. See here.
11. See here.
12. See here.
13. See here.
14. See here.


Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute, PublicBankingInstitute.org. In Web of Debt, her latest of 11 books, she shows how a private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are WebofDebt.com and EllenBrown.com. For more on the public bank solution and for details of the June 2013 Public Banking Institute conference in San Rafael, California, see here.

(Copyright 2013 Ellen Brown)

India, China, Brazil to surpass combined GDP of U.S., western Europe by 2020: UN


http://www.vancouverdesi.com/news/brics-to-surpass-combined-gdp-of-us-western-europe-by-2020-un/520353/


NEW DELHI — The combined output of BRICS countries will surpass the aggregate GDP of the U.S., Canada and four European powers by 2020, a UN report said Friday.
“By 2020, the combined economic output of three leading developing countries alone — Brazil, China and India — will surpass the aggregate production of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the U.K. and
the United States,” said the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) 2013 Human Development Report.
Brazil, Russia, India, China, and latest member South Africa, make up the BRICS group of emerging economies.
The growth phenomenon goes well beyond the BRICS middle income countries. The Report shows that more than 40 developing countries have made greater human development gains in recent decades than
would have been predicted.
“The rise of the South is unprecedented in its speed and scale,” the report says. “Never in history have the living conditions and prospects of so many people changed so dramatically and so fast.”
The rise of the South is radically reshaping the 21st century world with developing nations driving economic growth, lifting hundreds of millions of people from poverty, and bringing billions more
into a new global middle class, it said.
By 2030, more than 80 per cent of the world’s middle class and 70 per cent of total consumption expenditure will come from the South – a term that denotes developing countries.
The South as a whole is driving global economic growth and societal change for the first time in centuries, the report said.
According to the report, the economic take-offs in China and India began when their respective populations reached about one billion and per capita output doubled in less than 20 years, resulting
in an economic growth that affected a much larger population than the Industrial Revolution.
The South is increasingly interdependent and interconnected. Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and Mexico now have more daily social-media traffic than any country except the United States.
Regarding India, the report said its government, by investing in world-class tertiary education, building human capabilities and opening up trade and investment, allowed India to capitalize on its
stock of skilled workers in technology.
These industries were generating $70 billion in export earning by 2011-12, and similar stories can be told for India’s pharmaceuticals, automobile, chemical and service industries, it added.
However, India has averaged nearly five per cent income growth a year over 1990-2012 and per capita income is still low, around $3,400 in 2012, it said
India’s performance in accelerating human development is less impressive than its growth performance, the 2013 report said. India’s position in Human Development Index was 136 out of 187 countries
in 2012. It ranked 134 in 2011.
The UNDP report said, however, that it is misleading to compare values and rankings with those of previously published reports, because the underlying data and methods have changed.
– IANS