Hoje, programa na TV Brasil avalia política econômica do governo

Brasilianas discute os desafios que o governo terá pela frente para reaquecer a economia. Participe encaminhando perguntas que poderão ser selecionadas ao vivo. Clique aqui.

Pela ordem: Demian Fiocca, Francisco Lopreato e André Perfeito

Entre as 38 economias com estatísticas de crescimento do PIB disponibilizadas pela Organização para Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico, a OCDE, apenas Brasil, Argentina, Islândia e Itália encontram-se em recessão. Esse cenário coloca em risco a manutenção dos empregos e os avanços sociais obtidos nas últimas décadas. A expectativa, em 2014, é que o Brasil tenha um crescimento próximo de zero com a inflação próxima de 6,5%. 

O baixo desempenho econômico brasileiro vem sendo alvo de inúmeras críticas. Há quem diga que é um reflexo da economia global, mas outros avaliam como sendo o resultado de políticas econômicas equivocadas do atual governo. Para discutir essa questão, Luis Nassif recebe hoje no programa de debates Brasilianas.org (Tv Brasil), o economista-chefe da Gradual Investimentos, André Perfeito, o professor da Unicamp e especialista em economia monetária e fiscal, Francisco Lopreato e o sócio-diretor da Mare Investimentos, Demian Fiocca.

Não perca, hoje, a partir das 20h, na TV Brasil. Participe também mandando perguntas que poderão ser selecionadas ao vivo. Acesse: enviar perguntas

Saiba onde sintonizar a TV Brasil, em canal aberto, parabólica ou TVs por assinatura: clique aqui
 
Ou assista pela internet: www.tvbrasil.ebc.com.br.
 

 

Redação

20 Comentários

Deixe um comentário

O seu endereço de e-mail não será publicado. Campos obrigatórios são marcados com *

  1. Quem é que estimulou o consumismo em detrimento do investimento?

    CRESCIMENTO BASEADO NO CONSUMO, UMA GRANDE FALÁCIA – Se existiu um governo no Brasil, populista e demagógico dos pés a cabeça, e que privilegiou o crescimento com base no consumo em detrimento do investimento, esse governo foi o do PSDB de FHC.

    A Formação Bruta de Capital Fixo (investimentos) cresceu 85,23% nos últimos 11 anos (2003-2013). Isto dá uma média de 5,7% ao ano de crescimento dos investimentos aqui no Brasil. O consumo das famílias neste mesmo período cresceu apenas 55,7%.

    Em sete anos de PSDB-FHC (1996-2002)¹, a Formação Bruta de Capital Fixo cresceu pífios e ridículos 0,91%. O consumo das famílias neste período cresceu 13,0%. Ou seja, o ‘consumismo’ que tentam vincular aos governos do PT é uma grosseira falácia e foi praticado, como os números demonstram, pelo PSDB.

    Quem é mesmo que estimulou o “consumismo” em detrimento dos investimentos, o PT ou o PSDB?

    Uma das teses mais fraudulentas que temos visto nos últimos dez anos – os dados estatísticos comprovam – diz respeito à falácia do crescimento baseado no estímulo ao consumo.

    Esta é uma falácia porque o crescimento brasileiro tem sido ancorado no aumento contínuo do consumo das famílias, desde 2005, mas não somente nisto. A taxa de investimento, como vimos, tem crescido significativamente no Brasil nos governos do PT.

    E tem crescido acima do PIB e acima do próprio consumo das famílias neste período. Vejam novamente os indicadores acumulados nestes 11 anos (2003-2013) de governo federal comandado pelo Partido dos Trabalhadores:

    -Formação Bruta de Capital Fixo (investimentos): 85,23% 
    -Consumo das Famílias: 55,7% 
    -Produto Interno Bruto: 45,6%

    É absolutamente fantasioso dizer que nos períodos de governos do PT o investimento tenha ficado em segundo plano. Muito antes pelo contrário! É igualmente fantasioso dizer que a economia brasileira está atrelada num hipotético “consumismo” exagerado, que seria bancado em detrimento do investimento (isso existiu de fato nos governos do PSDB, não do PT).

    Os dados do IBGE mostram que, ao contrário do que o senso comum acredita, o investimento é que tem sido o carro chefe das administrações petistas, em que pese ainda ser insuficiente.

    Para finalizar, trago a baila os resultados acumulados do investimento (FBCF) nos três primeiros anos de Lula e Dilma:

    -Três primeiros anos de Dilma Rousseff: crescimento de 7,04% (4,7%; _4%; 6,5%);
    -Três primeiros anos de Lula: crescimento de 7,82% (_4,6%; 9,1%; 3,6%).

    A diferença é irrisória e nota-se que o investimento só deslanchou mesmo a partir do segundo mandato de Lula. O mesmo há de ocorrer agora, a partir do segundo mandato de Dilma.

    ¹ A série histórica do IBGE não trás os dados de 1995. A série começa no ano de 1996.

    http://seriesestatisticas.ibge.gov.br/series.aspx?no=12&op=0&vcodigo=ST5

  2. Já temos o culpado…PIADA…

    Pronto Nassif, já sabemos: O culpado pelo fracasso de Dilma I foi o presidente FHC, ehehehehehehehehehehe… Cara, eu tava mesmo querendo ouvir uma piada antes do almoço…

    Esse rapaz devia era ler o belo artigo do Delfin sobre a destruição da industria brasileira. É incrível a capacidade de auto-engano desse pessoal petista. Não digo que seja o caso do Diogo Costa. Esse dai é mal intencionado mesmo.

    Mas o castigo ta vindo ai a galope.É só aguardar o PMDB e demais “aliados” esquartejarem o governo Dilma e depois recolher os cacos para, então, refundar o pais com bases limpas.

    Parece que a coisa vai começar bem com a Katia Abreu na agricultura….”O FIM ESTA PRÓXIMO”…

    1. .

      Mau intencionado é tu ou os imbecis da tua iguala. 

       

      Tu não tem capacidade para contrapor os argumentos e os dados estatísticos oficiais (IBGE) que eu trouxe para o debate. Isso só comprova que tu és um imbecil. 

       

      E te desafio também, se a tua burrice permitir, a falar sobre a questão do câmbio nos governos de FHC, Lula e Dilma. 

      1. Rebate o Delfim….

        Diogo, eu te conheço de longa data aqui do blog… Lembro até da ultima vez que vc foi “convidado” a retirar-se do mesmo por total FALTA DE EDUCAÇÃO…

        Rebate o Delfim Diogo…seu papel aqui é sempre de “babão” do governo. Nada tenho contrao fato de vc alinhar-se com a esquerda. O pais é livre e democrático. O blog idem e Nassif um cavalheiro. Agora, que vc é mero “agente de propaganda”, vc é.

        1. .

          Tipos como tu eu conheço há vários e vários anos aqui no blog. 

           

          Vocês não tem capacidade de debater nada nem com uma porta. Trouxe um texto com dados estatísticos oficiais, do IBGE, e tu, como outros tantos imbecis, passa a me atacar porque não tem condições de rebater uma única vírgula sequer do que eu escrevi. 

           

          Volta para a caverna rapaz, tu é muito fraco. 

          1. Diogo, não perca tempo com esses trolls

            que são cada vez mais grosseiros, numa vã tentativa de igualar os “colonistas” de globo/veja/fsp.

          2. Isto é comum dos Aecistas, Diogo

            Tá dando no saco já!

            Querem monopolizar a agressão verbal, não aceitam represália e se auto vitimizam.

            Tudo isso pra te nivelar ao baixo nível dele.

            Mas relex, você deu sorte que ele não te chamou de ‘Leviano’ (ainda), meu chapa! heheh

    2. Fora do assunto do post,

      mas relevante: Fora esta tua suposta piada e este teu desejo incontido por vingança, dá uma paradinha para pensar: qual canal ou outro meio disponibiliza o espaço que a TV Brasil oferece para o contraditório? Excetuando as barrigadas da turma do Mainard que convida especialistas sem saber o currículo e depois levam bordoadas, é muito raro no meio tradicional.

  3. A propósito

    “A balança comercial brasileira teve em outubro o pior resultado para o mês desde 1998 – ou seja, em 16 anos. Segundo informou o Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio Exterior (MDIC) nesta segunda-feira (3), as importações superaram as exportações em US$ 1,17 bilhão no mês passado.”

    http://g1.globo.com/economia/noticia/2014/11/balanca-comercial-tem-pior-resultado-para-outubro-em-16-anos.html

  4. TV Universitária-PE Canal 11 (Aberto) tem reprise mais tarde.

    Horário Recife: 19:00 horas

    Horário de verão (Brasília): 20 h.

    Reprise:  Recife e Pernambuco, hora local 0:15 h.       E horário de Brasília: 1:15 h

    TV Universitária-Recife-PE – Canal 11 (Aberto)

  5. quantitative theory of organization

    Li no blog do Mansueto hoje:

    “O problema fiscal é menos econômico e mais político. Como fala marcos: “A baixa confiança é resultado dos problemas, e não a sua causa. Ela requer uma agenda de governo, e não apenas um novo ministro da Fazenda”.”

    Teoria quantitativa da organização.

    Com o intuito de enriqucer o debate, trazendo novos olhares filosóficos e desconstruindo a caixinha onde se dá o pensamento burocrático, anexo uma discussão, que se não chegou ainda no ponto de uso, está se delineando como promissora.

    Mais ainda, sempre que se fala em energia X organização, não consigo sair das idéias Platônicas e Neo-Platônicas, com os sólidos notáveis descritos no Timeus.

    Enfim, food for thought.

    em tempo, penso que o problema é mais filosófico do que político hehehe…

     

    Hi,

    I would like to bring to your attention, for possible comments and
    suggestions for improvement, some recent evidences summarized in Figure 1
    and Table 1 attached that indicate to me that it may be possible to
    construct a , called the PITO, or the
    Planckian information theory of organization.  To the best of my
    knowledge, currently there exist no quantitative theory of organization,
    although the concept of organization is so fundamental to all fields of
    natural and human sciences — material organizations in the former and
    symbolic organizations in the latter.  The PITO, which is being prepared
    for submission to [1] as an invited paper, is based on the following key
    assumptions:

    (1) Organization is the result of the process of organizing.

    (2) All processes require dissipating free energy (or energy more briefly).
    There are two kinds of organizations –  (a) random organization (e.g.,
    Gaussian distributed word-length frequencies in German or English
    dictionaries; gene-length frequency distributions in genomes), and (b)
    non-random organization (e.g., the word-length frequency distribution in a
    speech, Figure 1h attached; annual income distributions in the US, Figures
    1i and 1j).

    (3) Non-random organizations require both energy and control information
    (or information, for brevity).

    (4) From (2) and (4), we can conclude that all non-random organizations
    are driven by a combination of energy and information, called “gnergy” in
    1985 [2, p. 422; 3, p. 203-206].  Just as energy is associated with  force
    and force carriers (e.g., photons), so it is assumed that gnergy is
    associated with its own force and force carriers, referred to as
    conformons in enzymes, cytons in the cell, ‘cerebrons’ in the brain, and
    ‘societons’ in human societies as indicated in the last row of Table 1. It
    should be pointed out that I was “ forced” to coin the  new terms,
    ‘cerebrons’ and ‘societons’, in order to fill the two blanks on the lower
    right-hand corner of Table 1 that were generated by the logical structure
    of the 3×5 table.  (There may be better names than ‘cerebrons’ and
    ‘societons’.  If you have any good suggestions, please let me know.)

    (5) Organizations are found in atoms, enzymes, living cells, human bodies,
    societies, and the Universe [1].

    (6) All organizations that result from selecting component processes from
    the random set of processes made available by thermal motions (also called
    Brownian motions, or Wiener processes) generate data that fit the
    Planckian distribution [1].

    (7) The degree of a non-random organization resulting from Brownian
    motions ‘rectified’ (i.e., made non-random) by free energy–dissipating
    selection process can be quantified in terms of the Planckian information,
    IP, defined as the binary logarithm of the ratio between the Riemann sum
    of the Planckian distribution over that of the associated Gaussian
    distribution, in the units of bps, bits per selection (see the legend to
    Table 1) [1].

    (8) The Ip measurement may be useful in studying human consciousness as
    shown in Figures 1e and 1f, which demonstrates an increase in the variety
    of cerebral blood flow patterns in live human brains upon infusion of the
    psychedelic drug, psilocybin.  This drug is known to induce loss of
    coherent consciousness in humans, which is accompanied by the broadening
    of the blood flow pattern histogram and a 2-fold increase in the IP value
    (from 40 to 75 bps).  It is not yet clear to me what this change in the IP
    values might mean. More studies are needed.

    (9) A preliminary reading of NP Chapter 4 indicates that PITO may be
    applicable to defining and characterizing “perception”, “cognition”, and
    “inference”, which I will discuss in due course.

    With all the best.

    Sung
    ___________________________________________________
    Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
    Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
    Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
    Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
    Rutgers University
    Piscataway, N.J. 08855
    732-445-4701

    http://www.conformon.net

    References:

       [1] Ji, S. (2014).  Planckian Distributions in Molecular Machines and
    Living Cells: Evidence for Free Energy Quantization in Biology.
    Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal (to appear).
       [2] Ji, S.  (1985). The Bhopalator – A Molecular Model of the Living
    Cell Based on the Concepts of Conformons and Dissipative Structures,
    J. theoret. Biol. 116, 399-426.
       [3] Ji, S. (1990).  The Bhopalator – A Molecular Model of the Living
    Cell; New Developments.  In: Molecular and Biological Physics of Living
    Systems (R. K. Mishra, ed.). Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht.
    Pp. 187-214.

     

     

     

    > On Nov 2, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
    >
    >> (2) All processes require dissipating free energy (or energy more
    >> briefly). There are two kinds of organizations –  (a) random
    organization (e.g., Gaussian distributed word-length frequencies in
    German or English
    >> dictionaries; gene-length frequency distributions in genomes), and (b)
    >> non-random organization (e.g., the word-length frequency distribution in
    >> a speech, Figure 1h attached; annual income distributions in the US,
    >> Figures 1i and 1j).
    >>
    >
    > In my opinion, this argument is meaningless because it fails to
    > distinguish between the source of where the energy was dissipated and the
    > location where the energy was converted into another form.  This is of
    > fundamental importance in biology.

    The meaning of any statements depends on the readers’ background and frame
    of mind.  What is meaningless to one many not be so for others.  I hope
    this is the case here. In a short post such as this, it is not possible to
    describe everything and must omit details which average readers are
    assumed to be able to provide themselves.

    > For example, the sun dissipates energy as light / photons.

    This is not a good example of “dissipation of energy” but a case of
    converting matter to energy via E = mc^2.  What is dissipated here is a
    part of the matter-energy as heat.  In other words, light/photons are not
    dissipated energy but free energy, just as ATP in the cell is, which
    produces heat upon performing work using its free energy.

    >
    > A photosynthetic cell captures the light and uses it for constructing new
    > cellular components, it gains free energy.

    Agreed.

    >
    > In the physical level of description, both processes can be described as
    > random or statistical processes.

    Photosynthesis not a random process but directed and non-random, although
    the enzymes catalyzing photosynthesis do undergo Brownian motions before
    they can perform their synthetic activity utilizing the free energy of
    light/photons.  I have published several papers beginning in the 1970’s
    proposing one possible molecular mechanism, based on the generalized
    Franck-Condon principle [1], by which enzymes may perform work utilizing
    ATP energy wherein Brownian motions play essential roles [2, 3,4].

    > At the biological level, the initial conditions are such that the cell
    > utilizes the energy for growth and reproduction.
    >
    > This line of argumentation about free energy is neither compelling nor
    > pragmatically useful, in my opinion, because the dicisigns originate in
    > two different systems, separated in cosmic space.  The meaning of
    > thermodynamic changes become propositionally meaningful if and only if
    > they are co-located in the same system.

    The meaning of these paragraphs are not clear to me.

    With all the best.

    Sung
    ___________________________________________________
    Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
    Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
    Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
    Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
    Rutgers University
    Piscataway, N.J. 08855
    732-445-4701

    http://www.conformon.net

    References:
    [1]  Ji, S. (2012). The Franck-Condon Principle (FCP).  In:Molecular
    Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical
    Applications.  Springer, New York.  pp. 18-24.  PDF at conformon.net under
    Publications > Book chapters.
    [2] Ji, S. (1974). Energy and Negentropy in Enzymic Catalysis,  Ann. N. Y.
    Acad. Sci. 227, 419-437.
      [3]  Ji, S. (1974). A General Theory of ATP Synthesis and Utilization,
    Ann. N. Y. Acad.
    Sci. 227, 211-226.
       [4] Ji, S. (2000).  Free energy and Information Contents of Conformons
    in proteins and  DNA, BioSystems 54, 107-130.

    > List, Sung:
    >
    >
    > On Nov 2, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
    >
    >> (2) All processes require dissipating free energy (or energy more
    >> briefly).
    >> There are two kinds of organizations –  (a) random organization (e.g.,
    >> Gaussian distributed word-length frequencies in German or English
    >> dictionaries; gene-length frequency distributions in genomes), and (b)
    >> non-random organization (e.g., the word-length frequency distribution in
    >> a
    >> speech, Figure 1h attached; annual income distributions in the US,
    >> Figures
    >> 1i and 1j).
    >>
    >
    > In my opinion, this argument is meaningless because it fails to
    > distinguish between the source of where the energy was dissipated and the
    > location where the energy was converted into another form.  This is of
    > fundamental importance in biology.
    >
    > For example, the sun dissipates energy as light / photons.
    >
    > A photosynthetic cell captures the light and uses it for constructing new
    > cellular components, it gains free energy.
    >
    > In the physical level of description, both processes can be described as
    > random or statistical processes.
    >
    > At the biological level, the initial conditions are such that the cell
    > utilizes the energy for growth and reproduction.
    >
    > This line of argumentation about free energy is neither compelling nor
    > pragmatically useful, in my opinion, because the dicisigns originate in
    > two different systems, separated in cosmic space.  The meaning of
    > thermodynamic changes become propositionally meaningful if and only if
    > they are co-located in the same system.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Jerry

    Juntando um texto sobre neo platonismo recente da lista , para ficar tudo junto na hora de ler.

    Forms of “Platonism” are alive throughout many departments and contemporary philosophical literature, perhaps especially analytic departments.  We see this primarily in those philosophers willing to countenance the existence of abstract objects as a bedrock assumption of their philosophical systems.  This list may be surprising: for example, W.V.O. Quine (and his followers), realists about mathematical objects, presentists (like Craig Bourne), analytic aestheticians (e.g. Peter Kivy), realists about modal properties (David Lewis), etc. require the existence of abstracta, often understood in terms of a commitment to the reality of sets or other entities that exist outside of what we might call ‘the perceivable realm’.  I realize that the work of these philosophers may be far from what Plato or neo-Platonists would consider as ‘Platonism’ but plenty of Platonic sympathesizers abound and have enduring influence on contemporary debates.  They might not, however accept the label of being a Platonist – which may be the source of the concern.
    On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Thomas Mether [email protected] [neoplatonism] <[email protected]> wrote:
     

     

    I also wonder if Sebastian also didn’t encounter a double-standard. I certainly know of physicalist philosophy faculty that are not expected to “not advocate” or “not hold” physicalists views.
    On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Scott Rhoded [email protected] [neoplatonism] <[email protected]> wrote:
     

     

    I wonder if the conceptualization of Platonism is by nature problematic. And hence, so the articulation. Plato and his Socrates indulged in mythical/poetic expressions despite  their ambivalence about myth and poetry. It has always confounded me that so many teachers and writers begin to “explain” the forms by talking about that hoary “chair”, as if they had not developed any conceptualization of their own. Is this a mental block, due to a literal mindedness — which is actually projected onto the author? That literal thinking usually supposes a breach in reality and that, one supposes further, requires a leap of faith. Once we go down that road it’s all over as far as the academy is concerned because everyone agrees that a secular stance is best. A chair is a chair is a chair from which we do not rise. I agree with Thomas, it seems to me that the loss of respect for the humanities in general is related here by an increasing dwindling of the imagination. When our pre-empirical authors spoke of “extra things”, things after physics, how can we invest our modern selves and give modern students a secularized appreciation? After all, why teach anything if not with love?  So we are confronted with “believing” or “dis believing”— but is that the only response the human imagination has to offer? Actually, does this kind of faith involve the imagination at all? Without naming, two contemporary authors I have been studying recently give response to this problem. One admits when writing he actually is a “believer” but in his day to day life, he does not believe. The other author is much more dramatic, he transforms himself into a dual identity, writing in third person about the believer that he was at one point In his life, who even witnessed miracles. Yet inserts his present day objective self into the narrative as a friend of the belivier, having been there all along.  Two witnesses, two versions, two manuscripts in one. In turn, we wonder is the believer also still with him? I course we approach this problem empirically and pragmatically due to the paradigm in which we live. So to remember our continuity with our past may require that we imagine ourselves within previous epistemologies. This extra paradigm would entail extra identity and could hardly be described as an objective study. It’s a thought experiment performed by the subject, on the subject.  I don’t think it can be done in a classroom. But maybe I’m taking this too seriously….
    On Nov 2, 2014, at 4:27 AM, “John Dillon [email protected] [neoplatonism]” <[email protected]> wrote:
      

     

     
     
     
       

       
    This is an interesting topic, and one I think we need to work through for the sake of our intellectual well-being: I write as one outside academia, but also as someone who admires many fine scholars who work within it, and wish that there were more who, like Professor Dillon, embrace the best of the Platonic tradition rather than keep it at arm’slength.
     
     Perhaps we should restate the Platonic view of human knowledge:
     
     Ultimately we can affirm a number of stable truths because they are inherent as reasons within the self.
     
     This self – a self-motive essence we call soul – understands the material world in the light of immaterial ideas or forms.
     
     Many material instances of forms are best understood by referring them to their more singular originating forms in the intelligible realm.  All the sciences (including the material sciences) rely upon this fundamentally Platonic affirmation.
     
     We could not BEGIN the process of understanding and classifying the material world and its objects unless we already possessed an important set of immaterial ideas such as identity, difference, similarity, dissimilarity, equality, etc.
     
     If our grasp of these things springs principally from our interior rational constitution (using externals merely as prompts to bring to the fore-consciousness the reasons held in the depths of the soul) it follows that human knowledge is not merely, or even primarily, objective (that is to say externally objective).
     
     Any attempt to build an intellectual system upon the view that human learning is exclusively a matter of external objectivity, is likely to perpetuate its own erroneous assumptions – if only because it reduces an immaterial self to the status of an illusion.
     
     All questions of formal and final causes cease to have any meaning, and the “why” question will almost always give way to “how”.  Thus Socrates, foreseeing modernism, mocks those who would have him sitting in his prison cell “because” of a configuration of sinews, bones and muscles, rather than because he has made a decision about what is best.
     
     Many beautiful vistas open up for those who set out from the Platonic perspective, and who take it seriously, rather than as a curiosity.  As the writer of the Seventh Letter says: “But to such as these, it is requisite to show that philosophy is a thing of the greatest consequence, and that it is only to be obtained by great study and mighty labour.  For he who hears that this is the case, if he is truly a lover of wisdom, and is adapted to and worthy of its acquisition, being a divine person, will think that he hears of an admirable way, that he ought immediately to betake himself to this path, and make it the great business of his life.”
     
     I don’t believe that Wisdom will show herself to those unwilling to make it the great business of his or her life.
     
     Tim Addey
     
     
     
     On 01/11/2014 17:53, John Dillon [email protected] [neoplatonism] wrote:
     
     
       
     

    >
     >
     >
     >
     >
     > Prof. Dillon,
     >
     > First let me say, that if you are not the greatest scholar on earth, you’re
     > the one whose works I am most interested in reading, since, although I’ve
     > largely had to make my way outside of the academy, I am mostly interested in
     > the Neoplatonists and especially what you describe as the platonic
     > underground, texts like the Chaldean Oracles, the Hermetica, and the Greek
     > magical papyri. I rarely post here because when I do it only upsets the other
     > list members (the ones who believe in dowsing, for instance).
     >
     > But I wonder if you could describe what you mean by an “allegiance to
     > Platonism”?
     >
     > I consider this subject to be of historical interest only; I’m also interested
     > in early Christianity, but that certainly doesn’t dispose to accept its
     > claims, metaphysical or otherwise, as in any sense valid except as an
     > interesting set of historical beliefs. I don’t how one can have an allegiance
     > to anything beyond what can be demonstrated by evidence and argument, and I
     > see very little in Platonism as a way of understanding the world that can hold
     > up to that standard (compared for example to methodological naturalism). I
     > don’t want to prejudge what you might say if you choose to respond to me, but
     > I suppose I’m the kind of person you;re complaining against, but I’m far from
     > unwilling to understand your position.
     >
     > Cheers,
     >
     > Bradley A. Skene
     >
     > On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM, John Dillon [email protected]
     > [neoplatonism] <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>  wrote:
     >>
     >>   
     >>
     >>
     >>
     >>
     >>>  
     >>>  
     >>>  
     >>>    
     >>>
     >>>
     >>> Hi all,
     >>>
     >>> I’ve just read the professional profile of a Professor of Philosophy, which
     >>> at some point includes the following information: “he maintains various
     >>> anti-platonist positions” (I rephrase it, so it is not traceable on the
     >>> internet and everything remains anonymous). I’m mentioning this because it
     >>> is very typical that having a sympathetic approach to the topic of
     >>> Platonism, or directly defending platonist (or platonic) positions, is seen
     >>> as inadequate and if one does it, one is condemned to be outside academia.
     >>> May  be the excuse given is that a platonist scholar is not sufficiently
     >>> “objective” to study Plato and Platonism, but why is it considered that
     >>> anti-platonists can explain Platonism in a better way?.
     >>> Why are things like “analytic aesthetics” or “analytic metaphysics” (or
     >>> “analytic history of philosophy)  promoted in universities (and all sorts of
     >>> “analytic” disciplines, when analytic philosophy is in its own origin a
     >>> philosophy which is based on the rejection of all the traditional
     >>> disciplines that compose philosophy). If one dares to propose something like
     >>> “platonic aesthetics” or “platonic metaphysics” is laughed at by the
     >>> committees who run philosophy departments.
     >>> I myself was questioned at my PhD Viva about my personal beliefs and one of
     >>> the examiners said in an almost discriminatory way that I could not present
     >>> things as if a metaphysical, universal (Platonic) truth existed (independent
     >>> of “historical”, materialistic or empiristically detectable influences
     >>> between authors, etc.). One cannot study what the Neoplatonists call “ta
     >>> pragmata” and be interested in explaining the inner meaning and validity and
     >>> relevance for our time and life of those things with which the philosophers
     >>> were personally engaged, without being criticized. It is enough to
     >>> “rationally” depict the empiristic reading of extant material (the platonic
     >>> texts) in an “anti-platonic” way, which is dry and deprived of all warmness
     >>> and real openness towards the object of study.
     >>> One call also say that the “analytic” predominance in anglo-saxon philosophy
     >>> departments has also the political implication of an imperialistic
     >>> domination over philosophy departments all over the world, because the
     >>> research money comes from wealthy countries and at the local universities,
     >>> the only people who get the positions are those who studied in wealthy
     >>> countries and publish in their journals following the rules of the
     >>> mainstream philosophical position.
     >>> Kind regards,
     >>> Sebastian
     >>>
     >>>
     >>>
     >>>  
     >>>  
     >>>  
     >>>   
     >>>  
     >>>    
     >>>
     >>>
     >>
     >> I sympathise with what you say, Sebastian, and I think it is unfortunately
     >> true of many departments of philosophy. I am afraid that you have to simply
     >> practise guile: get tenure first, and then you may proclaim an allegiance to
     >> Platonism! JMD
     >>
     >>
     >>
     >>
     >
     >
     >
     >
     >
     
     Dear Bradley, I am not an uncritical Platonist, I think, and I recognise
     that he can be rather perverse or even silly at times, but I would certainly
     back him against the logical positivists and the linguistic analysts, in
     that I think that philosophy should be a way of life, and not just an
     academic subject, and a logic-chopping one at that. I also think that he has
     quite a lot to say to the modern world. I venture to send you a copy of a
     pamphlet tghat I published a little time ago, which develops this point.
     With best wishes, and thanks for your kind words, John Dillon
     
     [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
     
     
     
        
     
     
       

     
    Good on ye, Tim! I entirely endorse all of those basic principles. Sadly, though, it remains true that it would be very unwise for a young candidate presenting him/herself for a job in most philosophy departments to utter any of them. So I advocate a certain discretion, until one has gained tenure and the respect of one’s colleagues, by performing excellently all the tasks assigned to one! But it is a pretty sad reflection on the general ethos of philosophy departments, particularly in the anglophone world. John

     

  6. Sobre contas públicas desarranjadas…

    “Secular Stagnation” Is Progress, Now Can We Talk About the Trade Deficit?

    PrintSaturday, 01 November 2014 07:40

    Matt O’Brien has a nice piece presenting charts from Larry Summers (yes, the rest of us had made this point long ago) showing that estimates of potential GDP have dropped as the economy has remained weak since 2007. The point is that a temporary downturn can have lasting economic consequences. Unemployed workers lose skills and can become permanently unemployed. And, by having a long period of weak investment, the economy’s capacity will be expanding less rapidly than would otherwise be the case. As the piece notes, this means that current obsession with deficits is not just lowering output and raising unemployment in the present, it is likely to have a lasting impact on the economy.

    It is great to see people like Larry Summers openly pushing the idea that the economy can face serious demand problems. This view was routinely ridiculed by mainstream economists all through the 1990s and the last decade, so it is nice to see them change their minds. Summers has even gone the extra mile of noting that lack of demand is not just a problem in the current downturn but one that has been present since the 1990s. This shows the potential for learning among mainstream economists.

    However there is still one additional step that they must take to get the full picture. As every intro textbook tells us, Y = C+I+G+(X-M). That means the level of demand in the economy is equal to the sum of consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports. This is an accounting identity — it is true by definition. It cannot be wrong, if you don’t like it then it’s your problem.

    The significance of this simple identity is that net exports have been a large negative since the late 1990s. Back in the early post-war years we typically had trade surpluses. We began to run modest trade deficits in the 1970s due to the OPEC price increases. The trade deficit rose sharply in the 1980s following a run-up in the dollar, but then fell back to around 1.0 percent of GDP following the Plaza Accord, which brought down the value of the dollar against the currencies of our major trading partners.

    The deficit stayed close to 1.0 percent of GDP until 1997. That was when the East Asian financial crisis hit. The harsh terms imposed on the countries of the region by theUnited States and the I.M.F. required them to massively increase their exports. This led them to sharply reduce the value of their currency against the dollar. Furthermore, to avoid ever being in the same situation as the East Asian countries, most countries in the developing world followed the same course. They lowered the value of their currency so that they could increase their exports and accumulate massive amounts of dollars to hold as reserves.

     

    The resulting rise in the dollar led to an explosion of the U.S. trade deficit. It eventually peaked at almost 6.0 percent of GDP in 2005. Since then a decline in the dollar and the weakness of the U.S. economy has brought it down to around 3.0 percent of GDP (@$500 billion a year).

    This matters hugely for the secular stagnation story because this 3.0 percent of GDP is demand that must be made up by the other components of GDP. We must either have more consumption, more investment, or more government spending, or some combination, than would normally be the case because we have a trade deficit of 3.0 percent of GDP. Again, this is accounting identity stuff, it has to be true. If you disagree, read this as many times as necessary until you understand.

    We don’t have any good ways of substantially boosting investment. We have politicians who yap about taxes and regulations, but we have tried that path (been there, done that, in technical terms). It doesn’t work.

    We can’t boost consumption too much without asset bubbles. The problem is that people insist on trying to save for retirement. Those of us with access to government data know that consumption is actually relatively high right now, not low as you often hear in the media.

    This leaves government spending. Unfortunately, our politicians are religiously opposed to budget deficits in the same way that many question evolution. That means we have no good way of offsetting the demand lost due to the trade deficit, end of story, game, set, and match.

    It might seem a hopeless battle to think that manistream economists will ever accept the national income accounting that appears in the first chapter of their textbooks, but there is some basis for hope. After all, a decade ago the possibility that they would accept secular stagnation seemed pretty hopeless as well.

    One final point, if we can’t get to full employment on the demand side, we can go the supply side route. Work sharing, paid family leave, sick days, and vacations are all great ways to spread around the available work. Again, it will take our economists some time to appreciate the merits of this route as an alternative to high unemployment (this is Germany’s secret), but there is evidence they can learn.  

     

  7. Nassif, estou aguardando

    Participo de um grupo de parentes no whatsApp e pedi para eles acompanhar e vão acompanhar, até mesmo pq em meio as novas mídias praticamente não existem economistas, no momento só me lembro de vc e o Miguel do Rosário, do blog O Cafezinho. A gente precisa de ver este tema ser mais debatido, até mesmo por ser complexo e difícil compreensão para nós leigos sobre este tema.

    Uma pena que em tempos de comunicação móvel não consigamos acompanhar pelo smartphone…

  8. “Seria cômico, se não fosse

    “Seria cômico, se não fosse trágico”, certas pessoas não conseguem  entender de modo algum, que alguem tenha pensamento diferente dos deles, e apoie o governo. Além dos golpistas de muitos partidos e de toda a imprensa, os “democratas” querem impedir que outros se pronunciem. Aqui neste Blog são aceitos todos os comentários pelo dono do mesmo, mas até aqui querem impedir  acabar com a democracia reinante. Não é mesmo sr. Marcos Augusto ?

    Diogo Costa, vc é um dos comentaristas que mais trazem argumentos baseados em dados reais, e não em argumentos de “FACEÍSTAS”, palavra que usei agora p/ definir Facistas  +  comentaristas de Face. E até gostei, modéstia a parte.

  9. estava tentando conectar

    e não achei o vídeo, acho que por estar fora do país não posso ver online; mas se não estou equivocada pude ver um programa, o sobre o Banco Central. bom, mas também o vídeo depois ficará online. Abraço.

  10. As pessoas mal dormem

    As pessoas mal dormem  por estarem sendo levadas ficarem focadas nessa bobagem chamada “ameaça bolivariana”, de forma que esse assunto vem até prá sair do tal “eixo bolivariano”. Falando nisso Nassif, que tal um programa sobre comércio exterior,  tenho visto nas redes sociais que o Brasil só negocia com o “eixo bolivariano” quando acabou de fechar bons negócios com a Rússia.

  11. Batedores de pau…Sempre eles!!!!!

    O programa foi muito bom Nassif. Parabéns a todos.

     

    Pois é Nassif, enquanto, infelizmente, temos pessoas dedicadas ao esclarecimento da população outros são despistadores PROFISSIONAIS.

    Olho para os lados e o que vejo:

     – A Taxas Selic aumenta

     – O presidente do BRADESCO (????????) da um sonoro “NÃO” para nossa guia. É ESTARRECEDOR!!!!

     – Aumento de gasolina vindo a galope

     – Aumento de energia elétrica idem

     – Contas do governo VERMELHAS em R$ 20 bilhões – ESTARRECEDORAMENTE é o pior resultado desde 2002!!!!

     – Balança comercial tem o seu pior mês dos últimos 16 anos!!!!!!!!

     

    TUDO culpa do “malvado” FHC…É PIADA!!!!

Você pode fazer o Jornal GGN ser cada vez melhor.

Apoie e faça parte desta caminhada para que ele se torne um veículo cada vez mais respeitado e forte.

Seja um apoiador