América

Os hábitos velhos tendem a renascer, apesar das declarações de intenções. Esta nota é uma reincidência da minha parte: as referências, qualquer delas é interessante, a compulsão para espalhar a nova é grande [noutra altura, e noutro contexto, eu teria sido profeta, no mínimo] como é a de limpar as notas-rascunho, e daí uma nota quilométrica - para quem não perceber: eu tinha prometido, a mim mesmo, não multiplicar as referências.

O denominador destas referências é o momento político norte-americano, e em particular o peso do Partido Republicano na sua conformação. Poderia encarar tudo isto que se passa com mais equanimidade se não vivesse no mesmo planeta que eles, e devem entender o que digo de modo literal. Citando Bill Maher livremente: o Partido Democrata passou-se para a direita, e o Partido Republicano transformou-se num manicómio, e este é que está a determinar, em grande parte, a dança. 

As três primeiras referências são todas de um economista, do seu blogue no The Economist. 

A primeira, basicamente, diz o que é o governo (no sentido lato) dos EUA, e sugere, timidamente, que já se foi longe demais, porque sem mobilidade social, nada feito.

A segunda dá conta de uma prática no mercado de trabalho de lá  quanto ao reemprego dos desempregados. Não creio que isso se verifique, para já, em Portugal, mas seria interessante saber com certeza.

A terceira é uma defesa de Paul Krugman no que respeita às suas posições quanto ao processo orçamental norte-americano em curso - muita gente lá (e alguns por cá) considera Krugman radical. Mas, como dizia a um amigo há algumas semanas atrás, se os políticos da direita portuguesa fossem replantados nos EUA, dizendo o que dizem cá [repararem na subtileza da condicionalidade colocada], seriam considerados perigosos esquerdistas.

 

A quarta referência seria cómica se não fosse horrivelmente séria.

Political economy: Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich | The Economist:

In other words, rich Democrats and rich Republicans elect politicians with a diverse range of views, but all of which ultimately respond to the policy preferences of the rich. To put this slightly differently, we all know rich people on the left side of the political spectrum who care passionately about the poor and have no problem supporting policies that aren't necessarily in their own direct interest. These people exist. But the Democrats who end up in Congress tend not to be these people; they're the kind of people who respond to the preferences of the rich. Who knows what their motivations for doing so are; perhaps they view concessions to rich priorities as necessary in order to survive in Washington to fight for other priorities some other day. And it should be noted that the priorities of middle and low income voters are occasionally heard and addressed.

But the asymmetry here shapes the policy that emerges from Washington. Legislators worried about the poor often have to cut deals to satisfy the rich people who support their campaigns and other critical institutions. Legislators worried about the rich basically never have to make these kinds of concessions. Money, by creating this asymmetry, gets what it wants much more often. As Mr Gilens notes, this is a feature of very nearly every political system in very nearly every historical era. What I would suggest is that it is therefore not a tremendous threat to democracy, except in cases when mobility levels across incomes fall dramatically. In that case, you create a permanent class of politically disenfranchised people. And that can be a very destabilising thing.

"- Sent using Google Toolbar"

America's jobless recovery: Need a job? Best to start by having one | The Economist:

"Now there's a growing trend of employers refusing to consider the unemployed for job openings, according to a number of people who testified before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Wednesday. They say that employers are barring the unemployed from job openings, which is particularly unfair to older workers and African Americans because more of them are unemployed."

It's obviously bad to explicitly advertise that you're not interested in unemployed workers, but it's a pretty sure bet that lots of other employers are making this decision more quietly, by simply not hiring unemployed workers. Many of them won't be doing so out of some ill-founded bias; they may be concerned, not unreasonably, that a long duration of employment has eroded a worker's skills and work discipline.

...

And as I've said before, this is the time to be improving worker retraining programmes, not cutting them, as both parties seem inclined to do.

"- Sent using Google Toolbar"

America's deficit: Outrageous cuts | The Economist: 

"Paul Krugman's columns tend so often toward scathing criticism of Republicans that it's easy to discount the outrage and dismiss it. It would be a shame if that's the reaction to his writing today, which couldn't be more on point. To wit:

"The whole budget debate, then, is a sham. House Republicans, in particular, are literally stealing food from the mouths of babes — nutritional aid to pregnant women and very young children is one of the items on their cutting block — so they can pose, falsely, as deficit hawks."

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

The GOP decides accurate weather forecasting and hurricane tracking are luxuries America can’t afford « Climate Progress: 

"- Sent using Google Toolbar"