July, 01, 2004
If there’s a contemporary hero, in the exact meaning of the word contained in the Aurélio Dictionary, which is, “exceptional man due to his deeds of warrior, his value or his magnanimity”, such a man was Ronald Reagan. He’d have been the greatest of all north-americans of the twentieth century maybe, for have beaten the sovietic communism, for have beaten (at least for some time) the communism within his borders, for have rescued the traditional values, for have put right what was out of place. In a few years he dared to fix what was spoiled. He was a great man.
And because I know that, the reading of the article written by João Paulo (“The two deaths of Reagan”), published on
In the text, the author talks about the Starwars Program, the break-off of social programs, the neo-liberalism but no word on the defeat of the Soviet empire, after all, for him the real socialism wasn’t socialism. And he affirms: Ronald Reagan assisted in taking away from this world some of the compassion that is at the basis of man’s biggest devices in terms of politics: capitalism and socialism. Something more stupid than that is the folly he intends to ascribe to the great man he attempts to defame.
Let’s take it in parts. The Starwars Program was essential to drown economically the Soviets, consequently demonstrating the false economic grounds and the edifice of lies upon which the alleged “real socialism” was constituted. It may have been the greatest strategic plan of Reagan’s government, who knew of its outcomes for the foes of Western civilization. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent separation of the so-called popular republics of the soviet constelation were direct consequences of that strategic positioning. We can only spot here the statesman’s genius, which pacified the world, reducing the chances of a nuclear holocaust and virtually hemming in the insurgencies sponsored by the soviets throughout the world. The humankind has to confer honours on someone who accomplished a feat of that scope, but what expect of a Gramscian agent but the denial of good, in that case, the Greater Good?
The term ‘neo-liberalism’ has entered the jargon of leftist satanization because during the 80’s it was observed the
gradual defeat of their political follies, whether regarding the Democratic
Party or its European kindred. Reagan assumed the power among high inflation,
military discredit after the vexations of Carter in
Yes, Reagan reduced supposed social programs and weakened many of the foolishnesses that his democrat predecessors had made. But could it be different? There can be no rights for a few unless you create duties for the many, by practicing brazen unfairness and rendering men and women hostages of the state monthly allowance, turning them at last into grown children. In parallel, the enlargement of the State sacrifices economic development capacity. Regretfully, Reagan´s work, on that point, did not reach the extent it could have done. There´s still a lot to do. Set tramps to work is a tough task nowadays and it is regarded as bad politics. For the liar disciples of Gramsci, good becomes evil and beggars turn into virtuous people.
Who invented the meaning of compassion, it´s good to say, was neither capitalism nor socialism, but the religions. In the Western, the Judeo-Christian tradition holds charity as its chief mark. Capitalism is just a economic arrangement born out of the principles of our tradition, and because of that it arose in Christian societies spontaneously. Socialism has never guided itself for compassion, but for lie, tyranny and violence. Socialism is the rebirth of slavery wherever it was implanted and, of course, the imposition of artificial misery where otherwise abundance could exist. Socialism is the true western trash. It served only for a bunch of bold adventurers to take over the State power and make the nefarious use of it as described in History books. The real socialism is the true socialism.
In short, it is this kind of people that poisons Brazilian readers´ minds everyday, through newspapers, magazines, TV, radios and mass media vehicles. It is necessary that we unmask these contumacious liars. If it depends on me, they will be unmasked.
DISCUSSING THE WAGES
May, 25, 2004
To discuss the value of the minimum wage and the distribution of the social product between diferent economic agents and the government is always an arduous job. Many times the debaters bring to discussion a distributive drive and an activism that cloud rationality. The most awarded scholars often slip, whether in argumentation, or in language. They are not free from the heart-felt populist appeal
I mention here two articles published today in the press, one from
Roberto Mangabeira Unger ("Wage
Minimalism"), in Folha de São
Paulo, and another from José Pastore
("Informality suffocates minimum wage"), in Estadão
(TN: Estadão and Folha de
Sao Paulo are well-known Brazilian newspapers). We can say that these are two
examples of what is best in academic terms in
Unger is known as a leftist and aspirant to a political carrier. Of the two of them, he is the one who believes less in the forces of market and celebrates more the government´s intervention. That is the only way we will understand the folowing sentence: “ It is necessary to increase the income of the Brazilian people at the same time that we prevent that the wages’ growth is kept concentrated in the most capitalized sectors of economy. Growth that is not based on these two lines is growth that lacks deepening of our market and valorization of our worker”. Now, the first lesson in a good economics manual is that wages are set by the market. The one who values the worker is himself and whoever wants to hire him. The larger his productivity the larger his income, and it is reciprocal.
His antimarket smalltalk
continues: “ No big country of average income
It is more than clear that someone working in export agriculture tends to earn a lot more than someone who works in subsistence agriculture, because of the abyss that exists between both activities in productivity, to give an obvious example. It is impossible to transfer wealth from one to the other without a great deal of violence.
Unger closes his article supporting the dettachment of the minimum wage from the retirement funds but, in contradiction, changes back his argument, supporting that “The only link to be allowed is between minimum wage and minimum retirement”. It is a mad gringo’s samba (TN: expression that in Portuguese means a huge mess). He is able to say something and take it back in the same sentence.
Even being less leftist, José Pastore walks
down the same road, when he says that “ the
government did not approve a 'human minimum wage' because of the hole this
would put in the Social Security accounts”. What does “human minimum wage”
mean? Nothing, because there is not an equivalent animal or vegetable or even
mineral minimun wage. In fact, the minimun wage should be considered a maximum, due to the
very low productivitie of those who earn it, like
the many public workers in the city halls spreaded
“Human” wage is the one that is practiced by the market, nothing more. Anything outside of that is unhuman, because if it is larger, it is subsidy, if it is samaller, theft.
When Pastore says that the dettachment of the minimum wage from Social Security is “a devastating solution” we can see the inversion of reality that overwhelms the author. What is devastating is the simple existence of an arbitrary minimum wage, whatever its value is. Its rating is a great violence against the market, causing an increase in unemployment and, if it does not, in the estabilishment of informal work relationships.
Pastore makes a rethorical argumentation when he says that “If the beneficiary of the Social Security has to live nowadays with less than US$ 1,50 per day, what do these people that long for the dettachment want? Kill them so that they do not upset the public accounts?” The fact that the individual has an income from Social Security does not mean that he lives exclusivelly on that income. What we see in this Country is that most people that retire do not stop working, eihter because they do it when they are too young, or because they have family heritage, or, yet, because the children end up supporting the parents.
The solution proposed by Pastore is to face the informal jobs problem. But how? Informal workers only stay in this condition for lack of options. They are either too poor, clandestins trying to survive, as the street vendors, or those that use the possibility of starting companies to become pseudo-rentists, receiving dividends; and that is wage with a different name. Actually, they are not even informal workers, because they are in unison with the law.
To eliminate informal jobs is to eliminate the last breath of those
who have not drowned yet in the sea of unenployment.
The fake compassion of the author is shown in the following sentence: “ Informal jobs are a plague that extinguishe
the possibility of helping the poor”. It is the exact opposite. Without
informal jobs unenployment would mean the
impossibility of these people to biologically continue to exist. We would