Stiglitz: Independência do Banco Central É Desnecessária e Irrealizável

Cidadania & Cultura

Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz, vencedor do Prêmio Nobel e um dos mais famosos economistas de nossa época, desencadeou um discurso verbal contra a independência do banco central, em palestra na Índia, relata o The Times of India.

Segundo Stiglitz, a independência do banco central é um tanto superestimada, uma vez que ela não necessariamente se correlaciona com um melhor desempenho econômico. E, na prática, é politicamente inviável!

“[A crise] mostrou que um dos princípios centrais defendidas pelos banqueiros ocidentais – o desejo de independência do banco central – se tornou questionável na melhor das hipóteses… Na crise, os países com bancos centrais menos independentes tais como China, Índia e Brasil se comportaram muito, mas muito melhor do que os países com bancos centrais mais independentes na Europa e os Estados Unidos. Não existe tal coisa imaginada como instituições realmente independentes. Todas as instituições públicas têm de assumir…

Ver o post original 1.289 mais palavras

Alan Watts on Money vs. Wealth

by

“The moral challenge and the grim problem we face is that the life of affluence and pleasure requires exact discipline and high imagination.”

“What would you do if money was no object?”pioneering British philosopher Alan Watts, who popularized Zen teachings in the West, asked inone of his most memorable lectures. And yet, despite our best efforts not to worry about it, money is an object — so much so that it renders the question all the more urgent and pressing today, in our age of growing corporate greed coupled with increasing income inequality. Watts revisits the issue in greater depth in an essay titled “Wealth Versus Money,” found in the altogether fantastic 1970 anthology Does It Matter? Essays on Man’s Relation to Materiality(public library) — a poignant exploration of our tendency to confuse money with wealth, a manifestation of our more general inclination to mistake symbol for reality, which Watts considers “the peculiar and perhaps fatal fallacy of civilization.”

Watts writes:

Civilization, comprising all the achievements of art and science, technology and industry, is the result of man’s invention and manipulation of symbols — of words, letters, numbers, formulas and concepts, and of such social institutions as universally accepted clocks and rulers, scales and timetables, schedules and laws. By these means, we measure, predict, and control the behavior of the human and natural worlds — and with such startling apparent success that the trick goes to our heads. All too easily, we confuse the world as we symbolize it with the world as it is.

Alan Watts, early 1970s (Image courtesy of Everett Collection)

Among our most toxic symbol-as-reality tricks springs from the concept, use, and pursuit of money:

Money is a way of measuring wealth but is not wealth in itself. A chest of gold coins or a fat wallet of bills is of no use whatsoever to a wrecked sailor alone on a raft. He needs real wealth, in the form of a fishing rod, a compass, an outboard motor with gas, and a female companion. But this ingrained and archaic confusion of money with wealth is now the main reason we are not going ahead full tilt with the development of our technological genius for the production of more than adequate food, clothing, housing, and utilities for every person on earth.

Watts goes on to make a prediction — idealistic at the time, bittersweetly naive in retrospect — that “if we get our heads straight about money,” by the year 2000 “no one will pay taxes, no one will carry cash, utilities will be free, and everyone will carry a general credit card.” It’s worth noting that while some of it came true, and some might soon as we shift away from traditional currency, we have simply replaced one monetary currency with another, rather than evolving to embody Watts’s vision of redefining wealth altogether. He returns to the vital distinction:

Money is a measure of wealth, and we invent money as we invent the Fahrenheit scale of temperature or the avoirdupois measure of weight… By contrast with money, true wealth is the sum of energy, technical intelligence, and raw materials.

Considering the question of the national debt — “a roundabout piece of semantic obscurantism” — Watts argues that we go into debt, as individuals and as nations, precisely because we confuse money with wealth, the worst symptom of which is war:

No one goes into debt except in emergency; and therefore, prosperity depends on maintaining the perpetual emergency of war. We are reduced, then, to the suicidal expedient of inventing wars when, instead, we could simply have invented money — provided that the amount invented was always proportionate to the real wealth being produced…

If we shift from the gold standard to the wealth standard, prices must stay more or less where they are at the time of the shift and — miraculously — everyone will discover that he has enough or more than enough to wear, eat, drink, and otherwise survive with affluence and merriment.

Illustration from ‘How People Earn and Use Money,’ 1968. Click image for details.

And yet, Watts recognizes, there is enormous cultural resistance to such an awareness, one reinforced by our material monoculture:

It is not going to be at all easy to explain this to the world at large, because mankind has existed for perhaps one million years with relative material scarcity, and it is now roughly a mere one hundred years since the beginning of the industrial revolution. As it was once very difficult to persuade people that the earth is round and that it is in orbit around the sun, or to make it clear that the universe exists in a curved space-time continuum, it may be just as hard to get it through to “common sense” that the virtues of making and saving money are obsolete.

Understanding the distinction between money and wealth, Watts argues, would help us realize that “there are limits to the real wealth that any individual can consume” — that we can’t really “drive four cars at once, live simultaneously in six homes, take three tours at the same time, or devour twelve roasts of beef at one meal.” Acknowledging the semi-serious facetiousness of this picture, he writes:

I am trying to make the deadly serious point that, as of today, an economic utopia is not wishful thinking but, in some substantial degree, the necessary alternative to self-destruction.

The moral challenge and the grim problem we face is that the life of affluence and pleasure requires exact discipline and high imagination.

Illustration from ‘How People Earn and Use Money,’ 1968. Click image for details.

Reflecting on how easily we become habituated to comfort, affluence, and pleasure, Watts echoes Bertrand Russell’s lament — “What will be the good of the conquest of leisure and health, if no one remembers how to use them?” — and notes:

Affluent people in the United States have seldom shown much imagination in cultivating the arts of pleasure.

He paints an alternative picture for cultivating the art of leisure in its proper form — an idea glimmers of which we begin to see in the groundswell of today’s maker culture:

A leisure economy will provide opportunity to develop the frustrated craftsman, painter, sculptor, poet, composer, yachtsman, explorer, or potter that is in us all — if only we could earn a living that way. Certainly, there will be a plethora of bad and indifferent productions from so many unleashed amateurs, but the general long-term effect should be a tremendous enrichment of the quality and variety of fine art, music, food, furniture, clothing, gardens, and even homes — created largely on a do-it-yourself basis.

And yet what prevents us from truly cultivating such an economy is a fundamental disconnect. He admonishes:

Here’s the nub of the problem. We cannot proceed with a fully productive technology if it must inevitably Los Angelesize the whole earth, poison the elements, destroy all wildlife, and sicken the bloodstream with the promiscuous use of antibiotics and insecticides. Yet this will be the certain result of the technological enterprise conducted in the hostile spirit of a conquest of nature with the main object of making money.

Illustration from ‘How People Earn and Use Money,’ 1968. Click image for details.

While this problem has been tragically exacerbated since Watts’s day, it’s worth remembering that our choices — our individual, everyday choices — matter. But equally important, Watts points out, are the choices made by those who hold power in the world, both commercial and political. Noting that “many corporations — and even more so their shareholders — are unbelievably blind to their own material interests,” Watts writes:

It is an oversimplification to say that this is the result of business valuing profit rather than product, for no one should be expected to do business without the incentive of profit. The actual trouble is that profit is identified entirely with money, as distinct from the real profit of living with dignity and elegance in beautiful surroundings…

To try to correct this irresponsibility by passing laws (e.g., against absentee ownership) would be wide of the point, for most of the law has as little relation to life as money to wealth. On the contrary, problems of this kind are aggravated rather than solved by the paperwork of politics and law. What is necessary is at once simpler and more difficult: only that financiers, bankers, and stockholders must turn themselves into real people and ask themselves exactly what they want out of life — in the realization that this strictly practical and hard–nosed question might lead to far more delightful styles of living than those they now pursue. Quite simply and literally, they must come to their senses — for their own personal profit and pleasure.

What it takes to return to our senses, Watts argues, is to reconsider our illusion of the separate ego and acknowledge our interconnectedness with the world in all its material and metaphysical manifestations:

Coming to our senses must, above all, be the experience of our own existence as living organisms rather than “personalities,” like characters in a play or a novel acting out some artificial plot in which the persons are simply masks for a conflict of abstract ideas or principles. Man as an organism is to the world outside like a whirlpool is to a river: man and world are a single natural process, but we are behaving as if we were invaders and plunderers in a foreign territory. For when the individual is defined and felt as the separate personality or ego, he remains unaware that his actual body is a dancing pattern of energy that simply does not happen by itself. It happens only in concert with myriads of other patterns — called animals, plants, insects, bacteria, minerals, liquids, and gases. The definition of a person and the normal feeling of “I” do not effectively include these relationships. You say, “I came into this world.” You didn’t; you came out of it, as a branch from a tree.

It all comes full circle as we begin to see that this notion of the artificial ego is at the root of our mistaking money for wealth and symbol for reality:

The greatest illusion of the abstract ego is that it can do anything to bring about radical improvement either in itself or in the world. This is as impossible, physically, as trying to lift yourself off the floor by your own bootstraps. Furthermore, the ego is (like money) a concept, a symbol, even a delusion — not a biological process or physical reality.

Does It Matter? Essays on Man’s Relation to Materiality is a wonderful and soul-expanding read in its entirety. Complement it with Watts on happiness and how to live with presence, our media gluttony, and how the ego keeps us from becoming who we really are.

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/05/29/alan-watts-on-money-vs-wealth/

Buddhist Economics: How to Stop Prioritizing Goods Over People and Consumption Over Creative Activity

by

“Work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure.”

Much has been said about the difference between money and wealth and how we, as individuals, can make more of the latter, but the divergence between the two is arguably even more important the larger scale of nations and the global economy. What does it really mean to create wealth for people — for humanity — as opposed to money for governments and corporations?

That’s precisely what the influential German-born British economist, statistician, Rhodes Scholar, and economic theorist E. F. Schumacher explores in his seminal 1973 book Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered (public library) — a magnificent collection of essays at the intersection of economics, ethics, and environmental awareness, which earned Schumacher the prestigious Prix Européen de l’Essai Charles Veillon award and was deemed by The Times Literary Supplement one of the 100 most important books published since WWII. Sharing an ideological kinship with such influential minds as Tolstoy and Gandhi, Schumacher’s is a masterwork of intelligent counterculture, applying history’s deepest, most timeless wisdom to the most pressing issues of modern life in an effort to educate, elevate and enlighten.

One of the most compelling essays in the book, titled “Buddhist Economics,”applies spiritual principles and moral purpose to the question of wealth. Writing around the same time that Alan Watts considered the subject, Schumacher begins:

“Right Livelihood” is one of the requirements of the Buddha’s Noble Eightfold Path. It is clear, therefore, that there must be such a thing as Buddhist economics.

[…]

Spiritual health and material well-being are not enemies: they are natural allies.

Traditional Western economics, Schumacher argues, is bedeviled by a self-righteousness of sorts that blinds us to this fact — a fundamental fallacy that considers “goods as more important than people and consumption as more important than creative activity.” He writes:

Economists themselves, like most specialists, normally suffer from a kind of metaphysical blindness, assuming that theirs is a science of absolute and invariable truths, without any presuppositions. Some go as far as to claim that economic laws are as free from “metaphysics” or “values” as the law of gravitations.

From this stems our chronic desire to avoid work and the difficulty of findingtruly fulfilling work that aligns with our sense of purpose. Schumacher paints the backdrop for the modern malady of overwork:

There is universal agreement that a fundamental source of wealth is human labor. Now, the modern economist has been brought up to consider “labor” or work as little more than a necessary evil. From the point of view of the employer, it is in any case simply an item of cost, to be reduced to a minimum if it cannot be eliminated altogether, say, by automation. From the point of view of the workman, it is a “disutility”; to work is to make a sacrifice of one’s leisure and comfort, and wages are a kind of compensation for the sacrifice. Hence the ideal from the point of view of the employer is to have output without employees, and the ideal from the point of view of the employee is to have income without employment.

The consequences of these attitudes both in theory and in practice are, of course, extremely far-reaching. If the ideal with regard to work is to get rid of it, every method that “reduces the work load” is a good thing. The most potent method, short of automation, is the so-called “division of labor”… Here it is not a matter of ordinary specialization, which mankind has practiced from time immemorial, but of dividing up every complete process of production into minute parts, so that the final product can be produced at great speed without anyone having had to contribute more than a totally insignificant and, in most cases, unskilled movement of his limbs.

Schumacher contrasts this with the Buddhist perspective:

The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at least threefold: to give a man a chance to utilize and develop his faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centeredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence. Again, the consequences that flow from this view are endless. To organize work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul-destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of this worldly existence. Equally, to strive for leisure as an alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure.

From the Buddhist point of view, there are therefore two types of mechanization which must be clearly distinguished: one that enhances a man’s skill and power and one that turns the work of man over to a mechanical slave, leaving man in a position of having to serve the slave.

E.F. Schumacher

With an undertone of Gandhi’s timeless words, Schumacher writes:

Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilization not in a multiplication of wants but in the purification of human character. Character, at the same time, is formed primarily by a man’s work. And work, properly conducted in conditions of human dignity and freedom, blesses those who do it and equally their products.

But Schumacher takes care to point out that the Buddhist disposition, rather than a condemnation of the material world, is a more fluid integration with it:

While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is mainly interested in liberation. But Buddhism is “The Middle Way” and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well-being. It is not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to wealth; not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but the craving for them. The keynote of Buddhist economics, therefore, is simplicity and non-violence. From an economist’s point of view, the marvel of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern — amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfactory results.

This concept, Schumacher argues, is extremely difficult for an economist from a consumerist culture to grasp as we once again bump up against the warped Western prioritization of productivity over presence:

[The modern Western economist] is used to measuring the “standard of living” by the amount of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who consumes more is “better off” than a man who consumes less. A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption.

[…]

The ownership and the consumption of goods is a means to an end, and Buddhist economics is the systematic study of how to attain given ends with the minimum means.

[Western] economics, on the other hand, considers consumption to be the sole end and purpose of all economic activity, taking the factors of production — land, labor, and capital — as the means. The former, in short, tries to maximize human satisfactions by the optimal pattern of consumption, while the latter tries to maximize consumption by the optimal pattern of productive effort.

This maximization of “human satisfactions,” Schumacher argues, is rooted in two intimately related Buddhist concepts — simplicity and non-violence:

The optimal pattern of consumption, producing a high degree of human satisfaction by means of a relatively low rate of consumption, allows people to live without great pressure and strain and to fulfill the primary injunctions of Buddhist teaching: “Cease to do evil; try to do good.” As physical resources are everywhere limited, people satisfying their needs by means of a modest use of resources are obviously less likely to be at each other’s throats than people depending upon a high rate of use. Equally, people who live in highly self-sufficient local communities are less likely to get involved in large-scale violence than people whose existence depends on worldwide systems of trade.

Writing shortly after Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring sparked the modern environmental movement, Schumacher presages the modern groundswell of advocacy for sustainable locally sourced products:

From the point of view of Buddhist economics … production from local resources for local needs is the most rational way of economic life, while dependence on imports from afar and the consequent need to produce for export to unknown and distant peoples is highly uneconomic and justifiable only in exceptional cases and on a small scale.

He concludes by framing the enduring value of a Buddhist approach to economics, undoubtedly even more urgently needed today than it was in 1973:

It is in the light of both immediate experience and long-term prospects that the study of Buddhist economics could be recommended even to those who believe that economic growth is more important than any spiritual or religious values. For it is not a question of choosing between “modern growth” and “traditional stagnation.” It is a question of finding the right path to development, the Middle Way between materialist heedlessness and traditionalist immobility, in short, of finding “Right Livelihood.”

Small Is Beautiful is a superb read in its entirety. Complement it with Kurt Vonnegut on having enough and Thoreau on redefining success.

Thanks, Jocelyn

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/07/07/buddhist-economics-schumacher/

Custo de Oportunidade entre Mercado Financeiro e Mercado Imobiliário

Cidadania & Cultura

Índice FIPE-ZAP X CDIVariação do preço do m2 de aluguelPreços do m2 para compra de imóvel

O primeiro gráfico é enganador quando não o avalia cuidadosamente. Sendo o Índice FIPE-ZAP de base fixa (0% em janeiro de 2008), ele não mostra perda de ritmo de crescimento nos preços de imóveis. Mas fica claro que investir em imóvel foi uma rota de fuga face às consequências da crise financeira do último trimestre de 2008. Nele, o ganho de capital em imóvel é cumulativo, ou seja, não revela flutuações em curto prazo.

O valor médio do metro quadrado para compra de imóvel nos bairros de Ipanema ou Leblon, no Rio de Janeiro, p.ex., está estável em torno de R$ 13.000 / m2. Para aluguel, gira em torno de R$ 70 /m2, ou seja, um apartamento de 100 m2 custaria, mensalmente, R$ 7.000,00. Vale dispender R$ 1.300.000 para comprá-lo para habitá-lo durante 2,5 anos? O aluguel seria o equivalente a 0,54% desse valor. Se o potencial comprador consegue um rendimento em juros…

Ver o post original 566 mais palavras

Carta Aberta à EEL/UNILINS

Prezados, Meireles, Amigos, Colegas, Alunos e Professores,

Meu foco de ação aqui é o futuro do presente, visando o encontro de 11 de outubro,  como foram as tentativas anteriores, seja em 2012 e em 2013.  (No dia 10, na sexta à tarde estaremos em um pequeno grupo no Chopão, todos estão convidados e serão bem vindos).

Vamos transformar vontade em ação, a “A vontade dos colegas que estão a frente da AELINS é promover encontros principalmente em São Paulo e outras cidades para aumentar este relacionamento profissional“, adicionar a vontade das demais pessoas, seja da instituição EEL/UNILINS e/ou ex-alunos, em fatos concretos, vamos ampliar o raio de ação para além da comemoração, emoção e a saudade, criar um Forum para a troca de ideias e experiências, seja profissional, seja sobre o futuro da Instituição dentro do contexto das mudanças geopolíticas globais e a educação nesse contexto.

Alias, gostaria de ressaltar, que o nascimento da EEL, guardadas as devidas proporções, encontra semelhança as mudanças globais do mundo hoje, pois foi num contexto das mudanças mundiais do pós-guerra, dos anos dourados global e local com JK e o nascimento de Brasília, da Bossa Nova, do Cinema Novo, do projeto do Rodoanel da grande São Paulo que ainda não está pronto, da construção da Rodovia Castelo Branco,etc, etc, etc….

Wikipedia, Histórico: “Os primeiros estudos para a construção da rodovia datam de 1953, e, de acordo com o DER-SP, o projeto é de 1961. Destinada a ser a primeira autoestrada brasileira, sua construção teve início em 1963

Aqui gostaria de lembrar algumas palavras de memória das aulas do Jairo Porte em 1982, “Na inauguração da rodovia forma construídos quilômetros e mais quilômetros de flores no meio do canteiro da rodovia, um desperdício de dinheiro público absurdo,….

Eu vou na jugular, começar principalmente onde nascemos e fomos batizados como engenheiro, em nossa casa, que pode se estender também para qualquer outro local e cidade, pois o bom filho a casa torna. Como dizia Jorge Amado, “o global é o local sem muros“.

Gostaria de ressaltar um ponto chave, creio, que esse não é somente mais um encontro, e sim mais um encontro de meio século de existência da EEL, Portanto, para quem gosto do que faz, faz com alegria, prazer e reflexão, pois andam ou podem andar juntos. O fazer precede o saber, e o saber precede o ensinar, já diziam à milênios, os sábios e analfabetos, como Sócrates, que não só era analfabeto, mas era contra a escrita, essa aposta ele perdeu.

Meireles, eu agradeço-lhe pelo convite (Gostaria que voce se prepara-se para colocar a sua ideia na nossa solenidade de forma clara e objetiva.), mas não será necessário, posso perfeitamente, como muitos aqui, usar este espaço, no encontro pretendo sentar lá no fundão da sala 13.

No encontro eu gostaria de ouvir histórias em palestras dos fundadores, quem sabe do Jairo Porto, ou Casadei, ou os dois e demais fundadores que pensaram e colocaram as ideias em ação, em prática, e que ainda continuam na luta, é deles que gostaria da presença no encontro, principalmente ouvir a história do nascimento da EEL nesses 50 anos. Assim como de ex-alunos, como Sérgio Boaventura,  que creio foi aluno da primeira turma.  Certamente estará presente em espírito, meus mestres e de muitos, Nabuco, Agarbe, e o Edgar Pastorello, que nos tratava como um igual, como um amigo.

O mundo de meio século atrás na qual o mestre Jair Bernardes, uma grande figura humana, dizia a primeira definição da palavra engenharia da Inglaterra do século XVIII/XIX: “a engenharia e a arte de dirigir as grandes fontes de energia, para uso e conveniência do homem”.

Essa definição não é uma definição de engenheiro, ou só de engenheiros, é uma construção de modelo de mundo que vem de longa data, desde o renascimento ou desde que Marco Polo voltou da China no século XIII e mudou a visão do hoje velho continente.

Na minha modesta visão é esse modelo de mundo que está desabando, podem ser limitada, e o são, mas as digo:

Celso Furtado e o Ocidente em ‘State of Denial’ (03/10/2013)

Como o início do desabamento da catedral da ciência da certeza no final do século XIX com Henri Poincaré, e com o físico vienense, Ludwig Boltzmann, mas que ainda está em nossos comportamentos, em nossas ações do dia a dia, e muitas vezes não sabemos.

A AELINS não é um objetivo final para mim, não participei no passado, não estou participando e não vou participar no futuro, mas pode ser mais um canal para criamos Foruns e levarmos ideias e propostas concretas a Instituição de ensino que nasceu como EEL e que completa meio século, o que eu gostaria é de participar de um grupo para essas reflexões e ações.

Nos dias de hoje, eu só acredito em um único partido, o POA – Partido do Oswaldo e Amigos, nem votar mais eu voto, eliminei pontos que considero não prioritários. Mas tenho sim uma visão sobre as questões políticas e geopolíticas, e o foco dessa visão se restringe aos cenários, se ganhar A, ou B ou C, seja qual for ovencedor, quais podem ser os cenários, de oportunidades e riscos em meus negócios.

As minhas reflexões dos últimos anos pode ser dividas em três fases, otimista-ufanista, pessimista e a realidade dos fatos, como dizia Eduardo Galeano, “Nós somos o que fazemos, mas somos especialmente, o que fazemos para mudar o que somos”:

1-      1- Fase otimista-ufanista:

Dobrando à aposta de JK (50 anos em 5): Desenvolver 100 anos numa geração

Brasil, a primeira sociedade afluente dos trópicos?

DOM, 20/11/2011 – 10:55 ATUALIZADO EM 02/12/2012 – 03:16

2-      2-Fase pessimista e apostas em cenários da política tupiniquim:

Uma aposta na ruptura da polarização entre PT e PSDB de duas décadas

SAB, 19/01/2013 – 13:46 ATUALIZADO EM 20/02/2013 – 11:54

Brasil: sociedade na adolescência -“Alunos Forever”

TER, 29/01/2013 – 14:10 ATUALIZADO EM 30/01/2013 – 19:03

O lulismo e a desafiante do poder, Marina Silva

QUA, 13/02/2013 – 16:58 ATUALIZADO EM 14/02/2013 – 20:3

O ‘Brasil Nação’ hoje é a Alemanha de Friedrich List em 1841

Enviado por Oswaldo Conti-Bosso, qui, 04/04/2013 – 13:47

3- Realidade dos fatos – Cenários de geopolíticas:

Celso Furtado e o Ocidente em ‘State of Denial’

Publicado em outubro 3, 2013

Marina Silva, o Lula de saia, sem jogo de cintura

DOM, 31/08/2014 – 20:07

Saudações a todos,

Engenharia de ideia e laços sociais.

Oswaldo Conti-Bosso

Quem sou e de onde vim?

Postado por Oswaldo Conti-Bosso em 11 fevereiro 2011

Penápolis: “a princesinha da noroeste”

Enviado por Oswaldo Conti-Bosso, dom, 07/10/2012 – 11:16

Prova no mimeógrafo, perdi a prova, mas não piada

Enviado por Oswaldo Conti-Bosso, qui, 24/01/2013 – 20:00

A “Carteirinha de Estudante” (1974), o Diretor e Eu (garoto)

Enviado por Oswaldo Conti-Bosso, dom, 03/02/2013 – 10:55

Hans and Ola Rosling: How not to be ignorant about the world

Tradução livre do site TED:

Quanto você sabe sobre o mundo? Hans Rosling, com suas famosas interações sobre a população global, saúde e renda (dados globais) e um marcador de lousa extra-extra grande, demonstra que você tem a chance estatística alta de estar completamente errado sobre o que você acha que sabe. Aplicando junto com seu público questionários -, então, a partir de seu filho, Ola, aprenda 4 maneiras de ser rapidamente menos ignorante.

(How much do you know about the world? Hans Rosling, with his famous charts of global population, health and income data (and an extra-extra-long pointer), demonstrates that you have a high statistical chance of being quite wrong about what you think you know. Play along with his audience quiz — then, from Hans’ son Ola, learn 4 ways to quickly get less ignorant.)

Um alívio: veja e constate que os jornalistas/mídia sabem bem menos que você

Ainda sem legenda em Português:

Mckinsey: Rethinking bank risk in emerging markets

Rethinking bank risk in emerging markets

Macroeconomic developments, heightened regulation, and pressure on margins and profitability are moving risk management to the top of the agenda for CEOs and their boards.

September 2014 | byOmar Costa, Jawad Khan, and Alfonso Natale