Dear EU taxpayers (again)

Yes, it's me again.

Remember when I addressed you, asking what were your ambassadors doing, back when Portugal was spending your money like crazy?

Well, this week I came across this.

This shows an ambassador doing his job. I'm not a citizen of the USA, but I can admire a job well done, and this is such a case. The US citizens (and, as stated in this document, taxpayers) should be proud of their ambassador, for this report.

This a report of the US ambassador in Lisbon, regarding the FLAD foundation, which was set up as a means for the USA to fund a particular type of projects, namely "development, education and science projects" in Portugal. Sounds familiar? I thought so. Let's take a closer look at it, shall we?

In 1987, then-Prime Minister (and now President) Cavaco Silva reorganized the foundation in a move likely aimed at tightening GOP control over its programming and budget. Key authorities were moved from the Board of Directors (where the U.S. Ambassador has a seat) to the day-to-day executive council (where he does not)

So, for step #1, Portugal took control of FLAD and kept US oversight at a distance. Why? As stated elsewhere in the report,

USG contributions to FLAD eventually totaled $111 million

Now, that's a lot of millions, wouldn't you say? And how were these millions spent?

Well, here's the initial plan, straight from the report:

Thus, FLAD´s goal was to spend 75 percent of its available funds each year on grants for development, education and science projects

And here, without further ado, is the Portuguese interpretation of said plan (the emphasis is mine):

Rui Machete, a lawyer and politician who held cabinet positions in the 1983-85 Portuguese government (including Minister of Justice and Deputy Prime Minister) has been FLAD´s director since 1988, getting the job as a consolation prize after he lost his cabinet post in the change of government in 1985

He is wired into both major political parties and is suspected of disbursing FLAD grants to curry political favor and maintain his sinecure

Machete has historically opposed all efforts at independent oversight, professional accounting practices, and transparent review of FLAD´s programs

In 1992, Ambassador Briggs reported that, ”As long as Machete is there, FLAD can only be marginally useful to us.” The foundation´s overhead then was 60% of revenue, leaving only 40% for actual programming. Today, this figure is only somewhat better as FLAD continues to spend 46% of its budget on overhead for its luxurious art-adorned offices, bloated staff, fleet of chauffeured BMWs, and on ”personnel and administrative costs” that has included at times wardrobe allowances, low-interest loans to staff, and honoraria for staffers participating in FLAD´s own programs

Did you notice the figures, dear EU taxpayers? 75% investment planned; 40% actually executed, which later improved to +/- 55%? And the rest? Basically, wasted on the creation of a few more fortunes.

Your money went through a similar wasteful process. The only difference is that the US turned off the tap early, when they realized what was going on.

Apparently, you were incapable of doing the same.

Machete

Eu disse que não ia falar sobre os devaneios do PR, mas vou deixar apenas uma nota sobre a nova novela que estreou hoje, "Machete" (no relation, suponho).

Aqui temos mais alguém com um CV de causar inveja (pelo menos, ao Vale e Azevedo) mas que, curiosamente, parece ter perdido parte desse CV pelo caminho, quando chegou a hora de publicar a sua "biografia oficial".

Já o disse, e repito-o: Esta gente não tem talento sequer para mentir.

Stuck in repeat

Apesar do título, este é em português.

Duas notas, antes do tema principal.

• Por que não escrevi nada sobre a pensionista que se queixou dos carrascos (que, apenas por acaso, são os mesmos que lhe pagam a reforma)? Porque há gente que não merece mais que desprezo.

• Por falar nisso, também não vou perder tempo com estes devaneios do PR. Nenhum dos cromos envolvidos (incluindo o próprio PR) alguma vez soube o significado de "sentido de Estado", portanto não seria agora que o iriam aprender. Para esta gente, "sentido de Estado" é o sentido seguido pelo dinheiro do Estado para entrar para os seus bolsos.

Stuck in repeat, então...

O Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos condenou o Estado a pagar 1.5M de indemnizações pela tristeza que foi a Reforma Agrária. Tendo em conta que já pagou 240M, não me parece que esta gota de água faça grande diferença, mesmo nos tempos que correm. Se o 1.5M não fosse para isto, iria para pagar as contas das caixas de lenços dos novos donos do BPN, ou como prémio para mais uma gestora iluminada de um qualquer banco cujas burrices estão a ser pagas pelo Estado, como é normal.

O que é realmente esclarecedor aqui é o seguinte:

1. Repito, a Reforma Agrária foi uma tristeza. A nível pessoal, conheço uns poucos casos, um dos quais muito próximo, que revelam a total incompetência de quem trabalhava a terra para gerir uma exploração agrícola. Sim, trabalhar a terra é uma coisa, geri-la é outra.

2. Dito isto, entre quem trabalhava a terra, havia demasiada gente a viver em condições miseráveis, explorados por muitos dos donos dessas mesmas terras. A miséria de uns financiava a boa vida de outros.

O motivo pelo qual a "solução" aplicada (a Reforma Agrária) foi uma péssima ideia é exactamente o mesmo motivo pelo qual hoje em dia um "governo" (utilizando o sentido mais lato possível para esta palavra) de posição ideológica diametralmente oposta (redundância? Who cares?) aplica um conjunto de "soluções" de igual calibre de burrice - é mais fácil cortar a direito do que fazer um trabalho bem feito.

Olhando para os 2 pontos acima, qualquer pessoa com um total de neurónios superior a zero se apercebe que o problema a resolver reside nas condições miseráveis em que vivia quem trabalhava a terra. Como é que isso se resolve? Simples. Começamos por procurar as excepções a esta regra (sim, existiam), aprendemos como funcionam e, com base nessa aprendizagem, impomos esse funcionamento em todas as restantes explorações agrícolas.

Mas isto tem um problema - exige trabalho, e trabalhar é aborrecido, não é? É mais fácil simplesmente expropriar as terras aos donos, quer o merecessem, quer não, certo?

Sim, haveria muita gente que não fazia mais que explorar a mão de obra miserável que tinha à sua disposição. Mas, mesmos a estes, eu não lhes tiraria as terras. Definia um conjunto de regras para criar uma sociedade mais equilibrada, impunha-lhes essas regras, e depois segui-los-ia com muito mais atenção que aos outros, para ter a certeza que as novas regras não lhes "passavam ao lado".

Eu sou o primeiro a concordar com um dos objectivo por detrás da Reforma Agrária - tirar uma enormidade de pessoas da miséria, dar-lhes educação, transformá-los em cidadãos. Mas a Reforma Agrária nunca foi a solução para isso. Foi, antes de mais uma punição para uma determinada camada da sociedade (os donos das terras), onde punimos todos devido à canalhice de alguns (ou talvez até de muitos). Mas não só não nos demos ao trabalho de separar o trigo do joio nesta camada da sociedade, também não o fizemos nas pessoas (cooperativas) a quem entregámos as terras.

A Reforma Agrária fracassou, como tinha que fracassar, porque o trabalho foi mal feito. Porque se assumiu que de um lado (donos das terras) era tudo canalhas e do outro lado (trabalhadores) era tudo gente boa e explorada. Mais uma vez, parece-me óbvio que alguém com um cérebro funcional veria que havia canalhas e gente boa de ambos os lados, e o objectivo deveria ter sido aproveitar a gente boa e manter os canalhas controlados.

Aceito que me digam que no ambiente da altura, em pleno 75 revolucionário, seria difícil implementar uma solução séria. O que já não percebo foi como, ao longo dos anos que se seguiram, nada se fez para corrigir o erro. Lá está, não somos assim tão diferentes do contribuinte alemão, não é?

Quanto às burrices que se cometem hoje em dia, o motivo, tal como disse, é o mesmo - uma solução a sério exige trabalho, e trabalhar é aborrecido.

Existem outros motivos, outros interesses? Sim, claro, mas também naquela altura existiam. Tal como disse, canalhas, há-os em toda a parte.

A couple of missives

Dear Christine Lagard,

Please, allow me to correct a small error on your statements, yesterday, on Aix-en-Provence.

You've admitted, again, errors in the IMF policies. You've mentioned that admitting failure is the IMF's tradition, and you also noted that you've been, shall we say, insulted, when doing so in the past.

However, there's a small point missing from your line of reasoning. It is true that you have been treated in a fashion one might consider less than appropriate; however, the cause for such treatment lies not in your admission(s) of error, but rather in the baffling decision to ignore every shred of evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

And, while I'll certainly agree that the IMF has admitted its errors, I have also heard its staff in the troika shedding any responsibility for the poor results in Portugal, and placing it squarely in the shoulders of the Portuguese government. Perhaps your memo about admitting one's mea culpa has not yet reached the four corners of your organization?

What portrays you (and your associates, be it the ECB, the Bundesbank, or our ex-Finance Minister Vito Gaspar) as incompetent for the task you're supposed to be carrying out is not only the lack of results, but also this apparent inability to listen to those who do not share your beliefs.

You'll notice I've mentioned beliefs in this text, and in bold, no less! That stems from the fact that we're talking in the context of Economy. Were we talking in the context of a science, say, Physics, where one can apply an actual bona fide scientific method, I'd probably say hypotheses, instead of beliefs. However, Economy is not a science, and I can't refer to the application of formulas in Excel as "scientific method"; well, not with a straight face, anyway.

So, at the end of the day, Economy is little more than a religion. You make some prayers (no, the fact that your altar can perform millions of arithmetic/logic operations per second does not make it any better than other altar), you go forth with your holy workbooks, and you take on the world with your very peculiar version of "Smite the Infidel (or, at Least, Make Him Jobless and Remove All Wellfare Assistance)".

Which is why, dear madam, I'll give you the same credibility I give any other fundamentalist organization. And that, I'll wager, is what lies behind the lack of respect you mention.

Dear Fellow Europeans,

Yes, it's me again.

You might recall when I first addressed you, as EU taxpayers, and said this: "especially in a country with such an appalling judiciary as Portugal".

You might be tempted to ask "How appalling could it be?", right? Well, there are countless examples, but I'll share one with you, just because it's "fresh from the oven".

It's story of a woman who had an illegal nursery in an apartment. She took care of 17 babies/young children. Of course, care might be a bit misplaced here.

The woman's neighbours filmed her from across the street. She hit them constantly and repeatedly. What's the difference? Constantly means all the time; repeatedly means several times in succession, as in one occasion where a child is slapped in the face 7 times in a row. She fed them all from the same plate, with the same spoon/fork, with the same napkin (which, as seen on film, also doubles up as her nose handkerchief).

A news reporter from one of our TV stations (SIC) went there, with a hidden camera, posing as a mother looking for a nursery. The woman admitted she was operating illegally. The woman blatantly lied about the way she treated children (well, naturally). During the whole time, no child or baby made a sound, or moved from his mattress, or acknowledged, in any fashion, the arrival of a strange person in the apartment.

The woman is now required to go to court, which has been decided on 2013-07-04. So, how is this appalling? Well, the process was filed on 2011-05-27.

Yep, you got that right, my fellow Europeans. More than 2 years to bring this woman to court. And we had a film of the repeated aggressions, we had an admission of illegality also on film, and, to bring this to a whole new level of surrealism, the woman had already been caught by the authorities running an illegal nursery before.

Remember when I said I didn't understand how could you let investigations concerning your money in the hands of these people? Well, as the song went, I know a little...

Dear Fellow Europeans...

Portugal's credibility is mortally wounded. It's a funny thing, credibility, wouldn't you say? I'll come back to it in a moment.

We've followed an austerity recipe for the past 2 years. We're getting a bit fed up with it, at the moment. "Why?", you ask. Well, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's the total absence of results coupled with the complete presence of destructive side-effects. You see, it's not so much the austerity that bothers us, it's seeing that after all this austerity, we're still not getting anywhere.

Yes, it's true we haven't had much luck with our rulers (actually, that applies both to current and past rulers, but I'll just stick to the present). However, our current rulers have been "approved" by the troika. Our de facto PM (which was our Ex-Finance Minister Vitor Gaspar, not our actual PM) is highly regarded among every institution currently sending orders to Portugal. He has a brilliant resume, a "best of the best" career, with an European stamp of quality and approval.

I wonder, though. What happened to this brilliant fellow when he arrived here? Was it the air? The food? The weather, perhaps, as he so wittingly mentioned a few days ago in Parliament? Because this man, this shining beacon of European genius, was a total failure, here.

I could forgive the aforementioned recipe; after all, it was externally-imposed. However, he himself repeated, on numerous occasions, that he actually agreed with said recipe. Add to that all the budget adjustments and, particularly, all the consecutive failed predictions, and this starts looking like a not-so-brilliant chap, after all.

So, I've got to ask: Is this your level of demand for brilliant? Someone who defends a failed economic recipe, in fact, someone who defends a recipe that anyone with a reasonable count of brain cells - say, above 1 - predicted (correctly, if you care to notice this distinguishing trait) it would destroy the economy? Someone who presented failed prediction after failed prediction? Someone who, I assume based on the valour of the aforementioned brilliant European career, has the approval of a large majority of foreign decision makers and still can't work out a credible plan?

Because the performance of this man that arrived in Portugal with your (European) label of Brilliant has been below appalling.

You want Brilliant? I dislike everything that comes out of Cupertino, and I hated his tyrannical management style, but Steve Jobs was brilliant! I disapprove of Mourinho's arrogant image, but the man is brilliant! I hated when Anders Hejlsberg left Borland for Microsoft, but his work on Delphi and C# is brilliant. These are all examples of brilliant people. Not perfect, but as close as Humanity can aspire to. And there are plenty more men and women like those throughout the world, fortunately.

Vitor Gaspar? Not so much, my fellow Europeans. I don't know what exactly you've been drinking for these past decades (actually, I've pretty much asked that, the last time I addressed you), but the result of the work of this man you labelled as Brilliant is not even remotely close to anything any of those I mentioned above created.

I started with credibility. I'll finish with credibility.

It's not Portugal's credibility that's mortally wounded. It would be, if we were following our own plan. We weren't. We were following a bicephalous "plan" (for lack of a proper designation), which originated in the IMF and Berlin (no, Brussels is just for laughs). So, credit where credit's due.

If the recipe had worked, I'd be the first to say "I don't like it, but I respect results, so I'm willing to continue listening to what you're saying, carry on". But it didn't. The only "positive" aspect that came out of these two years is that, as countries like Portugal continue sliding down (and, eventually, out of the EU), the "interest game" for countries like Germany gets better and better.

Ah, you noticed the coincidence, too, right? The same country that's deciding what happens here has an incentive to make sure our situation doesn't actually improve. Life is full of coincidences.

So, you see, my fellow Europeans, when you mention Portugal's lack of credibility, the only thing that comes to mind is this quaint little phrase about a pot and a kettle.

Yours truly, etc...