First, two notes, in Portuguese (yep, I believe this is a first - the notes in Portuguese, the main subject in English).
Nota 1: Aparentemente, 2 fundos do BES investiram, desde 2008, +/- 2.2K milhões de euros exclusivamente em empresas do universo BES. Até aqui, tudo bem - investem onde quiserem, e a família acima de tudo. O divertido da questão é que os fundos em causa são apresentados como sendo de "risco reduzido". Obviamente. Afinal, é bem sabido que uma estratégia de quem procura reduzir o risco é investir tudo exclusivamente no mesmo cesto.
Nota 2: Bruxelas desconfia que o preço que a EDP pagou pelas concessões de exploração hidoreléctrica poderá não ter sido o "adequado". Isto aconteceu em 2007, e eles estão a abrir um inquério agora. E ainda falo eu mal da Justiça portuguesa.
Let's move on, shall we?
Those wacky folk at the IMF are at it again. This time, a team of their "technical staff" presented a report, "Reassessing the Role and Modalities of Fiscal Policy in Advanced Economies"; their conclusions in this report can be neatly summed up as: "Oops!"
Yep. The IMF team that authored this report looked at the policies put forth by the IMF in response to the crisis (policies enacted in countries like Portugal), and said that those policies might be "a wee bit" wrong on a number of fundamental aspects.
Upon reading this, I first felt outraged, thinking of all the lives damaged by these policies. But, as the outrage died and I considered all facts with a cooler head, I've reached a saddening conclusion - it's irrelevant.
At this point, these IMF staffers say they failed; and they present solutions. But their solutions are as worthy as their previous solutions, which they now say were incorrect.
As I said in previous posts, this is economy. Like most pseudo-sciences, economy likes to surround itself with the trappings of Science, in the hope that people will mistakenly assume it as such. But, unlike scientists, economists have no way of knowing, with any reasonable degree of certainty, whether or not they're right. They have no way to offer proof or demonstration of their theories, other, that is, than implementing said theories on the field and testing them on those countries that can't tell them to bugger off. Ergo, affecting real lives to prove or disprove their theories.
And there you have it: The IMF, the credible institution. Right "up" there, with the rating agencies, the Eurogroup, or Al-Qaeda. All similar, in the way they spout nonsense that is backed by no demonstrable evidence, and that everyone else is supposed to accept as an act of faith.
So, faced with this report that says "Our policies got some fundamental issues wrong", all I can say is: Welcome, IMF. Notice the vast amount of people here at this spot where you have just arrived. Notice, also, that all these people arrived at this spot (let's call it "conclusion", shall we?) waaaaaaay earlier than you did.
Not only does it speak volumes about your credibility, but also about your competence. But, what the heck! We can't demand much from those whose work is based on faith, can we?
Nota 1: Aparentemente, 2 fundos do BES investiram, desde 2008, +/- 2.2K milhões de euros exclusivamente em empresas do universo BES. Até aqui, tudo bem - investem onde quiserem, e a família acima de tudo. O divertido da questão é que os fundos em causa são apresentados como sendo de "risco reduzido". Obviamente. Afinal, é bem sabido que uma estratégia de quem procura reduzir o risco é investir tudo exclusivamente no mesmo cesto.
Nota 2: Bruxelas desconfia que o preço que a EDP pagou pelas concessões de exploração hidoreléctrica poderá não ter sido o "adequado". Isto aconteceu em 2007, e eles estão a abrir um inquério agora. E ainda falo eu mal da Justiça portuguesa.
Let's move on, shall we?
Those wacky folk at the IMF are at it again. This time, a team of their "technical staff" presented a report, "Reassessing the Role and Modalities of Fiscal Policy in Advanced Economies"; their conclusions in this report can be neatly summed up as: "Oops!"
Yep. The IMF team that authored this report looked at the policies put forth by the IMF in response to the crisis (policies enacted in countries like Portugal), and said that those policies might be "a wee bit" wrong on a number of fundamental aspects.
Upon reading this, I first felt outraged, thinking of all the lives damaged by these policies. But, as the outrage died and I considered all facts with a cooler head, I've reached a saddening conclusion - it's irrelevant.
At this point, these IMF staffers say they failed; and they present solutions. But their solutions are as worthy as their previous solutions, which they now say were incorrect.
As I said in previous posts, this is economy. Like most pseudo-sciences, economy likes to surround itself with the trappings of Science, in the hope that people will mistakenly assume it as such. But, unlike scientists, economists have no way of knowing, with any reasonable degree of certainty, whether or not they're right. They have no way to offer proof or demonstration of their theories, other, that is, than implementing said theories on the field and testing them on those countries that can't tell them to bugger off. Ergo, affecting real lives to prove or disprove their theories.
And there you have it: The IMF, the credible institution. Right "up" there, with the rating agencies, the Eurogroup, or Al-Qaeda. All similar, in the way they spout nonsense that is backed by no demonstrable evidence, and that everyone else is supposed to accept as an act of faith.
So, faced with this report that says "Our policies got some fundamental issues wrong", all I can say is: Welcome, IMF. Notice the vast amount of people here at this spot where you have just arrived. Notice, also, that all these people arrived at this spot (let's call it "conclusion", shall we?) waaaaaaay earlier than you did.
Not only does it speak volumes about your credibility, but also about your competence. But, what the heck! We can't demand much from those whose work is based on faith, can we?
No comments:
Post a Comment