Lula, na reta final

Os 10 piores momentos de Lula | OrdemLivre, 21/10/2010:

Nenhuma economia atual é totalmente livre nem totalmente estatizada. Impera em todos os países do mundo o intervencionismo, uma mistura de estado e mercado na economia. No entanto, sempre que o intervencionismo entra em crise, a culpa cai sobre o mercado. Ao Estado só cabe o papel de salvador da pátria. Quando defende essa dicotomia falsa, o presidente Lula colabora para que o desenvolvimento econômico brasileiro continue engatinhando. A evidência é clara: quanto mais estado, menor crescimento econômico.

A grande recessão de 2008 foi resultado de bancos centrais do mundo inteiro adotando políticas de crédito barato, o que descola o investimento privado da poupança real, e leva investidores a financiar projetos que só existem por causa dos juros artificiais do governo. Isso quando o governo não favorece certos projetos deliberadamente, como as políticas imobiliárias americanas.

O livre mercado, por definição, nega a intervenção do estado. Mas quem foi que disse que o mercado brasileiro quer ser livre? Pelo contrário, o Brasil tem uma tradição de chocadeira protecionista. As empresas escolhidas pelo governo são amamentadas com o crédito do BNDES, protegidas da competição externa por meio de tarifas e da interna por políticas de antitruste. Se enfraquecerem, levam uma injeção de subsídio e se quebrarem suas dívidas serão relativizadas.

Esse é apenas um dos momentos elegidos; há outros também, como a defesa não dos países, mas dos ditadores da Venezuela, Cuba e Irã. Há também uma cobertura interessante na The Economist (gracias, Daniel). Seguem os links abaixo.

Brazil's presidential election: Better late than never? (21/10/2010):

In one, the polls are overstating Ms Rousseff’s lead. She has gained all she can from Lula’s support, and it was not enough. Exposed as an un-Christian flip-flopper and shorn of the momentum that came from seeming inevitability, she will see her voters melt away.

Brazil's presidential election: Lula's legacy (30/09/2010):

Lula said then that in a second term his priority would be tax, political, labour and pension reforms. These are sorely needed: the tax system is multilayered and burdensome, politics prone to corruption and gridlock, labour laws rigid and anachronistic and pensions for public employees absurdly generous. Yet none of these reforms happened, despite (or perhaps because of) Lula’s soaring popularity.(...)

In August the PMDB’s leader, Michel Temer, who will be vice-president if Ms Rousseff is elected, told party members to campaign hard for her, saying that in return they would partake in what he described as the “sharing out of the bread”.

Brazil's presidential election: Second round, second thoughts?(21/10/2010):

Ms Rousseff and the ruling Workers’ Party (PT) want the state to play a bigger role in the economy. They are especially keen on that in the oil industry, but they also want to keep lending public money to big business to create national champions. In return, in some cases, they want more influence over boardroom decisions. It is hard to see them putting a stop to the inexorable growth of the public payroll, swollen by many PT appointees, and of the tax burden required to pay for it. (...)

There are two other reasons why Brazilians would do well to favour Mr Serra. The first is that Ms Rousseff is not Lula. She lacks his extraordinary political gifts and perhaps also his innate pragmatism. By contrast, although Mr Serra may be a poor campaigner, he has been an effective minister, mayor and governor. Second, although no political party has a monopoly when it comes to corruption, there are plenty of signs that the PT has become too cosy with power. After eight years under the PT Brazil would benefit from a change at the top.