"Subir Lall, que está em Portugal para conduzir a quarta missão de monitorização do pós- programa, evitou os temas mais polémicos e em relação aos quais está em desacordo com o actual Governo. Contudo, Nuno Alves, sub-director do departamento de estudos do Banco de Portugal, que moderou o debate, surpreendeu o chefe de missão quando lhe perguntou se reconhece que o salário mínimo nacional (SMN) é um instrumento importante para reduzir a desigualdade.Estes directores do Banco de Portugal fazem-me recordar aquela frase: é preciso destruir a aldeia para salvar a aldeia.
.
"Claro que não podemos deixar que a desigualdade cresça”, reconheceu, mas “o aumento dos rendimentos deve ser feito por via do aumento da procura e não através do aumento do SMN”. “Se estão preocupados com a desigualdade e com a pobreza, têm de se preocupar com os desempregados", defendeu este responsável, cujo organismo que representa defende que o aumento do SMN afecta negativamente a criação de emprego."
.
Estes catequistas são do pior para dar cabo da economia e estragar a vida às pessoas. Recordar a via negativa:
"Recall that the interventionista focuses on positive action - doing. Just like positive definitions, we saw that acts of commission are respected and glorified by our primitive minds and lead to, say, naive government interventions that end in disaster, followed by generalized complaints about naive government interventions, as these, it is now accepted, end in disaster, followed by more naive government interventions. Acts of omission, not doing something, are not considered acts and do not appear to be part of one’s mission. ... I have used all my life a wonderfully simple heuristic: charlatans are recognizable in that they will give you positive advice, and only positive advice, exploiting our gullibility and sucker-proneness for recipes that hit you in a flash as just obvious, then evaporate later as you forget them.Trecho retirado de "Subir Lall defende participação dos desempregados nas políticas laborais"
...
in practice it is the negative that’s used by the pros, those selected by evolution: chess grandmasters usually win by not losing; people become rich by not going bust (particularly when others do); religions are mostly about interdicts; the learning of life is about what to avoid. You reduce most of your personal risks of accident thanks to a small number of measures.
...
So the central tenet of the epistemology I advocate is as follows: we know a lot more what is wrong than what is right, or, phrased according to the fragile/robust classification, negative knowledge (what is wrong, what does not work) is more robust to error than positive knowledge (what is right, what works). So knowledge grows by subtraction much more than by addition—given that what we know today might turn out to be wrong but what we know to be wrong cannot turn out to be right, at least not easily."
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário