A realidade é muito mais complexa

Há aquela frase: há sempre uma solução rápida, bonita, pacífica e... errada!
.
Muitas vezes as empresas arranjam uma resposta desse tipo para evitar ir ao fundo de uma questão. Por exemplo: por que é que as vendas baixaram?
.
.
- Ah! É a crise!
.
Entretanto, agora apanho "Setor do café duplica faturação em Portugal":

"Entre 2009 e 2015, o setor do café duplicou a faturação em Portugal, para 257 milhões de euros."

Ou seja, no auge da crise, nos anos mais negros da troika, nos anos de chumbo da austeridade o sector do café duplicou a facturação em Portugal.
.
Recordar os exemplos, durante esses anos:

• da Bimby - "O mercado interno não está morto"; "O morto mercado interno"; 
• da Tupperware - "Outro exemplo, outra lição"
• do café - "Aumentar a produtividade? Façam as contas!"; "Num ano de crise"

A realidade é muito mais complexa do que a prevista pelos modelos económicos povoados por econs.

Recordar “Commodities only exist in the minds of the inept"

"the proper way to model the behavior of rational agents, interacting in more or less efficient markets"

"As Michael Lewis reported gleefully in The Big Short, there were investors who made hundreds of millions of dollars betting on the upcoming disaster [a crise de 2008]. But those people were not economists. For the case of the mainstream economists, it was actually true that “no one could have known.” If you were the sort of person who could have known— or, even worse, who did know—then by definition you were not a mainstream economist. Therefore, you were “no one” in the eyes of those who were the guardians of professional identity.
...
To analyze the world in this way requires, in effect, the redefinition of human experience into a special language. That language must have a vocabulary limited to those concepts that can be dealt with inside the model. To accept these restrictions is to be an economist. Any refusal to shed the larger perspective—a stubborn insistence on bringing a broader set of facts or a different range of theory to bear—identifies one as “not an economist.” In this way, the economists need only talk to one another. Enclosed carefully in their monastery, they can speak their code, establish their status rankings and hierarchies, and persuade themselves and one another of their intellectual and professional merit. A community and a line of argument constructed in such a manner are unlikely to be well prepared for an event like the Great Financial Crisis.
...
The café society of the academic economist is not about taking on the problems of the larger world.
...
Within their charmed circle, there was little debate over dangers, risks, challenges, and the appropriate policies associated with such developments in the modern world as globalization, financialization, inequality, or the rise of China. History and law played as small a role as geophysics and political geography, which is to say almost no role at all. It was, rather, a chummy conversation over the proper way to model the behavior of rational agents, interacting in more or less efficient markets. And if you didn’t think that question was the central one, well, you weren’t really an economist, were you?...
The beauty in question was the “vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system.” ... Do biologists, for example, spend their time pondering the “beauty” of a “vision” of the living world as a “perfect system”? Do geologists worry about whether the beauty of rock layers is or is not perfect? The very mind-set is mystical."

Trechos retirados de "The End of Normal" de James K. Galbraith

E a única alavanca explicativa e descritora da realidade baseia-se em Econs

Daniel Kahneman em "Thinking, Fast and Slow" recorda:
.
"One day in the early 1970s, Amos handed me a mimeographed essay by a Swiss economist named Bruno Frey, which discussed the psychological assumptions of economic theory. I vividly remember the color of the cover: dark red. Bruno Frey barely recalls writing the piece, but I can still recite its first sentence: “The agent of economic theory is rational, selfish, and his tastes do not change.” I was astonished. My economist colleagues worked in the building next door, but I had not appreciated the profound difference between our intellectual worlds. To a psychologist, it is self-evident that people are neither fully rational nor completely selfish, and that their tastes are anything but stable. Our two disciplines seemed to be studying different species, which the behavioral economist Richard Thaler later dubbed Econs and Humans. Unlike Econs, the Humans that psychologists know have a System 1. Their view of the world is limited by the information that is available at a given moment (WYSIATI), and therefore they cannot be as consistent and logical as Econs. They are sometimes generous and often willing to contribute to the group to which they are attached. And they often have little idea of what they will like next year or even tomorrow.
...
Most graduate students in economics have heard about prospect theory and loss aversion, but you are unlikely to find these terms in the index of an introductory text in economics. I am sometimes pained by this omission, but in fact it is quite reasonable, because of the central role of rationality in basic economic theory. The standard concepts and results that undergraduates are taught are most easily explained by assuming that Econs do not make foolish mistakes. This assumption is truly necessary, and it would be undermined by introducing the Humans of prospect theory, whose evaluations of outcomes are unreasonably short-sighted. There are good reasons for keeping prospect theory out of introductory texts. The basic concepts of economics are essential intellectual tools, which are not easy to grasp even with simplified and unrealistic assumptions about the nature of the economic agents who interact in markets. Raising questions about these assumptions even as they are introduced would be confusing, and perhaps demoralizing. It is reasonable to put priority on helping students acquire the basic tools of the discipline."
.
Só que parece que os estudantes nunca chegam a ter contacto com as tentativas de descrição científica da tomada de decisões entre Humans, para eles as decisões são tomadas por Econs.
.
Depois, saem das universidades e chegam a posições de relevo e a única alavanca explicativa e descritora da realidade baseia-se em Econs:
.
"Custo do trabalho "reduzido" para estimular economia"
.
"Os custos do trabalho estão a ser reduzidos para melhorar a competitividade

...

Esta "redução de custos" deverá servir para "impulsionar o setor dos bens transacionáveis até se concretizar o impacto da agenda de reformas estruturais"."

.

Estes ex-estudantes não pescam nada da revolução económica em curso... são quase como os políticos da oposição que pedem mais crescimento, que eu traduzo por: mais autopistas e mais empréstimos bancários para consumo.

.

Ex-estudantes e políticos da oposição e da situação deviam procurar perceber melhor a economia dos Humans, o advento de Mongo e a recalibração em curso. Se olharmos para a nossa situaçãop actual como uma recessão clássica, então, os estímulos pedidos pela oposição e o discurso do ex-estudante agora ministro das Finanças, apontam para um regresso mais rápido ou mais lento a um set-point já vivido no passado. Ou seja, voltar a ter um PIB medonho assente em construção, comércio e empregos no Estado...

.

Estamos é a caminho de um outro set-point, diferente e, por isso, não servem as políticas dinamizadoras de um Grande Líder... a coisa vai mais como o fuçar de um conjunto de empreendedores. Talvez o termo seja próximo deste: efectuação.