São os incentivos, estúpido. Ou o que é demais é moléstia!

"Carlos Tavares, que no final do ano passado assumiu funções como assessor da administração da Caixa Geral de Depósitos, concordou que, "de facto, hoje o que resta à política económica é criar os incentivos correctos ou, pelo menos, não criar os incentivos errados". E recordou que "muita da má afectação de investimento deve-se a incentivos de política e regulatórios errados e que encaminham o investimento para os sectores errados". Aliás, acrescentou, "o próprio Estado foi um grande investidor no sector não transaccionável e acumulámos uma grande dívida pública e privada para investir em sectores que não foram os mais eficientes"."

Primeiro não existem sectores errados. Todos os sectores são necessários numa economia saudável.

Segundo, arrisco dizer que não existem incentivos correctos nem incentivos errados. Todos os incentivos são errados. Ponto

Terceiro, os incentivos pretendem reduzir a incerteza e as pessoas procuram "The choice for a sure bet". Resultado, vamos ter sempre um overshoot que torce e desforma o mercado. Recordar os exemplos do leite ou o das auto-estradas.

Prefiro a Via Negativa. Primeiro:

"Primum non nocere"

Ou seja (recordando Nassim Taleb em Antifragile):

"what is called in Latin via negativa, the negative way, after theological traditions, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Via negativa does not try to express what God is - leave that to the primitive brand of contemporary thinkers and philosophasters with scientistic tendencies. It just lists what God is not and proceeds by the process of elimination.
...
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.
...
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."

Trecho inicial retirado de "Daniel Bessa: "Não há razão nenhuma para não ser corrupto em Portugal""

"by removing parts, via negativa"

Esta manhã a caminho do escritório li mais umas páginas do futuro novo livro de Nassim Taleb.

Ao ler:

"SYSTEMS LEARN BY REMOVING.
Now, if you are going to highlight a single section from this book, here is the one. The interventionista case is central to our story because it shows how absence of skin in the game has both ethical and epistemological effects (i.e., related to knowledge).
...
Returning to our interventionistas, we saw that people don’t learn so much from their –and other people’s –mistakes; rather it is the system that learns by selecting those less prone to a certain type of mistakes and eliminating others.
.
Systems learn by removing parts, via negativa.
Many bad pilots, as we mentioned, are currently in the bottom of the Atlantic, many dangerous bad drivers in the local quiet cemetery thanks to skin in the game – so transportation didn’t get safer just because people learn from errors, but because the system does. The experience of the system is different from that of an individual and requires such a filtering. This remains the central point about disincentives that has been missed so far."

Ao mesmo tempo que lia estas linhas imediatamente recordei e fiz a ponte para este postal, ""Nations do not trade; it is firms that trade"", de Novembro de 2007 e estas frases:

"It is widely believed that restructuring has boosted productivity by displacing low-skilled workers and creating jobs for the high skilled.
...
In essence, creative destruction means that low productivity plants are displaced by high productivity plants.[Moi ici: A produtividade aumenta by removing parts, via negativa]

...
As creative destruction is shown to be an important element of economic growth, there is definitely a case for public policy to support this process, or at least avoid disturbing it without good reason.
.
Competition in product markets is important. Subsidies, on the other hand, may insulate low productivity plants and firms from healthy market selection, and curb incentives for improving their productivity performance. Business failures, plant shutdowns and layoffs are the unavoidable byproducts of economic development."

Imaginem o impacte do que reduz a concorrência ou protege os que os clientes não privilegiam...

"One of the problems of the interventionista"

"One of the problems of the interventionista –wanting to get involved in other people’s affairs “in order to help”, while genuinely wanting to do good, results in disrupting some of the peace-making mechanisms that are inherent in human’s affairs, a combination of collaboration and strategic hostility. As we saw in the prologue, the error continues because someone else is paying the price.
...
People on the ground, those with skin in the game are not too interested in geopolitics or grand abstract principles, but rather in having bread on the table, beer (or, for some, nonalcoholic beverages such as yoghurt drinks) in the refrigerator, and good weather at outdoors family picnics."

Trechos retirados de "Peace: Neither Ink nor Blood"