Site legal: blog com dicas de gírias em inglês para falantes de inglês. Aqui. Vale a pena dar uma olhada. Pena que tem pouco conteúdo, e é pouco atualizado.
Have you ever heard someone from Minas Gerais speak Portuguese?
The Portuguese spoken in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais is quite distinct from that spoken in other parts of the country. Full of idiosyncrasies, the Mineiran 'dialect,' or Mineirês can be hard to understand and even painful to listen to for some Brazilians. Indeed many Brazilians think of this way of speaking as very provincial; Mineiros are stereotypically thought of as caipiras (hayseeds).
Assista atentamente o vídeo abaixo: qual é a falácia na argumentação do ladrão?
Ora, ele incorre na falácia da janela quebrada, óbvio! Criar emprego para o escrivão e para o policial não é dádiva, é fardo... Segue post antigo sobre a tal falácia, identificada pela economista francês do século XIX Frederic Bastiat.
Lembrando as discussão na faculdade sobre crescimento econômico...
Topei com esse pedacinho interessante num artigo do TCS Daily, citando o WSJ (não lembro qual):
Years of rampant violent crime is not only robbing Latin America of significant private investment, but in some cases is stealing up to 8 percent from national economic growth, economists and World Bank officials say.
..."You have money spent on guarding stuff rather than making stuff," said Michael Hood, Latin America economist for Barclays Capital. "There's a large population standing around in blue blazers rather than engaged in more productive activities."
É, gente que, em vez de criar coisas novas na economia, está apenas mantendo o que há. Segurança privada, recursos gastos em alarmes, cercas e segurança, em vez de laboratórios, livros e pesquisadores.
"Mas se estamos empregando essas pessoas, estamos pagando salários! Esses salários voltam para a economia, aumentam o consumo, aumentam a demanda das empresas e no final todo mundo ganha!"
Se isso passa pela sua mente (certamente passa por boa parte das outras cabeças nacionais e internacionais), é hora de conhecer a falácia da janela quebrada, pelo excelente Walter Williams, e se vacinar contra esse tipo de argumento:
According to a couple of poorly trained economists, there's a bright side to Hurricane Katrina's destruction. J.P. Morgan senior economist Anthony Chan believes hurricanes tend to stimulate overall growth. As reported in "Gas Crisis Looms" (Aug. 31, 2005), written by CNN/Money staff writer Parija Bhatnagar, Mr. Chan said, "Preliminary estimates indicate 60 percent damage to downtown New Orleans. Plenty of cleanup work and rebuilding will follow in all the areas. That means over the next 12 months, there will be lots of job creation which is good for the economy."
Professor Doug Woodward, of the business school at the University of South Carolina, has the same vision. Professor Woodward said, "On a personal level, the loss of life is tragic. But looking at the economic impact, our research shows that hurricanes tend to become god-given work projects." Within six months, Professor Woodward "expects to see a construction boom and job creation offset the short-term negatives such as loss of business activity, loss of wealth in the form of housing, infrastructure, agriculture and tourism revenue in the Gulf Coast states."
Let's ask a few smell-test questions about these claims of beneficial aspects of hurricane destruction. Would there have been even greater economic growth and job creation for our nation had Hurricane Katrina not only destroyed New Orleans, Mobile and Gulfport, but other major metropolitan areas along its path, like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, as well? Would we consider it a godsend, in terms of jobs and economic growth, if a few more category 4 hurricanes hit our shores? Only a lunatic would answer these questions in the affirmative.
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), a great French economist, said in his pamphlet "What is Seen and What is Not Seen": "There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." What economists Chan and Woodward can see are the jobs and construction boom created by repairing hurricane destruction. What they can't see, and thus ignore, is what those resources would have been used for had there not been hurricane destruction.
Bastiat wrote a parable about this which has become known as the "Broken Window Fallacy." A shopkeeper's window is broken by a vandal. A crowd formed sympathizing with the man. After a while, someone in the crowd suggested that the boy wasn't guilty of vandalism; instead, he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town. After all, fixing the broken window creates employment for the glazier, who will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then buy shoes and benefit the cobbler, and so forth.
Those are the seen effects of repairing the broken window. What's unseen is what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had the vandal not broken his window. He might have employed the tailor by purchasing a suit. The vandal's breaking his window produced at least two unseen effects. First, it shifted unemployment from the glazier who now has a job to the tailor who doesn't. Second, it reduced the shopkeeper's wealth. Had it not been for the vandalism, the shopkeeper would have had a window and a suit; now he has just a window.
Of course, were it the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus providing the resources to repair the destruction of Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Chan and Professor Woodward would be correct. But what the heck, maybe we shouldn't be so harsh on these economists in light of the fact that they didn't receive their training at George Mason University's Economics Department, where there are no bad economists.