Posts Tagged ‘Russians’

Íntegra da sova que o Presidente Bill Clínton deu em FHC, em 1999, na Itália – Não adianta chorar e pedir dinheiro se são incompetentes para gerir a economia


Leia aqui neste PDF da Administração Clínton:

Clínton tem razão: É um mal que atravessas todos os governos brasileiros de todas as épocas e de todos os partidos políticos. Atualmente está sendo desmascarado o embromador Guido Mantega… e continuarem assim, de descalabro em descalabro…

Nota: Alan Greenspan no seu livro de memórias, A ERA DA TURBULÊNCIA,  dedica um capítulo a desgraça que é a demagogia e populismo do México à Patagônia. Ele se pergunta como é possível tanta incompetência em economia, incompetência essa que joga a inflação a milhares por cento ao ano….
Depois dá uma mensagem de esperança por existirem jovens brasileiros que fizeram pós em universidades americanas e que estão cheios de vida e vigor disposto a resistir aos políticos…
Conclusão: Cara!, se não tivéssemos estes poucos gatos pingados, (a maioria deles são os meninos da Puc-RJ), que fizeram pós nos Eua.., estaríamos bem pra lá do quinto mundo…


Primeiro trecho:

I think that a lot of reforms have been made.

Now, the question is, can domestic economies—can Henrique do things that would help this?

Chile had a capital control system that worked pretty well, to try to regulate radical movements of money in and out of the country. But the only reason it worked well is, Chile had a system that was recognized as having integrity and effectiveness, so that people still wanted to put their money there even if there was some control on how rapidly it could move in and out.

The same with Malaysia in the Asian financial crisis— people thought you could make money in Malaysia, so they would put up with the capital controls. On the other hand, if when the Russians tried to control money—even the Russians were sending money out of Russia, in record amounts, because they didn’t believe at the moment that the system would work.

So should we continue to reform the IMF and the World Bank and the multilateral development banks? Absolutely. But we should not minimize the fact that you’ve got to move a lot of money around every day.

Second thing: domestic systems matter.

Governments have to have good, honest financial systems, because you can’t make people put their money in a place they don’t want to spend it, and you can’t make people keep their money in a place they no longer have confidence in.

And governments have to have greater capacity; this is something the old—the so-called old left and the new left ought to agree on.

The truth is, in most developing countries, governments are too weak, not too strong.”

Video resumido da sova:

Segundo trecho:

Why is Uganda the only country in Africa that can drive the AIDS rate down?

How can—why shouldn’t we be out there promoting a system where once a country in a developing area of the world solves a problem we more speedily make sure that is done everywhere else, and we help people do that.

This is crazy.

I mean, just—AIDS is just one example, but, I mean, it’s convulsing African countries—but here’s Uganda proving that you can get the rate down, and, oh, by the way, they have economic growth at 5 percent or 6 percent a year.

So national policies matter.

The third thing is, what are we going to do to help?

Very quickly. One, we ought to support everybody, from the Pope to Bono,

who’s recommending debt relief for the poorest countries in the world. It’s insane to keep these poor countries spending all their

money making interest payments—they can’t even pay off the principal.

They’ll never be able to grow, and they have no money to buy our products.

So the G–8 initiative on debt relief is right. We should do that. Two, we ought to vigorously support economic  impowerment initiatives that work in developing nations.

I have been in Sao Paulo and Rio, two of the largest cities in the world, two of the most wonderful places on Earth.

But there are millions of children there that will have no future unless their families can make a decent living.”

Cada mulher russa mata, em média, 7 filhos.


Will Russia Recover From Its Massive Underpopulation Problems?

by Steven W. Mosher and Elizabeth Crnkovich | Moscow, Russia | | 12/18/12 7:22 PM

What do you do when your country is dying, one coffin at a time? Well, if you are Russian President Vladimir Putin, you call upon Russian couples to be fruitful and multiply, and have at least three children.

It is hard to exaggerate the demographic straits that Mother Russia finds itself in. According to the projections of the UN Population Division–we are speaking here of the so-called “low variant,” historically the most accurate–the Russian population will shrink by more than 30 million by mid-century if current trends continue. The population will age rapidly, from an average age of 37.9 in 2010 to and average age of 49 by 2050. In other words, most Russians will be beyond their childbearing years, and Russia’s demographic fate will be sealed.

The economy will follow the population into the tank. No economy can thrive when a population is moribund, filling more coffins than cradles.

This is not the first time that Putin has urged his fellow citizens to be prolific. In fact, he has been working more than a decade to reverse his country’s demographic decline.

Back in 2005, Putin announced that Russian couples would receive the equivalent of $9,000 upon the birth of a second child or higher order child. While this baby bonus created a bump in the birth rate, the numbers of births have begun to level off again. Many couples have already reached their desired number of children, received their bonuses, and are aborting any subsequent children they conceive. Abortion is still occurring in epidemic proportions in Russia. The birth rate has remained slightly higher than before, but is still too low to offset population losses. Russia continues to lose several hundred thousands people a year.

Putin took the occasion of his annual State of the Nation address to issue a call for more children. “The three child family should become the norm in Russia,” he declared. Since the average Russian woman has only one child, this would mean a considerable increase in fertility. Along with encouraging Russian women to have more children, he said, Russia must also look for ways to support and help them once they have had the children.

Putin was vague about what this additional support might entail, but his administration is in discussions with pro-life and pro-family groups on this point.

For their part, hundreds of pro-life and pro-family organizations, together with large families and activists from all over the Russian Federation, are joining together into a National Parents Association (NPA).

The CEO of the fledgling NPA, Alexey Komov, says that “President Putin, in his inaugural address, gave a clear message to everyone: Three children must become the norm in Russia or the country will face a serious demographic challenge going forward. We at the NPA are promoting the natural family-a husband and wife and their natural or adoptive children–and are in dialogue with State authorities to define effective family and demographic policy.”

One major obstacle to raising the Russian birthrate is the prevalence of abortion.

The average Russian woman has seven abortions in her lifetime.

As long as society fails to recognize the value of human life, and wantonly destroys it in large numbers, it will be difficult to establish a new three-child norm. Abortion must cease being a way of life in Russia if her people are to survive.

Putin has given Russian families a tangible incentive, the baby bonus, to have children.

He and his administration are now attempting to shift cultural norms in favor of the three-child family.

But whether or not he succeeds will depend upon pro-life and pro-family advocates like Alexey Komov, and their efforts to turn Putin’s exhortations and financial support into a nationwide movement. On their success hinges the fate of the Russian people.