Few economic issues are more confusing and complex than the question of money. The debates about “restrictive monetary policy” versus “expansionary monetary policy”, about the real role of the Central Bank and Finance, about various versions of the gold standard, etc. are endless. Should the government inject money into the economy now, should it leave everything as it is or should it reduce the money supply?
Which government sector should do this? Which government sector should be the first to receive the newly created money? Should the government stimulate or restrict credit? Should we return to the gold standard? If so, at what exchange rate should this occur? These and countless other questions generate several ramifications and multiply in a seemingly endless way. Perhaps this true Babylon of opinions on the monetary issue comes from the
Human propensity to be “realistic”,
to study only those political and economic problems considered more urgent and immediate. After all, whenever we ignore the world around us and focus exclusively on our everyday problems, the inevitable tendency is that we will stop making fundamental distinctions, at the risk of even failing to ask the most basic questions possible. Over time, important issues are forgotten and adherence to principles is replaced by unimportant ramblings.
- In several situations, it is necessary to acquire some perspective, putting our daily tasks a little aside so that we can understand them more completely.This is particularly true for the
- economy, in which the relationships between human beings are so intricate, that we have to learn to isolate some important factors in order
- to be able to analyze them more closely, only then to outline the way they work in the complex world. This is the argument of economic analysis that uses the “Robinson Crusoe model”,
the favorite device of classical economic theory. The analysis of Crusoe and Friday on a desert island, considered by critics to be irrelevant to today’s world, actually had the extremely useful function of highlighting the most basic axioms of human action. Of all the economic problems, the question of money is probably the most confusing, and perhaps the one that most needs a more panoramic view.
The monetary issue, in addition, is the most messy and adulterated economic area for centuries of government interference. Many people – many economists – who are usually free market advocates strangely refuse to address the issue of money. The monetary issue, they insist, is different; the money must be offered and regulated exclusively by the government. Strangely, they do not see state control of money as interfering with the free market; a free currency market is unthinkable for them.
Governments must mint coins,
print paper, define “forced travel” laws, create central banks, inject money into the economy (and withdraw when necessary), “stabilize the price level” etc. Historically, money was one of the first instruments to be usurped and controlled by the government, and the pro-free “intellectual revolution” that took place in the 18th and 19th centuries had virtually no effect on the monetary sphere. Therefore, it is high time that we gave the necessary and essential attention to this vital blood of the economy – money.
Let us first ask the following question: can money be organized according to the principle of freedom? Can we have a free market in the monetary sphere just as there is a free market for other goods and services? What would be the format of such a market? And what are the effects of various government controls on money? Given that we defend the free market in other areas, and given that our desire is to eliminate state intrusion into our personal lives and property, then there is no more pressing task than exploring the ways and means for adopting a free market in the monetary sphere.
The Bolsonaro / Mourão government crisis continues to deepen, with no prospect of a solution. After 11 months of the PSL / DEM government, the house of cards on which the most right-wing sectors of the Brazilian bourgeoisie mounted a huge farce, in some respects similar to the speech produced 30 years ago, when Collor de Melo was elected, has everything to fall apart. .The confrontation started in 2018, during the transition.
The announcement of the first names of his Ministry, and some measures he promised to take, rekindled the climate of electoral campaign. The polarization experienced in the ballot box dispute was not stopped, as usual in the democratic-bourgeois regime, with the inauguration of the elected government.The numbers of opinion polls conducted at the beginning of the year attested to the beginning of the crisis. Elected with 55% of valid votes, in January / 2019 he saw a slight increase in his prestige:
59% of the interviewees had the expectation
that the Bolsonaro / Mourão government would be great / good (Datafolha). Then, Flávio Bolsonaro was implicated in the Queiroz Case, which exposed the corrupt “crackers” scheme at ALERJ; the following month the public money spree at “PSL’s orange grove” surfaced. Corruption, one of the main moralizing flags raised in the electoral campaign, hit
- Bolsonaro’s family, party and ministers in the first 100 days of government. In March, the positive assessment dropped to 34% in the
- polls (IBOPE). With some fluctuations, this percentage has remained at the margin of error. Research released on 11/13 (IPESPE) points to variation in both
- extremes: from 33% to 35% among those who support the government and from 38% to 39% among those who reject it.
Who was in house 58?Amid the chronic crisis of the government, the press made public part of the deposition given to the police by the porter of the luxury condominium where Jair Bolsonaro lived before assuming the presidency of the Republic. The information that “Seu Jair” would have authorized the entry of Élcio de Queiroz, made the suspicion of the involvement of the family of the head of the Brazilian Executive branch stronger with the murder of city councilor Marielle Franco (PSOL / RJ) in March / 2018. Élcio and Ronnie Lessa, Seu Jair’s neighbor, are under arrest, suspected of executing Marielle and Anderson.
The attempt to remove the name of the President of the Republic from investigations into the murder led one of the state prosecutors who was in charge of the investigations, to say in a few hours that the doorman was lying. After it was revealed that she had no technical elements for this statement, and that she would have actively participated in Bolsonaro’s electoral campaign, the MPRJ was pressured to remove her from the case.
- Federal government wants to revise salaries
- Chinese state support in the face of Russian bureaucratic difficulties
- “China sees Africa as a continent of opportunities”,
- “China is not in a hurry, it does things almost in stages, almost invisibly.”
- Disintermediation – as a consequence of the ubiquity of information technology