E A GRÉCIA AGUENTA AGUENTA? AGUENTA-TE GRÉCIA POR AMOR DE ZEUS ....O "conto de crianças é uma temática assaz complexa ...o conto encerra morais sexuais complexas e tabus e ritos de passagem " já o que Tespiras e Varoufuckis conseguiram ver aprovado é uma narrativa simplex ao estilo de..TEENAGE ISLAMIC STATE HEART SURGEON IN PALACE DRUGS AND SEX PROBE....OU SEJA PODIA AI PHODIA PHODIA SER UM TÍTULO DO SUN OU UMA NARRATIVA DO CORREIO DA MANHÃ ...POIS UMA BANCA COMPLETAMENTE EXAURIDA DE MOEDA QUE MIGROU PARA A BANCA FRANCA-ALLEMÃ E SUIÇA SEM ESQUECER O LUXEMBURGO E A CITY LONDRINA QUE GANHARAM CENTOS DE MILHÕES COM ESTA CRISE . em troca de mais 4 MESES DE financiamento E A PROMESSA DE um programa de combate à evasão fiscal COUSA INÉDITA NA GRÉCIA DESDE METAXAS ...., à corrupção....QUE DESDE METAXAS E MESMO ANTES DELE É ENDÉMICA HERANÇA DO BAKCHICH GORGETA ou suborno ou robalo ou gratuity, tip, pourboire, baksheesh, bakshish, bakshis, backsheesh......e ao desperdício que é necessário para dar o bakchich partidário fluviários de baldes de cal..... De extensão de apoios sociais a casas de férias e de aluguer temporário a que foi cortada a luz por não pagarem a conta e o imposto inserido nela ...UM PARQUE HABITACIONAL COM MAIS DE 9 MILHÕES DE FOGOS MUITOS DELES CLANDESTINOS , UM PAÍS SEM MEIOS PARA FISCALIZAR MAS com garantias de fiscalização. De aumento do salário mínimo DE 750 EUROS NUM PAÍS COM POUCAS ACTIVIDADES QUE GEREM UM VALOR ACRESCENTADO QUE SUPORTE SALÁRIOS DESSES. De combate ao endividamento das famílias ....COM SUBSÍDIOS À HABITAÇÃO E AO CONSUMO? e de mais justiça fiscal.....NUM PAÍS ONDE TUDO FOGE AO FISCO SÓ PAGAM OS MAIS PEQUENOS ..... Do fim do processo de privatizações COM EMPRESAS QUE CONTINUARÃO A DAR PREJUÍZOS E COMBOIOS COM 3 PASSAGEIROS À 5 DA MATINA ....E A COMPETIREM COM A RODOVIÁRIA NACIONAL COMO NOS ANOS 80 EM PORTUGAL?. Da morte definitiva da TRÍADE QUE NUNCA EXISTIU A MÍTICA troika 2 PARTES CEE E UMA PARTE FMI...., com a valorização da OCDE ORGANIZAÇÃO SALAZARENTA QUE RESISTIU AO SÉCULO XX E ENTROU NO XXI e da OIT OUTRA ORGANIZAÇÃO PRA DAR EMPREGOS À NOMENKLATURA BUROCRÁTICA MUNDIAL....E O GUTERRES? NÉPIA ? AQUILO EXTRAVASA DE REFUGIÉS . E de aplicação de parte de um programa de emergência social....EM PORTUGAL FORAM BARRACAS PARA A CIGANADA E RETORNADOS E ASSALARIADOS AGRÍCOLAS DURANTE 40 ANOS E DEU NO QUE DEU.....Podem tentar transformar isto numa derrota MAS NÃO FOI, FOI UMA RETUMBANTE VITÓRIA . Se um nosso conseguisse, sem que Portugal esteja no aperto que a Grécia está, metade disto ZORBA O GREGO festejaria. É só um começo de uma guerra....POIS A POLÍTICA ECONÓMICA É UMA GUERRA QUE FAZ MUITAS BAIXAS E que será dura MAS TODOS OS ALEMÃES E GREGOS TERÃO O SEU VOLKSWAGEN . é um bom começo. Como fica evidente com o torcer de narizes VIRTUAIS DAS BUROCRÁTICAS INSTITUIÇÕES NOMINE OU SIGLA BCE e FMI.....QUE SÃO A RAIZ DE TODO O MAL OU DE TODO O MALI UMA DESSAS ...

HÁ TRAGICOMÉDIAS QUE NUNCA 

MAIS ACABAM....NEM SEQUER COMEÇAM

The First Fundamental Law of Capitalism: α = r × β I can now present the first fundamental law of capitalism, which links the capital stock to the flow of income from capital. The capital/income ratio β is related in a simple way to the share of income from capital in national income, denoted α. The formula is α = r × β where r is the rate of return on capital. For example, if β = 600% and r = 5%, then α = r × β = 30%. In other words, if national wealth represents the equivalent of six years of national income, and if the rate of return on capital is 5 percent per year, then capital’s share in national income is 30 percent. The formula α = r × β is a pure accounting identity. It can be applied to all societies in all periods of history, by definition. Though tautological, it should nevertheless be regarded as the first fundamental law of capitalism, because it expresses a simple, transparent relationship among the three most important concepts for analyzing the capitalist system: the capital/income ratio, the share of capital in income, and the rate of return on capital.....private per capita wealth on the order of 180,000 euros, or six years of national income, does not mean that everyone owns that much capital. Many people have much less, while some own millions or tens of millions of euros’ worth of capital assets. Much of the population has very little accumulated wealth—significantly less than one year’s income: a few thousand euros in a bank account, the equivalent of a few weeks’ or months’ worth of wages. Some people even have negative wealth: in other words, the goods they own are worth less than the debts they owe. By contrast, others have considerable fortunes, ranging from ten to twenty times their annual income or even more. The capital/income ratio for the country as a whole tells us nothing about inequalities within the country. But β does measure the overall importance of capital in a society, so analyzing this ratio is a necessary first step in the study of inequality.

some individuals like some countries receive far more than 9,000 euros per year in income from capital, while others receive nothing while paying rent to their landlords and interest to their creditors. Considerable country-to-country variation also exists. In addition, measuring the share of income from capital is often difficult in both a conceptual and a practical sense, because there are some categories of income (such as nonwage self-employment income and entrepreneurial income) that are hard to break down into income from capital and income from labor. In some cases this can make comparison misleading. When such problems arise, the least imperfect method of measuring the capital share of income may be to apply a plausible average rate of return to the capital/income ratio. At this stage, the orders of magnitude given above (β = 600%, α = 30%, r = 5%) may be taken as typical. For the sake of concreteness, let us note, too, that the average rate of return on land in rural societies is typically on the order of 4–5 percent. In the novels of Jane Austen and Honoré de Balzac, the fact that land (like government bonds) yields roughly 5 percent of the amount of capital invested (or, equivalently, that the value of capital corresponds to roughly twenty years of annual rent) is so taken for granted that it often goes unmentioned. Contemporary readers were well aware that it took capital on the order of 1 million francs to produce an annual rent of 50,000 francs. For nineteenthcentury novelists and their readers, the relation between capital and annual rent was self-evident, and the two measuring scales were used interchangeably, as if rent and capital were synonymous, or perfect equivalents in two different languages.

It’s common for people to ruin themselves by spending money on trinkets that are useful in some trivial way. What pleases these lovers of toys is not so much •the use they make of their little machines as •the machines’ fitness to be used. Their pockets are stuffed with little conveniences; they have new pockets, unknown in the clothes of other people, in order to carry a greater number ·of ‘useful’ gadgets·. They walk around about loaded with a multitude of baubles,. . . .some of which may sometimes be of some little use, but all of which might at all times be well done without. The whole use that is made of them is certainly not worth the fatigue of bearing the burden! And it’s not only with regard to such trivial objects that our conduct is influenced by this motive—·this liking for things because of what they could do, without much interest in having them actual do those things·. It is often the secret motive of very serious and important pursuits in both private and public life. Consider the case of a poor man’s son whom heaven in its anger has infected with ambition. When he begins to look around him, he admires the condition of the rich. [Smith goes into details: the convenience of larger home, the ease of riding on horseback and of having servants to do everything, and so on; and his idea that with all these conveniences of wealth he would be contentedly idle. Then:] He devotes himself for ever to the pursuit of wealth and greatness. To get the conveniences that these provide, he works, giving himself in the first year—indeed in the first month—of his work more fatigue of body and more anxiety of mind than he would have suffered through the whole of his life from the lack of wealth. He works to distinguish himself in some laborious profession, labouring night and day to acquire talents superior to those of his competitors. He then tries to bring those talents into public view, taking every chance to get employment. For this purpose he makes himself pleasant to everyone, serves people whom he hates, and is deferential to people he despises. Throughout his life he pursues the idea of a certain artificial and elegant repose •which he may never arrive at, •for which he sacrifices a real tranquillity that is always in his power, and •which, if in old age he at last achieves it, he will find to be in no way preferable to the humble security and contentment that he had gave up in order to pursue wealth and greatness. Then. . . .he will start to learn that wealth and greatness are only trivially useful, mere trinkets, no more fit for procuring ease of body or tranquillity of mind than the tweezer-cases of the lover of toys; and, also like them, giving trouble to the person who carries them around with him that far outweighs any advantages they can provide him with. [Smith develops this comparison at great length. The useful little ‘toys’, he says, may actually be as useful as a grand house or a retinue of servants, he says, but the owner of the ‘toys’ won’t be admired and envied as much as the owner of the things that wealth and greatness procure. The only real advantage of the latter is the attitude of other people to the wealthy great man

Smith returns to the state of the wealthy man in old age:] In his heart he curses ambition, and vainly pines for the ease and idleness of youth, pleasures that are gone for ever, having been foolishly sacrificed for something that can’t give him real satisfaction now that he has it. That’s how things look to every wealthy man who is led by depression or disease to attend to his own situation and to think about why he is actually so unhappy. Power and riches appear then to be what they actually are. . . . They are immense structures •which it takes a lifetime’s work to build, •which are constantly threatening to ·collapse and· overwhelm the person who lives in them, and •which, while they stand, may save him from some smaller inconveniences but can’t protect him from any of the severer harshnesses of the season. They keep off the summer shower (·to continue the metaphor·) but not the winter storm. They always leave the rich man as much—sometimes even more—exposed to anxiety, fear, and sorrow; to diseases, danger, and death. Any of us when ill or depressed may have this view of things, entirely depreciating the great objects of human desire; but when we’re in better health and a better mood we always see them in a more favourable light. When we are in pain and sorrow our imagination seems to be confined and cooped up within our own persons, but in times of ease and prosperity it expands itself to everything around us. Then we are charmed by the beauty of the accommodation that palaces provide, and the living arrangements of the great; and we admire how everything is fitted to promoting their ease, anticipating their wants, gratifying their wishes, and entertaining their most trivial desires. If we take the real satisfaction that any of these things is capable providing, and consider it in itself, independently of the beauty of the arrangement that is fitted to promote it, it will always appear to be enormously negligible and trivial. But we don’t often look at it in this abstract and philosophical way. We naturally run it together it in our imagination with the order, the regular and harmonious movement, of the system or machine. . . .that produces it. The pleasures of wealth and greatness, when considered in this complex view, strike the imagination as something grand and beautiful and noble, the attainment of which is well worth all the toil and anxiety that we are so apt to bestow on it. [By ‘this complex view’ Smith means the way of looking at the thing that runs together •the thing’s fitness to produce a certain result and •the pleasures of that result.] [From here to the end of this chapter, Smith goes on at undue length about matters that aren’t central to his announced main topic in the chapter. That material won’t be much abbreviated here, because it’s a notable precursor of ideas that Smith was to present 17 years later in The Wealth of Nations, widely regarded as the first work in theoretical economics. We find here the phrase ‘invisible hand’, which was made famous by the later work.]

E NO FUNDO NO FUNDO AS RELVAS EM ONDAS ESCALARAM AS ENCOSTAS MOLES E ESPONJOSAS DA JANGADA DE PEDRA ...AS BORDAS DO ABISMO LUZIAM COMO FACAS NA LUZ BAÇA QUE CORTAVAM O MUNDO EM DOIS... ESTOU A OLHAR PARA O ABISMO ...E NO FUNDO NO FUNDO NA LUZ BAÇA DOS AMANHÃS QUE CANTAM ASSOMAVA UM RINCÃO DE RELVAS VERDE-ESCURAS MANCHADAS DO SANGUE DOS POBRES DIABOS E UM SANTANAZ VELHO E SONOLENTO BOCEJOU NO FUNDO NO FUNDO NEM SE NOTA QUE É UM ABISMO .....E UMA VEGETAÇÃO POLÍTICA CARNÍVORA E FRENÉTICA EMERGIU DAS RELVAS E EM ONDAS A SELVAGEM SELVA PULOU SOBRE NÓS COMO TINHA SUBMERGIDO NOSSOS EGRÉGIOS AVÓS

e o santanaz olhou para a sua obra e disse ...podia por um freeport no fundo...ou um museu da baleia ...é uma grande obra dá pra meter tudo no fundo....

E NO FUNDO DO ABISMO INFINDÁVEL 

A TERRA ESTAVA FORRADA 

DE FORMAS AMORFAS 

INERTES ....SEMI-MORTAS