Novas medidas do Governo pressionam contas em 0,6% do PIB

[Pantone]

Alguém por aqui que tenha tido contacto com esta corrente da economia (Austríaca) na vida académica em Portugal?

Deve ter desaparecido com os excelentes resultados da sua doutrina de Austeridade, ou então estão em casa à espera da hiper-inflação...

Um pouco mais a sério, existe alguém dentro desta teoria de pensamento politico-económica que tenha feito alguma espécie de auto-crítica em face dos resultados economicos dos últimos anos, ou continuam a vociferar menos estado, hiper-inflação e a falar mal dos bancos centrais, nomeadamente do FED?!

[Mcmad]

Alguém por aqui que tenha tido contacto com esta corrente da economia (Austríaca) na vida académica em Portugal?

[Pantone]

And Now Here’s a Kind Word for Austrian Business Cycle Theory

in http://uneasymoney.com/2012/10/26/and-n ... le-theory/

[Pantone]

Big Government and the Crisis

Como tem evoluído o produto nas diferentes economias Ocidentais e como está a sua performance ligada ao peso do Estado:

Hmm, assim a olho penso que dá para traçar uma linha de tendência em que o aumento da despesa pública se traduziu num menor crescimento do PIB.

só se fôr muito a olho... (e, digo eu... muito pouco representativa estatísticamente falando).

De qualquer forma uma correcção... o eixo horizontal não representa "o aumento da despesa pública" mas o pêso do Estado em % do PIB (em 2007). Apenas o eixo verticl representa variação.

[Pantone]

Os textos são algo densos e técnicos, por isso aqui deixo apenas os links:

Two Problems with Austrian Business-Cycle Theory
1. "So the Austrian theory has never proven that forced saving induced by monetary expansion, in the absence of a gold-standard constraint, is necessarily unsustainable, inevitably being reversed because of physical constraints preventing the completion of the projects financed by the credit expansion. That’s the first problem." e;
2. "... But this argument presumes that all the incomplete investment projects and all the new production processes become unprofitable more or less simultaneously, leading to their rapid abandonment."

in http://uneasymoney.com/2012/10/03/two-p ... le-theory/

e a continuação do "debate":
On the Unsustainability of Austrian Business-Cycle Theory, Or How I Discovered that Ludwig von Mises Actually Rejected His Own Theory

in http://uneasymoney.com/2012/10/10/on-th ... wn-theory/

[maximo_]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vdAaN1QBSi0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[migluso]

Quanto ao crescimento/desenvolvimento, é uma questão complexa, mas aqui fica o link para o último relatório do WEF onde pela sua metodologia se pode observar que Pêso do Estado e competitividade pouca relaçao têm (de per si).

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf

Por acaso ainda estes dias estive a olhar para esse relatório.

Atenta ao primeiro pilar - Instituições -, fundamental para a actividade económica.

A pergunta que me assola é:

Haverá algum outro país cujo peso dos impostos seja tão elevado e simultaneamente a classificação da rubrica "Wastefulness of Government Spending" seja tão má como Portugal?

Nem a Grécia tem uma carga fiscal tão elevada, e está ligeiramente melhor do que nós naquele ponto.

[Pantone]

migluso, custa-me responder porque estou de acordo contigo, e ao fazê-lo parece que não.

Chamo apenas a atençao que pelo que eu entendo, para a Escola de Pensamento Austríaca, e/ou para o Liberalismo, a intervenção do Estado, por definiçao é perniciosa e gera ineficiências.

É uma questão de princípio (e por isso aproveitada politicamente), não sendo um pormenor dentro da sua teoria, pensamento ou prática pelo que não é que não se insira na sua linha de pensamento, como afirmas... é combatida, pois por definição são "A" causa dos desequilibrios.

Quanto ao crescimento/desenvolvimento, é uma questão complexa, mas aqui fica o link para o último relatório do WEF onde pela sua metodologia se pode observar que Pêso do Estado e competitividade pouca relaçao têm (de per si).

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf

[migluso]

O que me continua a fazer confusão é que a Suécia é exactamente o oposto do que esta escola de pensamento propõe, com umas das taxas de impostos mais elevadas do mundo, e gastos do Estado a rondar os 50% do PIB, e tu continuas a bater na tecla que são um excelente exemplo do que deve ser feito, como se a carga fiscal fôsse apenas um pormenor sem demasiada importância. É essa contradição que eu aponto, nada mais.

Muffin,

Fogo, pá, continuas a insistir.

De uma vez por todas para ver se fica esclarecido.

A Suécia, do ponto de vista da carga fiscal, não se insere no pensamento da escola austríaca nem do liberalismo.

Do ponto de vista do crescimento e desenvolvimento económico, provavelmente mais 10 ou menos 10 por cento no peso dos impostos tem pouco significado (observa onde está a Suiça, os EUA, o Japão, o Canadá, a Austrália, a Coreia do Sul ou Taiwan).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... age_of_GDP

Ainda assim, e no que respeita ao chamado Estado social, a sua estrutura e funcionamento assenta muito mais nos princípios do liberalismo do que o Estado social português, pois o modelo sueco estimula a competição e confere opção de escolha aos utilizadores/consumidores, para além de outras factores.

Aqueles dois princípios são fundamentais, são a base do sistema capitalista de produção.

Em todas as outras características que diferenciam um sistema económico liberal de um intervencionista/proteccionista, os suecos estão muito bem classificados nos índices e estatísticas que tratam este tema.

Cumprimentos

[Pantone]

Para ti os suecos são socialistas ou intervencionistas. Para mim, com excepção da carga fiscal, são do mais liberal que há.

Lá estás tu a pôr coisas nas minhas letras, que eu nunca escrevi... mau feitio! tau-tau!

Tu podes pensar até que eles sejam os inventores da roda mas os países nórdicos são sociedades das que não tenho opinião formada, e se a tivesse, não a metería concerteza dentro de um saquinho com um título pomposo, como tu aparentemente gostas de fazer.

O que me continua a fazer confusão é que a Suécia é exactamente o oposto do que esta escola de pensamento propõe, com umas das taxas de impostos mais elevadas do mundo, e gastos do Estado a rondar os 50% do PIB, e tu continuas a bater na tecla que são um excelente exemplo do que deve ser feito, como se a carga fiscal fôsse apenas um pormenor sem demasiada importância. É essa contradição que eu aponto, nada mais.

Quanto aos links... mil agradecimentos, e espero que tenham a informaçao que buscava!

[migluso]

Tens material sobre as reformas que foram empreendidas (por exemplo o que foi feito para desregular os mercados), ou como (em que) cortaram as despesas do Estado nos últimos anos?!. Qualquer coisa mais económica e menos social... ?!

Não tenho.
Tive que procurar alguns estudos/apresentações...

Não venhas depois citar apenas as partes que te interessam. Acho que este assunto está mais do que debatido...

http://www2.ne.su.se/paper/wp11_25.pdf

http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/1 ... df38cb.pdf


Para ti os suecos são socialistas ou intervencionistas. Para mim, com excepção da carga fiscal, são do mais liberal que há.

Depois de observar os índices de liberdade económica e similares, cada um que tire as suas conclusões.

[Pantone]

http://www.globalutmaning.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Davos-The-nordic-way-final.pdf

404 Not Found

http://api.ning.com/files/PxLOIcRDLxuOU ... yfinal.pdf

migluso, isto é mais do estilo de uma brochura de Marketing...

Tens material sobre as reformas que foram empreendidas (por exemplo o que foi feito para desregular os mercados), ou como (em que) cortaram as despesas do Estado nos últimos anos?!. Qualquer coisa mais económica e menos social... ?!

Se já o puseste anteriormente, ou se não souberes, no probs., mas com agradecimentos antecipados

[migluso]

http://www.globalutmaning.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Davos-The-nordic-way-final.pdf

404 Not Found

http://api.ning.com/files/PxLOIcRDLxuOU ... yfinal.pdf

[Pantone]

http://www.globalutmaning.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Davos-The-nordic-way-final.pdf

404 Not Found

[maximo_]

TIve a ler esse livro:

http://www.mises.org.br/files/literatur ... %20WEB.pdf

li uns capitulos e parece muito bom, de um ponto de vista mt simples descobre dezenas de erros que são feitos e sugeridos pelos politicos e economistas com muitata frequencia. Incrivel, vale mesmo apena ler.

[migluso]

Muitos países têm governos bastante interventivos e continuam a crescer (países nórdicos principalmente, China, entre outros) e a intervenção do governo foi útil em muitos casos no passado.

A China teve e está a ter uma explosão de crescimento precisamente porque liberalizou a sua economia.
O tipo de governo autoritário e único, vamos ver quanto tempo dura. O teste será feito em época de crise.

Um governo que arrecada uma boa parte da riqueza criada através de impostos é interventivo. Não há dúvidas. Como regra, estas intervenções através de impostos criam distorções e diminuem o grau de eficiência de uma economia.

Aquele efeito de distorção será tanto maior quanto pior for a gestão pública do dinheiro dos contribuintes.
Portanto, é fundamental que a gestão pública seja regida por princípios que promovam a eficiência.

Liberdade de escolha para os consumidores/utilizadores e competição entre produtores/prestadores promove a eficiência, isto é, o acesso a bens e serviços de qualidade superior a um preço inferior. O modelo nórdico de Estado social, mas também o suíço ou holandês entre outros, assentam muito nestes princípios.
São princípios de uma economia de mercado.

São também países que, nas outras áreas onde o Estado "tem uma palavra a dizer", estão na frente dos índices que medem a liberdade económica, e é por isso que funcionam bem.

Para além disso, e apesar de terem um Estado social generoso, isso não iliba os cidadãos da sua responsabilidade individual.

Portanto, Estado social muito baseado em princípios de mercado e Estado muito funcional, credível e transparente nas outras áreas. Este segundo aspecto provavelmente deve-se muito a factores culturais.

Já deixei este link várias vezes aqui no cdb... aqui fica mais uma vez.

http://www.globalutmaning.se/wp-content ... -final.pdf

Alguém conhece um bom livro para um leigo em economia sobre a escola de pensamento austríaca?

Não encontrei este em português:
O capítulo 4, em particular, é óptimo para entender alguns conceitos básicos de economia.
http://mises.org/books/lessons_for_the_ ... murphy.pdf

Em português tens este (não li, mas vejo sempre muitas referências quando se pretende indicar um livro para iniciantes):
http://www.mises.org.br/files/literatur ... %20WEB.pdf

Um bom fim-de-semana

[maximo_]

Tosh5457 tens um curso no youtube feito pelo mises brasil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scMmZSxAb7g

sao 21 aulas, tens procurar o seguimento dos videos no youtube.

Quanto a livros o mais completo e transversal em economia é o accao humana de ludwig von mises
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Humana

mas é gigante o livro, eu acho q existe um livro q resume a teoria do mises, vou tentar encontrar.

Quanto a ciencia politica o mestre é friedrich hayek, ms nao te sei dizer um livro ideal para esta area.

[ToshB]

O que nunca vi foi economistas da escola austríaca a comentar economias de outros países, que também têm banco central, mas mesmo assim continuam a crescer sem bolhas financeiras. Esta escola apresenta muitos conceitos intuitivos que me parecem ser verdadeiros, como dizerem que uma economia cresce a longo prazo pelo lado da oferta, mas grande parte parecem ser apenas ideologias sem suporte na realidade. Muitos países têm governos bastante interventivos e continuam a crescer (países nórdicos principalmente, China, entre outros) e a intervenção do governo foi útil em muitos casos no passado.

Alguém conhece um bom livro para um leigo em economia sobre a escola de pensamento austríaca?

[Texano Bill]

Big Government and the Crisis

Como tem evoluído o produto nas diferentes economias Ocidentais e como está a sua performance ligada ao peso do Estado:

Hmm, assim a olho penso que dá para traçar uma linha de tendência em que o aumento da despesa pública se traduziu num menor crescimento do PIB.

[Pantone]

Big Government and the Crisis

Como tem evoluído o produto nas diferentes economias Ocidentais e como está a sua performance ligada ao peso do Estado:

[migluso]

Em relação às previsões macroeconómicas para 2021, parece-me que tens razão. Só tenho que dar os parabéns ao Obama/democratas se conseguirem estabilizar a dívida nos próximos 10 anos. Não será uma tarefa fácil.
Mas não me apetecia nada estar a debater previsões a 10 anos...

Eis porquê:

Economic Policies for the 21st Century examined what turned the surpluses that the Congressional Budget Office had been projecting in 2001 (the blue line in the graph below) into the actual large deficits (red line). One important factor is that GDP did not grow as fast as CBO had been predicting; the contribution of unanticipated "economic and technical changes" is summarized by the green line. A bigger contribution came from the fact that discretionary spending (chiefly defense) was higher than anticipated by CBO in 2001 (purple line). The tax cuts also made a material contribution.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/201 ... ceipt.html

[migluso]

... G.L.S. Shackle, and Ludwig Lachmann (who sought a third way incorporating elements of Keynesian and Austrian theory).

Post Keynesian...

EDIT - São designados de post keynesianos, para se distinguirem dos neo keynesianos.

[migluso]

Thus, in early 2009, Ms. Schwartz urged aggressive monetary stimulus by the Fed. As she told a Council on Foreign Relations conference, “Instead of fiscal stimulus, we should have monetary stimulus.”

Nada melhor do que citar a própria, num artigo de julho de 2009:

Why is easy monetary policy such a sin? Because in such an environment, loans are cheap and borrowers can finance every project that they dream up. This results in excesses, and also increases the severity of the recession that inevitably follows when the bubble bursts.

Parece uma austríaca, não?

Last year, when the credit market became dysfunctional and normal channels for borrowing broke down, the Fed misread the situation. It persisted in believing that the market needed more liquidity, even though this was not a solution to the market disturbances. The real problem was that because of the mysterious new instruments that investors had acquired, no one knew which firms were solvent or what assets were worth. At the same time, these new instruments were being repriced in the market. The firms that owned them then needed to restore their depleted capital. When big firms experienced enormous losses, the Fed did not respond in a way that calmed markets. Most of all, Mr. Bernanke ultimately failed to convince the market that the Fed had a plan, and was not performing ad hoc.

~

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/opini ... wartz.html

[Pantone]

Ludwig von Mises and the Great Depression

Many thanks to gliberty who just flagged for me a piece - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 692.htmlby - Mark Spitznagel in today’s (where else?) Wall Street Journal about how Ludwig von Mises, alone among the economists of his day, foresaw the coming of the Great Depression, refusing the offer of a high executive position at the Kredit-Anstalt, Austria’s most important bank, in the summer of 1929, because, as he put it to his fiancée (whom he did not marry till 1938 just before escaping the Nazis), “a great crash is coming, and I don’t want my name in any way connected with it.” Just how going to work for the Kredit Anstalt would have led to Mises’s name being associated with the crash (the result, in Mises’s view, of the inflationary policy of the US Federal Reserve) is left unclear. But it’s such a nice story.

Ludwig von Mises was an extremely well-read and diligent economist, who had some extraordinary insights into economics and business and politics. As a result he made some important contributions to economics, most important the discovery that idea of a fully centrally planned economy is not just an impossibility, it is incoherent. He made other contributions to economics as well, but that insight, perhaps also perceived by Max Weber, was first spelled out and explained by Mises in his book Socialism. That contribution alone is enough to ensure Mises an honorable place in the history of economic thought.

Mises also perceived how the monetary theory of Knut Wicksell, based on a distinction between a market and a natural rate of interest, could be combined with the Austrian theory of capital, developed by his teacher Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk into a theory of business cycles. Von Mises is therefore justly credited with being the father of Austrian business-cycle theory. His own development of the theory was somewhat sketchy, and it was his student F. A. Hayek, who made the great intellectual effort of trying to work out the detailed steps in the argument by which monetary expansion would alter the structure of capital and production, leading to a crisis when the monetary expansion was halted or reversed.

Relying on their newly developed theory of business cycles, Mises and Hayek warned in the late 1920s that the decision of the Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates in 1927, when it appeared that the US economy could be heading into a recession, would distort the structure of production and lead eventually to an even worse downturn than the one the Fed avoided in 1927. That was the basis for Mises’s “prediction” of a “crash” ahead of the Great Depression.

Of course, as I have pointed out previously - http://uneasymoney.com/2011/12/12/keyne ... gh-already, Mises and Hayek were not the only ones to have predicted that there could be a downturn. R.G. Hawtrey and Gustav Cassel had been warning about that danger since 1919, should an international return to the gold standard not be managed properly, failing to prevent a rapid deflationary increase in the international monetary demand for gold. When the insane Bank of France began accumulating gold at a breathtaking rate in 1928, and the US reversed its monetary stance in late 1928 and itself began accumulating gold, Hawtrey and Cassel recognized the potential for disaster and warned of the disastrous consequences of the change in Federal Reserve policy.

So Mises and Hayek were not alone in their prediction of a crash; Hawtrey and Cassel were also warning of a looming disaster, and were doing so on the basis of a theory that was both more obvious and more relevant to the situation than the theory with which Mises and Hayek were working, a theory that, even giving it the benefit of every doubt, could not possibly have predicted a downturn even remotely approaching the severity of the 1929-31 downturn. Indeed, as I have also pointed out, the irrelevance of the Mises and Hayek “explanation” of the Great Depression is perfectly illustrated by Hayek’s 1932 defense of the insane Bank of France, http://uneasymoney.com/2011/12/17/hayek ... of-france/ showing a complete misunderstanding of the international adjustment mechanism and the disastrous consequences of the gold accumulation policy of the insane Bank of France.

Mr. Spitznagel laments that the economics profession somehow ignored Ludwig von Mises. Actually, they didn’t. Some of the greatest economists of the twentieth century were lapsed believers in the Austrian business-cycle theory. A partial list would include, Mises’s own students, Gottfried Haberler and Fritz Machlup; it would include Hayek’s dear friend and colleague, Lionel Robbins who wrote a book on the Great Depression eloquently explaining it in terms of the Austrian theory in a way that even Mises might have approved, a book that Robbins later repudiated and refused to allow to be reprinted in his lifetime (but you can order a new edition here); it would include Hayek’s students, Nobel Laureate J.R. Hicks, Nicholas Kaldor, Abba Lerner, G.L.S. Shackle, and Ludwig Lachmann (who sought a third way incorporating elements of Keynesian and Austrian theory).

Hayek himself modified his early views in important ways and admitted that he had given bad policy advice in the 1930s. The only holdout was Mises himself, joined in later years after his arrival in America by a group of more doctrinaire (with at least one notable exception) disciples than Mises had found in Vienna in the 1920s and 1930s. The notion that Austrian theory was ignored by the economics profession and has only lately been rediscovered is just the sort of revisionist history that one tends to find on a lot of wacko Austro-libertarian websites like Lewrockwell.org. Apparently the Wall Street Journal editorial page is providing another, marginally more respectable, venue for such nonsense. Rupert, you’re doing a heckuva job.

in http://uneasymoney.com/2012/02/10/ludwi ... epression/

[Pantone]

What Rule Should the Fed Follow?
By BRUCE BARTLETT

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”

On May 8, Representative Ron Paul of Texas took a break from campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination to preside over a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.

Its primary focus was on the Federal Reserve System’s so-called dual mandate – to maintain both price stability and low unemployment, a policy that many conservatives view as inherently in conflict. They prefer that the Fed concentrate on one thing and one thing only – price stability, regardless of how high unemployment is.

To his credit, Representative Paul (for whom I worked in the 1970s) noted that the Fed actually has three mandates. These are spelled out in Section 2a of the Federal Reserve Act, which says,

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long-run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long-run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates.

Interestingly, while most conservatives aim their fire at the idea of “maximum employment,” Mr. Paul took issue with the idea of “stable prices.” As he explained in his opening statement:

Some reformers have called for the full employment mandate to be repealed, in order to allow the Fed to focus solely on stable prices. But these critics ignore the fact that stable prices are not a desirable goal. After all, with increasing productivity and technological innovation, the natural trend for most goods is for prices to decrease.

By calling for the prices of goods to remain stable, the Fed would have to inflate the money supply in order to counteract this trend toward price declines, pumping new money into the system and creating economic distortions. This is exactly what happened during the 1920s, as the Fed’s monetary pumping was masked by rising productivity.

The result was stable prices, but the mal-investment caused by the Fed’s loose monetary policy became evident by 1929. There is no reason to expect that focusing on stable prices today would have a dissimilar outcome.
Representative Paul is here reciting the “Austrian” theory of the Great Depression. It says that even though there was no inflation during the 1920s, somehow or other inflation nevertheless caused the Great Depression. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices were either flat or falling throughout the 1920s – i.e., deflation.

But the Austrian school believes there was actually some sort of double-secret inflation because the money supply increased. They believe the same thing is happening right now.

When the Austrian theory was first put forward, conservative economists were keen to refute the widespread view that capitalism itself had caused the Great Depression and that the cure was full-bore socialism. The Austrians, including the economists Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Benjamin M. Anderson, Henry Hazlitt (who was an editorial writer for The New York Times in the 1930s) and others, were desperate to show that government was responsible for the Great Depression.

Although the Austrian theory was initially viewed sympathetically by conservative economists such as Lionel Robbins of the London School of Economics, it was abandoned when it became clear that there is no Austrian cure for depressions; the only course, in this view, is to suck it up, let unemployment rise, and purge the mal-investment no matter how painful.

Anything – anything whatsoever – the government does to mitigate high unemployment, counteract the economic downturn or soften the blow is inherently counterproductive, the Austrian school believes, because it slows the necessary economic readjustment and often introduces economic distortions that may sow the seeds of another business cycle.

In the 1960s, conservative economists adopted a different view. The government error was not in causing the Great Depression through invisible inflation, but by responding inappropriately to a garden-variety recession that began in August 1929. Since there was no deposit insurance in those days, when banks failed their deposits evaporated. Consequently, the money supply shrank by about a third over the next several years.

This “monetarist” theory of the Great Depression is most associated with the work of the economists Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz. They argued that if the Fed had acted as a lender of last resort, as it was created to do, it could have stopped the Great Depression in its tracks by expanding the money supply so as to offset the contraction that bank failures caused.

The monetarist theory was a far more attractive explanation for the Great Depression that also blamed government. It was largely adopted by conservatives except for a few Austrian holdouts such as the economist Murray Rothbard. One attraction of the monetarist theory is that it allows for government action to respond to economic downturns, as opposed to the Austrian do-nothing policy.

When economic downturns arise, monetarists say the Fed should respond by expanding the money supply, not through an expansionary fiscal policy, as Keynesian economics recommends.

Thus, in early 2009, Ms. Schwartz urged aggressive monetary stimulus by the Fed. As she told a Council on Foreign Relations conference, “Instead of fiscal stimulus, we should have monetary stimulus.”

In the years since, however, the monetarist theory has lost favor among conservatives. They now assert, along with the Austrians, that the only “cure” for recessions is not to sow their seeds in the first place. Those seeds, all conservatives now agree, are sown primarily by the Fed, especially by holding interest rates “too low.”

Thus almost all conservatives, including many regional Federal Reserve bank presidents, believe the Fed should raise interest rates soon to prevent a reemergence of inflation, another boom and, inevitably, another bust that may be even worse than the one we have yet to emerge from.

Representative Paul is retiring at the end of this Congress, but conservatives will undoubtedly continue to argue that the Fed must be legislatively constrained from pursuing a discretionary monetary policy and bound by strict rules from which it may not deviate, no matter what.

The Austrian analysis of the Great Depression and the recent recession are wrong, I think. Unfortunately, that will not deter the conservatives.

in http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... follow/?hp - A negrito as referências ao tópico.