EPT Monte Carlo: Day 1a chip counts

Classificação do 1o dia da final do European Poker tour, temos uma brasuca entre os primeiros!!!

 

 

Sent to you by Claudio via Google Reader:

 

 

EPT Monte Carlo: Day 1a chip counts

via PokerStars Poker Blog by Howard Swains on 4/28/09

These are the full official chip counts at the end of day 1a at the EPT Grand Final in Monte Carlo. There were 396 players at the start of play and 221 made it through the eight levels of play. They will merge with the survivors from day 1b play day two on Thursday.

As play progresses, the approximate chip counts for some notable players will appear on the chip counts page. The full prize structure will be decided at around the midpoint of day 1b. It will be published on the prizewinners page.

Player	Country	Status	Chip Count
Lee Nelson	New Zealand	Team PokerStars Pro	253600
Luca Pagano	Italy	Team PokerStars Pro	169600
Anthony Donald Venturini	USA	PokerStars player	160000
Thiago Nishijima	Brazil		159000
Faraz Jaka	USA	PokerStars player	155900
Michael Tureniec	Sweden		146600
Diaz Gilbar			141900
Sami Kelopuro	Finland		133500
Andrey Zaichenko	Russia		131300
Stephen Haughey	UK	PokerStars Qualifier	124400
Lance Thomas Funston	USA		121200
Eric Qu	France		119500
Pier Fabretti	Italy		119000
Annette Obrestad	Norway		112000
Patryk Robert Slusarek	UK	PokerStars Qualifier	111700
Ivan Freitez	Venezuela		109300
Mikhail Tulchinskiy	Russia		107600
Peter Traply	Hungary	PokerStars Qualifier	105600
Ivan Barbuto	Italy		105100
Lacay Ludovic	France		102100
Dario Minieri	Italy	Team PokerStars Pro	100200
Jack Gergi Tarabay	Lebanon		99400
Dag Martin Mikkelsen	Norway		97900
Gregory Smith	UK		97600
Andrew Pantling	Canada	PokerStars player	97000
Ilya Bulychev	Russia		96800
Dmitry Shterenlikht			93400
Jason Barton	UK	PokerStars Qualifier	93100
John La Jeune	USA		93100
Fabien Demazeau	France		92200
Geert Jan Potijk	Holland		92000
Jens Kyllonen	Finland		91700
Sander Berndsen	Holland		90700
Darko Babic	Germany	PokerStars Qualifier	89000
Hypuypat			88000
Humberto Brenes	Costa Rica	Team PokerStars Pro	87300
Jerome Zerbib	France		86300
James Obst	Australia	PokerStars player	85600
Marcus Naalden	Holland		85200
John Cernuto	USA		85000
Arnaud Mattern	France		84400
Norman Gautron	Canada		84100
Joram Voelklein	Germany	PokerStars sponsored player	82200
Daniel Wach	USA		81100
Igor Malyshkov	Russia		78600
Nichlas Mattsson Saarisilta	Sweden	PokerStars Qualifier	78400
Steven Silverman	USA	PokerStars player	77700
Jan Collado Fernandez	Germany		77400
Gaetano Mazzitelli	Italy		75200
Oleh Okhotskyi	Ukraine		74500
Marcello Marigliano	Italy		74100
Henri Kasper	Estonia		73400
Dustin Dirksen	USA	PokerStars player	73000
Gijsbertus Spijkers	Holland		72700
Alexander Morozov	Russia	PokerStars player	72400
Jaime Vilela	South Africa		71500
Dennis Phillips	USA	Team PokerStars Pro	70800
Cort Nathan Kibler	Germany		70400
Marius Condrea	Romania		70300
Leonardo Patacconi	Italy	PokerStars Qualifier	68400
Jarred Solomon	USA		68300
Anthony Spinella	USA		67600
Rodrigo Dos Santos Capiroli	Brazil		67200
Ted Lawson	USA		66500
Joel Nordkvist	Sweden		66400
Alexander Jung	Germany		66300
Mark Micula	USA	PokerStars player	66300
Marcin Horecki	Poland	Team PokerStars Pro	65500
Sergey Feklisov	Russia		65500
Patrick Wymann	Switzerland	PokerStars Qualifier	65000
Joanne Liu	USA		64200
Daniel Drescher	Germany	PokerStars player	63200
Alex Todd	USA	PokerStars Qualifier	62400
Richard Anthony Ashby	UK		62000
Deric Williams	USA	PokerStars Qualifier	61600
Carter Phillips			60600
Jean Paul Pasqualini	France		59900
Morten Schjerbech Wallach	Denmark	PokerStars Qualifier	59800
Daniel Gallardo	Spain	PokerStars sponsored player	59700
Sergiy Polishchuk	Bulgaria	PokerStars Qualifier	59600
Maxwell Greenwood	Canada	PokerStars Qualifier	59600
Rachid Rami	France		59100
Vladimir Geshkenbein	Switzerland		58900
Johnny Lodden	Norway	Team PokerStars Pro	57100
Jason Mercier	USA	PokerStars player	57100
Martijn Schirp	Holland		57000
Andre Santos	Portugal		55900
Luca Canelli			55000
Chad Brown	USA	Team PokerStars Pro	54200
Alexander Dovzhenko	Russia		54000
Tobias Reinkemeier	Malta	PokerStars player	53200
Stephane Bazin	France		52500
Ernesto Becker	Holland		52200
Daniel Smith	USA		52200
Raul Mestre	Spain		52000
Hans Van Tooren	Holland		51900
Wojciech Polak	Poland	PokerStars player	51600
Stephen Chow	UK	PokerStars Qualifier	50700
Adam Marc Junglen	USA		50000
Georges Yazbeck	Lebanon		49900
Joao Barbosa	Portugal		49700
Oleg Makovenko	Russia		49500
Antoon Kleijnen	Holland		49200
Christopher Rossiter	UK	PokerStars Qualifier	49000
Fabian Daniel Ortiz	Argentina	PokerStars Qualifier	49000
Trevor Robbins	USA	PokerStars player	48900
Luca Giovannone	Italy		48100
Raymond Rahme	South Africa	Team PokerStars Pro	47600
Roman Yitzhaki	USA	PokerStars player	47500
Michael Martin	USA	EPT winner	47000
William Austin Reynolds	USA	PokerStars player	46700
Nicolas Gasperino	Venezuela		46400
Roger Hairabedian	Morrocco		45400
Dmitry Druzhinsky	USA		45200
Kazuhito Oshima	USA		45100
Michael De Gilio	Germany		44700
Suk Min Sung	USA		44300
Fabrice De Carbon			44100
Neil Ricklefsen	USA	PokerStars player	43900
Julien Saille	Switzerland		43300
Sylvain Taddei	France		42500
George Samer	UK		42300
Ji Hyup Hong	USA	PokerStars player	41400
Imad Derwiche	France		40700
Eric Liu	USA		40300
Kevin Bagenkop Larsen	Denmark	PokerStars Qualifier	40300
Jose Vazquez Ortega	Spain	PokerStars Qualifier	40100
Dmitry Sakach	Russia		40000
Antony Elie Lellouche	France		39900
Frank Robin Poulsen	Denmark	PokerStars Qualifier	39600
Ben Fineman	USA	PokerStars player	39500
Jan Joris Hlobil	Holland		38900
Lars Eidissen	Norway	PokerStars player	38300
Denes Kalo	Hungary	PokerStars Qualifier	37700
Ian Farrell	UK	PokerStars Qualifier	37700
Gianni Giaroni	Italy		37000
Jean Michel Kabbaj	UK		36600
Stefan Huber	Switzerland	PokerStars Qualifier	35700
Tom Chambers	USA	PokerStars player	35600
Chris Ferguson	USA		35500
Espen Slavensky	Denmark	PokerStars Qualifier	35400
Manuel Sanchez	Spain	PokerStars Qualifier	35300
Clyde Tjauw Foe	Holland		34600
Laurent Polito	France		33700
Marc Marciano	Spain		33400
Jonathan Aguiar	USA	PokerStars Qualifier	32900
Gustavo Kein	Argentina	PokerStars Qualifier	32700
Alem Shah	Germany	PokerStars Qualifier	32500
Bryn Kenney	USA	PokerStars player	32500
Shawn Busse	USA		31900
Beniamino Speroni	Italy		31700
Marian Mihai	USA		31300
Vadim Gruzglin	Russia	PokerStars player	31200
Vitaly Lunkin	Russia		30900
Daniel Negreanu	USA	Team PokerStars Pro	30000
Allen Bari	USA		29700
Martial Blangenwitsch	France		29000
Adam Levy	USA		28500
David John	USA	PokerStars Qualifier	28400
Patrik Bueno	France		28300
Andrew Black	UK		27800
Martin Jacobson	Sweden	PokerStars Qualifier	27400
Mark De Faria	Canada		26700
Andrew Luetchford	UK		26600
Kirill Rabcov	Russia		26500
Jobst Benno	Germany	PokerStars Qualifier	26300
Oleksander Vaserfirer	Ukraine		26300
Jani Sointula	Finland		25800
Daniel Hirleman	USA	PokerStars player	25500
Serge Didisheim	Switzerland	PokerStars Qualifier	25300
Clayton Maguire	USA	PokerStars player	25000
Sergey Vladimirov	Russia		24900
Ryan La Jeune	USA		24700
Viacheslav Osipov	Russia		24600
Fowzi Baroukh	UK		24600
Carl Olson	USA	PokerStars Qualifier	24500
Bernd Gleissner	Germany		24400
Michael Watson	Canada	PokerStars player	24000
Mikael Viuff Hansen	Denmark	PokerStars Qualifier	23600
Federico Iavicoli	Italy	PokerStars Qualifier	23500
Michel Abecassis	France		23400
Pascal Halter	France	PokerStars sponsored player	23300
Carmelo Vasta	Italy		22900
Jan Heisig	Germany	PokerStars Qualifier	22900
Silio Schifalacqua	Italy		22800
Alexander Amundsen	Norway	PokerStars player	22100
Andre Akkari	Brazil	Team PokerStars Pro	22000
Bernd Stadlbauer	Austria	PokerStars Qualifier	21900
Xavier Detournel	France		21700
David Schiller	Germany	PokerStars sponsored player	21000
Julio Lau	USA	PokerStars sponsored player	21000
Riccardo Rinaldi	Italy		20800
Jesper Hougaard	Denmark		20200
Pierre Neuville	Belgium		20000
Gerald Schneider	Switzerland	PokerStars Qualifier	19700
Ricardo Sousa	Portugal		19500
Nguyen Huynh	USA	PokerStars player	19500
Andreas Hoivold	Norway		19400
Tim West	USA	PokerStars player	19400
Maximilian Heinzelmann	Germany	PokerStars Qualifier	19300
Lars Hougaard	Denmark		18900
Craig Michael Bergeron	USA		18500
Runar Runarsson	Iceland	PokerStars Qualifier	17600
Umberto Vitagliano	Italy		17600
Linus Backman	Sweden		17600
Alexander Tulaev	Russia		17200
Tommy Dender	Denmark		16900
Souhail Joseph Nassar	Lebanon		15800
Anders Viktor Wessman	Sweden		15700
Martin Hansen	Denmark		14700
Stephen Kjerstad	Norway		14100
Hans Erlandsson	Sweden	PokerStars Qualifier	13600
Maged Rachid Khoury	Lebanon		13400
Biagio Albanese	Italy		13400
Moritz Kranich	Germany	EPT winner	13300
Michael Goodwin	Canada	PokerStars player	12500
Alan Liu	USA	PokerStars player	12400
Rui Cao	France		12000
Reza John Tabatabai	UK		9800
Arthur Basha	Australia	PokerStars Qualifier	9600
Pierre Sayegh	Lebanon		6200
Paul Jean Testud	France		5500
Anders Langset	Norway		4100

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to PokerStars Poker Blog using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

Qual será o destino moral da esposa do Bernard Madoff?

Artigo muito interessante, publicado no New York times,  que relata as implicações éticas de uma esposa frente a um golpe milionário aplicado por seu marido no mercado mundial.

April 28, 2009, 6:00 AM

Ruth Madoff's Duty

By RANDY COHEN

These are dark days for Bernard and Ruth Madoff. His Mets tickets were sold on eBay; she was banned from the Pierre Michel Salon. Through it all, this question persists: did she know about his $65 billion Ponzi scheme? Regardless of the answer, should she have? Did she have an ethical obligation to understand the source of the fortune she long enjoyed?

---

Steven Hirsch/Splash NewsRuth Madoff arriving to visit her husband in prison on April 7, 2009.

Here's a guideline: around the time you acquire your third house (the one in Palm Beach), you must enquire, How are we paying for this? When selecting your second yacht (Little Bull, recently seized by the courts), you must pose the question: Where is the money coming from? Having benefited from a husband's activities — for decades, not days — a spouse may not remain willfully ignorant. Adults must have some grasp of their impact upon other people, including financially. The greater your wealth, the greater your impact on others, the greater your responsibility not to be conveniently oblivious.

Marriage is a partnership. If you reap its rewards, you bear some responsibility for the way they accrue. This does not make you equally culpable for your partner's misdeeds or immune to deception, but it is does deny you the joys of spending actual loot and the comforts of ignoring that you're doing so. The Madoffs' marriage might reflect the conventions of their generation. Half a century ago, when they wed, many wives knew little about their husband's business activities (as some discovered to their lament during divorce proceedings). But it is also true that Ruth Madoff worked at her husband's company for a while and after that continued to steer customers (suckers? prey?) his way. She seems bright; she seems capable; she seems to have transferred millions of dollarsjust before his arrest. She was not entirely detached from his affairs.

There were things she might have noticed without being a forensic accountant: Bernie's preternatural consistency, for example — the way his company never seemed to go through bad times even when others did. Perhaps one evening, aloft in the private plane, while polishing her $2.6 million worth of jewels, she might have asked him, "Why is it, darling, that for 20 years your company has attracted few institutional investors, people with the savvy to probe your methods?" And if he replied with a flurry of lies? So be it: we can all be hoodwinked. But she had a responsibility at least to try to know.

A similar duty exists in law as well as ethics. One lawyer I consulted told me that "knew or should-have-known comes up a lot across the law — in the libel context, for example." (You can't just accuse someone willy-nilly of having breast implants or shooting a dog or putting breast implants into a dog.) According to another lawyer, with a background in criminal defense work, federal courts have repudiated the idea that deliberately avoiding knowledge can be used as a courtroom defense. In other words, a defendant in a gun-smuggling case can't simply claim that he had no idea what was in that package he was a paid a fat fee to carry through customs.

This stricture can be misapplied. "Should have known" — or its finger-wagging cousin, "should have known better" — can be used to browbeat the victim of wrongdoing, chiding the target of sexual harassment for failing to dress more modestly, for instance. But Ruth Madoff was not a victim of wrongdoing; she was its beneficiary.

It is not just the Madoffs and not just the wealthy who must have some awareness of the consequences of their getting and spending. All adults should have at least a rough idea of where our food comes from (Do animals suffer horribly to provide it?) and our sneakers (Are they made by children? Is the glue toxic?) and so on. This is an ethical obligation of the factory or farm owner, of any one who profits from their activities — Our cotton is picked by slaves? And they don't enjoy slavery? Lordy! — and of those who buy their products.

There are limits to how informed this last group can be. If we had to research the origins of every T-shirt before buying it, we'd be paralyzed in panic at the doors to the Gap. We rightly look to the protections erected by our community — child labor laws, environmental regulations — but we must learn enough to elect officials who will devise humane policies and to judge if they are doing so.

And if they are not? If your husband's factory dumps PCBs into the river, and town officials look the other way? You must vote those officials out (or report them to the E.P.A. or take other political action). And while you need not shoot your husband or even call the cops, you must stop spending his ill-gotten gains, stop profiting from the suffering of those he injures. Ignorance of the lout is no excuse.

It may be that for 50 years Ruth Madoff steadfastly believed she had wed an honest man. The habits of love and trust can occlude a spouse's vision, but they are not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Regardless of what is eventually established in legal proceedings — criminal, civil, bankruptcy, S.E.C. — Ruth Madoff had an ethical obligation to strive to know the source of the wealth she enjoyed.

Entrevista dada por Jim Rogers a time.com

Ele acha o centro financeiro mundial vai mudar para a Ásia, e acredita que o melhor investimento de Curto e Longo Prazo são as Commodities. Muito interessante a entrevista.

Link da matéria: clique aqui 

As co-founder (with George Soros) of the hugely successful Quantum Fund, investment guru Jim Rogers had made enough money by 1980 to retire at age 37. Since then, he has spent his time jaunting around the world, writing books on his travels and investment advice with names like Adventure Capitalismand Investment Biker. In 2007 he moved to Singapore to get a front-row seat at Asia's economic boom and also saw the launch of tradeable securities tied to a commodities index he created. His newest book, A Gift to My Children, is a compendium of advice — financial and otherwise — to his two young daughters. Rogers spoke to TIME about the book, why the Obama Administration can't fix the economy and why he still thinks commodities are the best investment for the future.

You have a lot of advice in your new book for your daughters, on money, education, travel, dating. Do you have any advice for boys?

Well, my first advice to my daughters was to be careful of boys, and to be leery of boys, having been a boy myself. For the most part my advice for the boys is the same — be careful of girls. Be careful of people of the other sex. Be careful of wild promises. Just like on Wall Street.

Let's talk about Wall Street. Is there anything the government should be doing to fix the economic crisis?

No, the government can't fix the crisis. Everything the government's tried for the past two years has been wrong. That's why the crisis continues. The idea that you can solve a problem of too much debt and too much consumption with more debt and more consumption is ludicrous on its face. What they should have done is just let everybody go bankrupt, let the bankruptcy courts reorganize everything. The Japanese tried this approach of propping up zombie banks and zombie companies; it did not work. And it's not going to work in America either.

Do you think there's anything to the argument that it's just politically impossible to let all these companies go down? That it'd throw so many people out of work that it'd cause social turmoil?

They'll be out of work anyway, you know? In a way I don't understand the logic. Whatever they're doing, it's not saving the day. We have the highest unemployment we've had in the U.S. in a few decades and it's getting worse.

You mention a few times the famous quote attributed to Mark Twain, "History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes." What period are we rhyming with now? Is this an echo of the Great Depression or is there something else that would be more apt?

The Great Depression started out with a stock market bubble that burst in 1929, as the world was going into a nice recession. Then the government started making mistakes. They passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, they raised taxes, they became very protectionist, and the next thing you know we had the Great Depression. In Europe they made solvent banks take over insolvent banks with the result that both [kinds of] banks failed. This has all been done before. History is — I don't like saying it, but it's repeating itself. Governments are making the same old mistakes.

The market is up from its lows and the most recent unemployment numbers are slightly better; what do you say to people who say, 'Well, we're nearing bottom on this'?

I think we've seen a bottom. I don't think we've seen the bottom. If America's determining its policy on whether the stock market is up for a month, America's in worse shape than I'd realized. We could have a rally for who knows, six months, a year, we could have a rally for a while after having had the kind of collapse we did. In the '30s the stock market rallied frequently. But in the end it was still the Great Depression.

You normally say that you believe commodities are a better bet, but do you think now with asset prices pushed so far down that it's a good time to start looking for undervalued stocks?

Sure. Some companies are going to be screaming "buy" these days. In the 1930s there were people who made fortunes. If you're willing and able to do the homework I'm sure you'll find some great opportunities. But the only area of the world economy I know of where the fundamentals are improving are commodities. Many farmers cannot get loans for fertilizer now. The inventories of food are the lowest they've been in decades. Nobody can get a loan to open a mine, so it's going to be at least 15 years before you're going to see any new mines opening up. The world's known oil reserves are in decline. All of what's going on in the world is improving the supply fundamentals for commodities. And I don't see that that's true anywhere else. If the world economy is going to improve, commodities are going to be the best place to be; if the world economy doesn't improve, commodities are going to be the best place to be.

China has $2 trillion in U.S. debt. Do you think at some point these countries are just gong to say, "We're done? We're not going to keep underwriting your debt?" If so, what happens then?

It's not just China. It's our own people who are starting to say, "Why would I buy something that's being printed as fast as you possibly can print it, why would I buy something where debts are getting higher and higher by the hour, and interest rates are at historic lows?" Let's not pick on the Chinese here.

The reason I focused on China is you've said that the 21st century is going to be the Chinese century; you're teaching your daughters Mandarin.

Yes, well, we can pick on China, but remember, the largest creditor nations in the world are in Asia now — it's China, it's Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore — all the money is here. Even if the Chinese continue to buy, somebody's going to stop buying that stuff. If I was the Chinese I wouldn't buy it. I'm waiting to sell it short at the right time.

Do you think this crisis is just going to solidify the advantages of China and these other Asian and Southeast Asian economies?

Well, again, throughout history, the center of the world has shifted to where the capital is, where the assets are. You don't see any period in history where things are shifting to the debtors, and America's the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. Unless something's different this time, unless the world's changed very very dramatically, the center of the influence, the center of power, the center of the earth, the center of the globe, is going to be shifting towards Asia, because that's where all the money is. Have you ever heard of anybody saying, "Let's go to where all of the debtors are"? It just doesn't happen that way.

EPT Monte Carlo: Negreanu has a good start

O grande jogador de poker canadense, do qual sou fã: Daniel Negranu! Ele esta indo razoavelmente bem na final do European Poker tour em Monte Carlo.

 

 

Sent to you by Claudio via Google Reader:

 

 

EPT Monte Carlo: Negreanu has a good start

via PokerStars Poker Blog by Chris Hall on 4/28/09

Daniel Negreanu's first three levels at the EPT Grand Final have gone very well so far and he is up to 46,000 in chips. One of the latest hands involved him raising a 1,000 river bet on a [4h][Jd][9d][2h][9h] board to 3,500 take down another pot.

Afterwards he picked up a magazine, and spotting a Phil Hellmuth advert, showed it to the table next door. "Who dresses as Caesar?" he announced. "I mean, come on, what's that got to do with poker?" One of those on the table said, "He'll probably come to the World Series on a chariot."

Daniel Negreanu

Another of the players on this table is Craig Hopkins, a Pokerstars qualifier who also final-tabled the PCA in 2008. These days he mostly just plays the step six sit and go tournaments on PokerStars under the name 'Eder1982' having managed to also qualify for the San Remo EPT. However, it's not gone all his way so far today, "It's a tough table," he said. "I'm not really getting anything going so far, it's not easy."

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to PokerStars Poker Blog using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

Cândido Mendes e a democracia

Sensacional, esta entrevista do Candido Mendes. Vale a pena ler e refletir.

 

 

Sent to you by Claudio via Google Reader:

 

 

Cândido Mendes e a democracia

via Luis Nassif by luisnassif on 4/28/09

Por Maria Isabel

Valeu pela lembrança do Roda Viva com o Candido Mendes. Tudo a ver com este Post Nassif. Estou ouvindo pelo áudio.

Iincia-se a Roda com uma descortinação dos erros do sistema politico segundo Heródoto: eticos, de atuação poltica, aliancismo de parlamentares e papel dos partidos. Heródoto pede uma análise de Candido Mendes que se inicia com a pergunta do porquê deste desgaste político: seria uma novidade?

Cãndido Mendes responde. Não. Dá uma aula.

"Democracia não é só eleições, não é só plebiscito dentro de eleições, não é só representação. Democracia é também o jogo de interação e controles entre os poderes. Numa política de mudança. E acho que ninguém hoje tem dúvidas de que o atual programa de Governo no Executivo é um programa de mudança. Um programa que colocou 25 milhões de brasileiros nos últimos 2 anos na economia de mercado,colocou praticamente um Peru (país) na economia de Mercado, é algo que envolve uma profunda comoção nas estruturas e o despertar de uma mobilidade social (ascensão de classes).

Só que esta mudança não se dá ao mesmo tempo em todos os poderes. O Poder Legislativo é um poder que continua preso a política de clientela; a política de privatização da coisa pública; da vantagem pessoal e da corporação para defendê-la. Isso contrasta necessariamente com o executivo. E de outro lado nós estamos vendo como, pouco a pouco, o próprio Judiciário se apresta a mudança. E por que isso? Por uma outra instituição, Dr. Heródoto, muito importante na democracia brasileira, que é única, e que hoje nos credencia lá fora: o Conselho Nacional de Justiça. Hoje o Judiciário não é mais intocável. O judiciário é controlado pelos outros poderes.

E o que é que avança nisso? Avança a democracia. Controle do nepotismo do judiciário. Controle da lerdeza do judiciário e, sobretudo, da possibilidade de que ele venha de fato a relevância a partir da justiça, que não seja a repetição sempre do fato, do abusivamente repetido, através de toda nova fórmula de se atender a súmulas judiciais. Portanto um grande contraste. O executivo na frente, o legislativo terrivelmente atrás, o judiciário, talvez, pelo controle entre os poderes, podendo também se modernizar.

O resultado é o que aí está, nesse momento, ou seja, o profundo contraste que nós temos do ponto de vista da adesão popular. Nós não temos na história da América Latina um presidente que em fins de um segundo mandato tenha 82% de apoio popular quando o seu partido tem menos de metade disso, e quando a avaliação do legislativo desses partidos não vai hoje a 15%".

Seguindo vem a ergunta do Merval: "Como é que um Executivo que faz tantas transformações ao mesmo tempo mantém esta relação tão fisiológica com o legislativo e até alimenta esta relação e dá a sensação de que quer que o legislativo seja exatamente assim para poder ter o apoio da maioria?".

Mais uma aula de CM::

"Mantém, em princípio, pela própria homenagem à Democracia. Nós estamos no governo de vontades gerais onde de fato a lei, a norma, vem do legislativo. O governo não tem hoje, pensava-se no começo, pelo seu partido, maioria do legislativo. Daí daqui a pouco, certamente iremos a isso, temos que discutir a dificílima, a bizantina política dos aliancismos que neste momento quer o quê? Através das fraturas de uma vontade, encontrar caco a caco, o que possa ser e praticamente para cada votação.. (

Merval completa: Há uma negociação). (…) A segunda é que também vamos nos entender quando o PT assumiu o executivo ele também foi castigado pela política de clientelas. Na medida em que os sindicatos tomaram ponto e tomaram conta de tantos órgãos do executivo e até realmente em termos plenários, em termos completos.Isso significou o quê? Significou uma transformação do interesse funcional do poder, interesses vinculados a essas diversas práticas sindicais, com mais uma conseqüência: os sindicatos vindo ao poder deixaram um vazio. E aí é outro problema que nos preocupa muito: os movimentos sociais. Onde é que estão os movimentos sociais como pressão da sociedade hoje para a democracia? Este é um problema que hoje nos preocupa muito dentro disso, mas eu volto a dizer, este executivo através de ter finalmente chegado a concatenação do PAC ele está podendo retomar um clima que nós não tínhamos a muito tempo".

Vale a pena ouvir e fazermos nossas considerações.

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Luis Nassif using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

Primeira postagem do iphone

Sent from my iPhone

Tabela da Revista Economist com dados sombrios da economia

Dados interessantes publicados esta semana pela Economist:

Podemos acompanhar a evolução do quadro recessionário em relação ao PIB, Taxa de Desemprego, Produção industrial e preços ao consumidor.

Sobre o balanço 1 trim 2009 do Bank of América

BofA (BAC) earned $4.25 billion in Q1 2009, 44 cents a share vs. 5 cents expected, BUT.

Lucrou 4,25 Bilhões no 1o trimestre de 2009

Este lucro inclui: 

1-) 1,9 Bilhões não recorrentes, relativos a ganhos de impostos na venda das ações do China Construction bank.

2-) 2,2 Bihões de ganhos relativos ao spred das notas de crédito junto ao Merryl Linch.


3-) Totalizando 4,1 Bilhões de DOlares.

O lucro de 4 bilhoes vieram de 2 operações não recorrentes, descritas nos itens 1 e 2:

4-) Além disso a qualidade dos empréstimos continuam deteriorando de forma dramatica: Neste primeiro trimestre foram provisionados 13,4 bilhoes de dolares contra as perdas na area de crédito, comparado com 8,5 Bi provisionados no ultimo trimestre do ano passado

O que já vazou dos Stress Tests nos Bancos Americanos.

Traduzido:

A Turner Rádio Rede obteve os resultados dos testes de stress. Eles são muito ruins. 

1) Entre os dezenove (19) maiores bancos da nação, dezesseis 
(16) já estão tecnicamente insolventes. 

2) Dos 16 bancos que já estão tecnicamente insolventes, nem mesmo 1 deles pode sequer suportar uma perturbação do fluxo de caixa, ou qualquer outra deterioração relativa ao não - pagamento de empréstimos. 

3) Se dois dos 16 bancos insolventes falirem, eles acabarão com todas as reservas restantes do FDIC. 

4) Dos 19 principais bancos do país, os cinco (5) maiores bancos estão sub-capitalizados tão perigosamente, que há sérias dúvidas sobre sua capacidade de continuar como bancos. 

5) Os Cinco grandes bancos de crédito dos EUA tem exposição relacionada com os seus derivativos de crédito que excedem o seu capital, quatro deles, em especial - JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Bank America e Citibank - estão em situação de grande 
riscos. 

6) A exposição total a derivativos de crédito do Bank of America está em 179% de sua base de capital de risco; O Citibank em 
278%; O JPMorgan Chase em 382% e o HSBC em 550%. Fica pior ainda: O Goldman Sachs começou a se reportar como banco comercial, revelando uma alarmante exposição de 1056% do crédito total, 
superior a mais de dez vezes o seu capital! 

7) Não só existem sérias dúvidas sobre se o JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Domingo Trust Bank, HSBC , podem ou não continuar no negócio bancário, como mais de 1800 instituições regionais estão em risco de insucesso, apesar dos salvamentos governamentais!

Fonte: Turner Radio

Do Blog Biscoito fino

Sensacional!!!

O Brasil é um país em que

a independência ante Portugal foi proclamada por um português,

a República foi proclamada por um monarquista,

o mais radical movimento igualitário foi liderado por um pregador moralizante e religioso,

a Revolução Burguesa foi feita pelas oligarquias,

a eleição republicana-moderna (1930) teve sufrágio mais restrito que a eleição monárquica-imperial (1821),

o mais ilustre gesto de um presidente foi um suicídio,

o racismo é encoberto por um termo ('democracia racial') inaugurado em público pelo maior líder do movimento negro,

a subvenção pública e a estatização floresceram na ditadura de direita,

a redemocratização foi presidida por um homem da própria ditadura,

a discriminação racial é mais visivelmente proibida justo no lugar onde ela mais obviamente se manifesta,

só se removeu por corrupção o presidente cuja única plataforma eleitoral era varrê-la,

a maior privatização foi feita pelo príncipe da sociologia terceiromundista e esquerdizante,

a universalização do capitalismo e o auge dos lucros bancários se dão sob o líder sindical que fundou um partido socialista e ....

numa Praça Tiradentes não há uma estátua de Tiradentes, mas de D. Pedro I, neto da Dona Maria que ordenara a morte do alferes. Essa incongruência não diz algo sobre o que somos?

O Luiz Antonio Simas, em cujo texto este post se inspira, me lembrou de como começo os fatídicos cursos de "Introdução à cultura brasileira" que às vezes me cabe ditar. Peço que abram o dicionário no verbete "óxímoro" e começamos a conversa a partir daí.

Mesmo que Tom Jobim não tivesse feito mais nada, só pela frase o Brasil não é para principiantes ele já mereceria nossa memória.

Fonte: http://www.idelberavelar.com/

Ten principles for a Black Swan-proof world

By Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Published: April 7 2009 20:02 | Last updated: April 7 2009 20:02

1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small. Nothing should ever become too big to fail. Evolution in economic life helps those with the maximum amount of hidden risks – and hence the most fragile – become the biggest.

2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains. Whatever may need to be bailed out should be nationalised; whatever does not need a bail-out should be free, small and risk-bearing. We have managed to combine the worst of capitalism and socialism. In France in the 1980s, the socialists took over the banks. In the US in the 2000s, the banks took over the government. This is surreal.

3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus. The economics establishment (universities, regulators, central bankers, government officials, various organisations staffed with economists) lost its legitimacy with the failure of the system. It is irresponsible and foolish to put our trust in the ability of such experts to get us out of this mess. Instead, find the smart people whose hands are clean.

4. Do not let someone making an “incentive” bonus manage a nuclear plant – or your financial risks. Odds are he would cut every corner on safety to show “profits” while claiming to be “conservative”. Bonuses do not accommodate the hidden risks of blow-ups. It is the asymmetry of the bonus system that got us here. No incentives without disincentives: capitalism is about rewards and punishments, not just rewards.

5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity. Complexity from globalisation and highly networked economic life needs to be countered by simplicity in financial products. The complex economy is already a form of leverage: the leverage of efficiency. Such systems survive thanks to slack and redundancy; adding debt produces wild and dangerous gyrations and leaves no room for error. Capitalism cannot avoid fads and bubbles: equity bubbles (as in 2000) have proved to be mild; debt bubbles are vicious.

6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning . Complex derivatives need to be banned because nobody understands them and few are rational enough to know it. Citizens must be protected from themselves, from bankers selling them “hedging” products, and from gullible regulators who listen to economic theorists.

7. Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence. Governments should never need to “restore confidence”. Cascading rumours are a product of complex systems. Governments cannot stop the rumours. Simply, we need to be in a position to shrug off rumours, be robust in the face of them.

8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains. Using leverage to cure the problems of too much leverage is not homeopathy, it is denial. The debt crisis is not a temporary problem, it is a structural one. We need rehab.

9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible “expert” advice for their retirement. Economic life should be definancialised. We should learn not to use markets as storehouses of value: they do not harbour the certainties that normal citizens require. Citizens should experience anxiety about their own businesses (which they control), not their investments (which they do not control).

10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs. Finally, this crisis cannot be fixed with makeshift repairs, no more than a boat with a rotten hull can be fixed with ad-hoc patches. We need to rebuild the hull with new (stronger) materials; we will have to remake the system before it does so itself. Let us move voluntarily into Capitalism 2.0 by helping what needs to be broken break on its own, converting debt into equity, marginalising the economics and business school establishments, shutting down the “Nobel” in economics, banning leveraged buyouts, putting bankers where they belong, clawing back the bonuses of those who got us here, and teaching people to navigate a world with fewer certainties.

Then we will see an economic life closer to our biological environment: smaller companies, richer ecology, no leverage. A world in which entrepreneurs, not bankers, take the risks and companies are born and die every day without making the news.

In other words, a place more resistant to black swans.

The writer is a veteran trader, a distinguished professor at New York University’s Polytechnic Institute and the author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009