Como os terramotos, os cataclismos financeiros resultam de movimentos, imperceptíveis ao homem comum durante muito tempo, que repentinamente aceleram e abatem as estruturas, levando na onda destruidora mesmo as aparentemente mais sólidas. Como nos movimentos tectónicos, as convulsões dos mercados financeiros acontecem porque as suas estruturas têm falhas que consentem os movimentos destruidores. Como nos terramotos, com o passar das décadas, as populações ocupam as áreas de elevado risco sísmico, também as catástrofes financeiras são esquecidas e repetidos os mesmos actos que provocam os cataclismos.
.
O tsunami financeiro que se levantou nos EUA e ameaça propagar-se ao mundo inteiro, teve a sua origem na ganância incontida pelos pilares democráticos. A conivência entre republicanos e democratas, alimentada pelos conluios que garantem aos políticos os fundos para as suas campanhas e aos doadores os votos para os seus objectivos, foi consentida pelo terceiro pilar, a justiça, que não deveria estar dependente dos votos e do dinheiro.
.
Clamam agora (quase) todos por mais regulamentação quando deveriam reclamar mais democracia. Porque a falha que originou a formação do tsunami centra-se no terreno democrático. Podem montar-se todos os reguladores possíveis mas a possibilidade de colmatar a falha diabólica será corroída se não forem tamponados os factores de corrosão.
.
Enquanto os votos dependerem do dinheiro com que se aliciam os votantes, a falha subsistirá e os seus efeitos voltarão a mostrar-se mais tarde ou mais cedo.
.
Vem tudo isto a propósito de um artigo, que a seguir transcrevo, que dá conta de mais um exemplo da influência perversa do dinheiro na prática democrática: os congressistas que votaram a favor do Plano Paulson receberam dos bancos, seguradoras e imobiliárias mais cerca de 51% de fundos para as suas campanhas que os que votaram contra; os que votaram contra, fizeram-no, já se sabe para não se confrontarem com a indignação dos seus votantes enquanto contribuintes para o pagamento do plano.
.
Mas não creio que vá deixar de ser assim. As falhas são tradições, e as tradições, dizem, são para se manterem.
.
The battle over the Bush administration’s plan to rescue the financial system took a sharp turn Monday when the House of Representatives voted down the bill by a sizable margin.
Though there was much talk about ideals and principles on the House floor, there’s another factor to consider as well.
The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington nonprofit group that studies money and politics, reports that on average, lawmakers who voted in favor of the bailout bill have received 51 percent more in campaign contributions from sources in the finance, insurance and real estate industries — or FIRE industries, for short — over their congressional careers than those who opposed the emergency legislation.
The legislation is of vital interest to Wall Street firms and banks, many of which would like to use the program to offload noxious mortgage-related assets.
The FIRE industries — or, more specifically, individuals and political action committees associated with them — have been the top source of campaign contributions in federal politics, the group said, giving more than $2 billion to federal candidates and political parties since 1989.
This year, sources from the FIRE industries have been particularly busy, doling out millions to candidates that are facing tough reelections.
In this election cycle, the 140 House Democrats who voted for the bailout bill collected 78 percent more from the FIRE industries than the Democrats who opposed it. Over their careers, they collected 88 percent more, the data show.
On the Republican side, the gap was smaller. Republicans in the House that voted yes on the bailout bill got an average of 23 percent more in contributions from the FIRE industries in this election cycle than House Republicans who voted against it. In the long run, they got 53 percent more.
Of the 37 Democrats that sit on the House Financial Services Committee, 25 voted for the bill, including the committee chairman, Barney Frank of Massachusetts. He received nearly $800,000 this election cycle from sources in the FIRE industries.
Of the 33 Republicans on the committee, 8 voted for the bill.
The ranking Republican member of the committee, Spencer Bachus from Alabama, was among those who voted in favor. He has received $822,000 from the FIRE industries this election cycle and $3.7 million since 1989.
Of course, correlation doesn’t mean causation, and many lawmakers would surely say they were voting their conscience on Monday rather than catering to their contributors.
One of those who got a lot of funds from the FIRE industries but still voted “no” was Ron Paul, the Texas represenative who favors abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard.
Among the no-voters on Monday, Mr. Paul received the most money from FIRE sources — $1.3 million — in this election cycle. His overall donations got a boost from his presidential run.
Though there was much talk about ideals and principles on the House floor, there’s another factor to consider as well.
The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington nonprofit group that studies money and politics, reports that on average, lawmakers who voted in favor of the bailout bill have received 51 percent more in campaign contributions from sources in the finance, insurance and real estate industries — or FIRE industries, for short — over their congressional careers than those who opposed the emergency legislation.
The legislation is of vital interest to Wall Street firms and banks, many of which would like to use the program to offload noxious mortgage-related assets.
The FIRE industries — or, more specifically, individuals and political action committees associated with them — have been the top source of campaign contributions in federal politics, the group said, giving more than $2 billion to federal candidates and political parties since 1989.
This year, sources from the FIRE industries have been particularly busy, doling out millions to candidates that are facing tough reelections.
In this election cycle, the 140 House Democrats who voted for the bailout bill collected 78 percent more from the FIRE industries than the Democrats who opposed it. Over their careers, they collected 88 percent more, the data show.
On the Republican side, the gap was smaller. Republicans in the House that voted yes on the bailout bill got an average of 23 percent more in contributions from the FIRE industries in this election cycle than House Republicans who voted against it. In the long run, they got 53 percent more.
Of the 37 Democrats that sit on the House Financial Services Committee, 25 voted for the bill, including the committee chairman, Barney Frank of Massachusetts. He received nearly $800,000 this election cycle from sources in the FIRE industries.
Of the 33 Republicans on the committee, 8 voted for the bill.
The ranking Republican member of the committee, Spencer Bachus from Alabama, was among those who voted in favor. He has received $822,000 from the FIRE industries this election cycle and $3.7 million since 1989.
Of course, correlation doesn’t mean causation, and many lawmakers would surely say they were voting their conscience on Monday rather than catering to their contributors.
One of those who got a lot of funds from the FIRE industries but still voted “no” was Ron Paul, the Texas represenative who favors abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard.
Among the no-voters on Monday, Mr. Paul received the most money from FIRE sources — $1.3 million — in this election cycle. His overall donations got a boost from his presidential run.
No comments:
Post a Comment