O nacional-populismo e o tráfico de influências
Um pouco por todo o mundo e, em especial, na Velha Europa, a última semana assistiu a uma sequência de situações de oposição e resistência da classe política de alguns países a eventuais aquisições de empresas de capital maioritaria ou totalmente nacional por empresas estrangeiras (ou de capital detido maioritariamente por estrangeiros ou, ainda, cuja génese e registo da casa-mãe se encontra noutro país). Este comportamento reaccionário não costuma ser, além do mais, honesto e recíproco. É apenas populista e mesquinho, pois quando a situação é inversa e uma empresa desse país pretende adquirir uma empresa de capital estrangeiro não é costume ouvirmos essas pessoas criticarem tal decisão. E o editorial do Economist desta semana disseca com precisão a razão de tal contraste.
"PATRIOTISM, said Samuel Johnson, is the last refuge of a scoundrel. That may be unfair to the proper sort of patriot, but it would be an entirely valid comment about politicians today who make a fuss about foreign takeovers in their countries, in the name of “national interests”. The truth is that they are not defending their nations' interests at all. They are defending their own interests and (often) those of their cronies. [...] Does Britain suffer because French firms (eg, EDF and Suez) already own large British electricity and water utilities? No: they are subject to exactly the same regulations and labour laws as any other utilities. Would the management of six American ports give DP World control over security there? No: as with any port or airport, it is controlled by the government. The laws of the land and the reach of state or federal agencies are unaffected. What is affected, however, is the ability of governments and of individual politicians to use patronage at favoured firms to help their friends, to get favours in return, to support special interests such as trade unions, and, in broad political terms, to paint themselves as patriots. Consumers aren't helped, living standards don't rise, the nation as a whole is not better off. But the political and corporate elite may well be."
Nem mais...
"PATRIOTISM, said Samuel Johnson, is the last refuge of a scoundrel. That may be unfair to the proper sort of patriot, but it would be an entirely valid comment about politicians today who make a fuss about foreign takeovers in their countries, in the name of “national interests”. The truth is that they are not defending their nations' interests at all. They are defending their own interests and (often) those of their cronies. [...] Does Britain suffer because French firms (eg, EDF and Suez) already own large British electricity and water utilities? No: they are subject to exactly the same regulations and labour laws as any other utilities. Would the management of six American ports give DP World control over security there? No: as with any port or airport, it is controlled by the government. The laws of the land and the reach of state or federal agencies are unaffected. What is affected, however, is the ability of governments and of individual politicians to use patronage at favoured firms to help their friends, to get favours in return, to support special interests such as trade unions, and, in broad political terms, to paint themselves as patriots. Consumers aren't helped, living standards don't rise, the nation as a whole is not better off. But the political and corporate elite may well be."
Nem mais...
1 Comments:
...
By Anónimo, at 4:39 da tarde
Enviar um comentário
<< Home