quinta-feira, 30 de dezembro de 2021
Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail, by Ray Dalio
Principles for Dealing with the Changing World
Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail
Author(s):
Ray Dalio
Release
Date:
November
30, 2021
Reviewed by:
Craig R.
Roach
“Dalio’s
philosophical foundation for choosing investments is a sprawling, holistic
study of how the world has worked over hundreds of years of history.”
Ray Dalio
is among the world’s most successful investors, and in his new book, Principles
for Dealing with the Changing World Order, he reveals how he and his colleagues
at Bridgewater Associates choose investments for the future. His approach,
however, is not what you would get from the standard-issue Wall Street stock
picker. Dalio’s philosophical foundation for choosing investments is a
sprawling, holistic study of how the world has worked over hundreds of years of
history. What he found is that dominant countries—or what he calls “empires”—
inevitably rise and fall over long segments of time. Nothing is forever,
including, as Dalio documents, America’s position as the leading world power
today.
The early
part of the book is all about convincing the reader that these cycles happen,
and that they make all the difference in which countries are rising and which
are falling at any point in time. Dalio focuses on three major historical
transitions: the rise of the Netherlands and its replacement by the United
Kingdom; the replacement of the United Kingdom by the United States; and the
pending (at least possible) replacement of the United States by China.
In his
“Archetypical Big Cycle,” Dalio lists the forces that drive an empire’s rise:
“a) relatively low levels of indebtedness; b) relatively small wealth, values,
and political gaps between people; c) people working effectively together to
produce prosperity; d) good education and infrastructure; e) strong and capable
leadership; and f) a peaceful world order that is guided by one or more
dominant world powers.”
He also
succinctly states that three forces might drive the American empire’s decline.
The first is a steadily increasing debt burden that financially weakens the
empire. The second is a widening gap in household income and wealth that
incites internal conflicts. The third is a rising external rival who is on
course to topple the declining but-still-ruling empire.
Dalio fills
many pages of his book with explanations and insights on the full impact of
money and credit on the rise and fall of empires. He explains three monetary
policies the US has used to boost the economy that have now become problematic.
The first policy is for the Federal Reserve to lower short-term interest rates;
the problem here is that short-term interest rates are already at zero. The
second is to lower long-term interest rates by buying long-term bonds so the
yield will fall; this “quantitative easing” is already substantially in place
with the Federal Reserve buying billons of dollar of bonds each month.
The third
policy is for the Federal Reserve essentially to print money and buy Treasury
bills and bonds directly; this “debt monetization” has become the policy of
choice in the US today. Monetization of debt has its risks in the context of
the fall of empires. As noted, short-term interest rates are at zero, so investors
are driven to purchase assets such as gold, property, and stocks, which drive
up asset prices; this exacerbates the politically sensitive income and wealth
gaps because only those who can afford the assets see an increase in wealth.
Moreover,
the US dollar is the world’s primary reserve currency—the favorite currency for
safely storing cash. If the US government drives the value of the dollar down
by printing more dollars, there is the risk that the US could lose its role as
the primary reserve currency and, thus, further undercut the ability of the US
to borrow. Dalio argues that the US has too much debt and writes “what does
that mean for the dollar (most importantly) and the other more minor reserve
currencies? Will they decline and others replace them? Most probably they will
decline analogously to past reserve currency declines: slowly for a long time
and then very quickly.”
Dalio also
highlights the essential link between monetized debt and productivity gains won
through technological innovation. He argues that all this debt must be spent on
investments that boost productivity: “an essential ingredient for success is
that the debt and money that are created are used to produce productivity gains
and favorable returns on investment, rather than just being given away.” If an
empire fails to do that “the money will be devalued to the point that it won’t
leave the government or anyone else with much buying power.”
Principles
for Dealing with the Changing World Order is not an easy read; it is a thicket
of historical discussion permeated with graph-after-graph of evidence on each
cycle. Despite this obstacle, Dalio’s balanced, often unique, and worrisome
analysis of the possible outcome of the now intense rivalry between the US and
China is timely. This rivalry resonates in the headlines every day, and Dalio
writes that “emotions have been running so high between the US and China that
many people have urged [Dalio] not to publish this chapter [on China].”
Dalio sees
the two countries in a tie. He writes that “China is now roughly tied with the
US in being the leading power in trade, economic output, and innovation and
technology and it is a strong and quickly rising military and educational
power. It is an emerging power in the financial sector but is lagging as a
reserve currency and financial center.”
He is
unique in his explanations of the differences in philosophy for the two countries;
but those differences are not what you expect. For example, Dalio opines that
“America is run from the bottom up (e.g., democracy) and optimized for the
individual; China is run from the top down and optimized for the collective.”
Dalio explains further that democracy has no roots in China, but capitalism (at
least meritocracy) does.
Finally,
Dalio argues that the United States and China are already engaged in “wars” on
seven fronts. Dalio writes that history has “taught us that there are five major
types of wars: 1) trade/economic wars, 2) technology wars, 3) geopolitical
wars, 4) capital wars, and 5) military wars. To these [Dalio] would add 6)
culture wars and 7) the wars with ourselves.” These war fronts, Dalio argues,
should be “recognized as interrelated conflicts that are extensions of one
bigger evolving conflict.”
Dalio wants
to define these different forms of conflict so that the world can avoid
escalation to a hot war. For example, with trade/economic wars, Dalio concludes
that “we haven’t seen the US-China trade war taken very far.” However, he
identifies high-risk actions when he writes that “the most dangerous part of
the trade/economic war comes when countries cut others off from essential
imports.” He writes that the US could cut off “China’s imports of oil, other
needed commodities, technologies.” And for its part “China could escalate by
cutting off companies like General Motors (which sells more cars in China than
in the US) and Apple.”
In
conclusion, Dalio identifies a positive force, new technology, that can offset
the negative forces in all the wars. He writes that “humanity’s inventiveness
will probably lead to great advances while the debt/economic cycle, the
internal order cycle, the external order cycle, and worsening acts of nature
will almost certainly pose problems. In other words, there will be a battle
between humanity’s inventiveness and these other challenges.” The pandemic
proves his point. Biotech saved our lives with vaccines. InfoTech saved our
jobs with platforms that enabled e-commerce and remote work.
Craig R.
Roach is an author of narrative nonfiction. His book Simply Electrifying: The
Technology that Transformed the World, from Benjamin Franklin to Elon Musk
(BenBella Books, 2017) won a 2018 Axiom Business Book Award Gold Medal.
Amsterdam cancels anti-Covid rule demo, citing public order fears
Amsterdam cancels anti-Covid rule demo, citing
public order fears
CoronaSociety
December 30, 2021
An
anti-coronavirus measure rally in Amsterdam earlier this year. Photo:
DutchNews.nl
A
demonstration against the coronavirus rules which had been scheduled to take
place on January 2 has been banned because the organisers ‘refused’ to
cooperate with plans to ensure it could take place safely. The decision to ban
the protest was taken by the city’s mayor Femke Halsema, together with the
police and public prosecution department. The city said in a press release that
the organisers of the demonstration, who had claimed 25,000 people would
attend, had indicated they were ‘out for confrontation’. ‘The police also have
strong indications that people and groups who were out for trouble and prepared
to use violence were planning to mix in with the demonstrators,’ the statement
said. The demonstration could have gone ahead if the organisers agreed to limit
numbers to 3,500 and not to march through the city. Given they were unwilling
to do this, there was ‘no choice other than to ban the demonstration in the
interests of public health and to prevent disorder.’ The Omicron variant of
coronavirus is spreading rapidly in the Dutch capital and now accounts for 80%
of cases. Freedom ‘Amsterdammers are staying home as much as possible,
companies have been forced to close their doors, theatres and cinemas are
shut,’ Halsema is quoted as saying by the Parool. While the freedom to
demonstrate is an important right, she and the police had ‘no confidence that
the organisers would ensure the demonstration was properly organised.’ The
Parool said that a spokesman for the mayor said the decision was unconnected to
the planned strike by riot police which was set to coincide with the demonstration.
Organiser Michel Reijinga told the paper the decision was scandalous and that
he had offered his full cooperation. Several hundred people were arrested in
riots across the Netherlands last January after the curfew was introduced.
There was more trouble, sparked by organised troublemakers in Rotterdam, in
November.
Read more
at DutchNews.nl:
Amsterdam
verbiedt demonstratie ‘Samen voor NL’ op 2 januari
https://www.amsterdam.nl/nieuws/nieuwsoverzicht/verbod-demonstratie/
30 december 2021
De Amsterdamse driehoek (gemeente, politie en OM) verbiedt
de aangekondigde demonstratie Samen voor NL van zondag 2 januari 2022 op het
Museumplein.
De driehoek was ondanks de lockdown bereid de demonstratie
te faciliteren onder de voorwaarde dat er een maximaal aantal demonstranten zou
zijn en dat de duur en de vorm beperkt zouden blijven. Met een maximaal aantal
van 3.500 mensen zou er veilig op 1,5 meter afstand op het Museumplein kunnen
worden gedemonstreerd.
Organisatie weigert medewerking
De organisatie van deze demonstratie heeft aangegeven 25.000
demonstranten te verwachten en door de stad te willen trekken. De organisatie
is niet bereid mee te werken aan een veilig en ordelijk verloop en heeft
aangekondigd de confrontatie op te willen zoeken en de regels te gaan
overtreden. Ook heeft de politie sterke aanwijzingen dat er personen en groepen
aanwezig zullen zijn die uit zijn op ongeregeldheden en bereid zijn om geweld
te gebruiken. In het belang van de volksgezondheid en om wanordelijkheden te
voorkomen, ziet de driehoek zich daarom genoodzaakt de demonstratie te
verbieden.
Abriu portas da Europa a imigrantes ilegais. Tribunal diz-se impotente para punir advogada como merecia
JUSTIÇA
Abriu portas da Europa a imigrantes ilegais. Tribunal
diz-se impotente para punir advogada como merecia
Sentença acusa arguida de ser indiferente à crise
humanitária que continua a matar milhares de refugiados que tentam chegar à
Europa.
Ana Henriques
29 de Dezembro de
2021, 23:26
Questões formais
impediram uma juíza de punir de forma mais severa uma advogada que se dedicou
durante dois anos a abrir as portas da Europa a dezenas de imigrantes ilegais,
a maior parte dos quais continuam neste momento em paradeiro incerto. Proferida
este mês, a sentença que a condenou a cinco anos de prisão efectiva sublinha
que lidava na maior parte das vezes com adolescentes menores e que demonstrou
“total indiferença” pela crise humanitária que continua a matar milhares de
migrantes e refugiados que tentam chegar à Europa.
Desde que
ingressou na advocacia, em 2015 que Marisa Monteiro, hoje com 42 anos, era
frequentadora assídua do aeroporto de Lisboa, mais propriamente do Centro de
Instalação Temporária, local onde ficam detidos os passageiros sem condições para
entrar em território nacional. Até 2018, altura em que o Serviço de
Estrangeiros e Fronteiras (SEF) a confrontou com as suas suspeitas, entregou
mais de cem pedidos de asilo pelos quais cobrou aos requerentes entre mil e
1700 euros cada um. O estratagema a que recorreu, segundo ficou provado em
tribunal, baseava-se acima de tudo na lentidão da justiça portuguesa.
Depois de alegar
perante o SEF que os seus clientes, na sua maioria adolescentes menores, eram
pessoas que viajavam para Portugal fugidas de perseguições políticas, sexuais e
religiosas nos seus países de origem, ficava à espera da recusa do visto de
permanência em território nacional, uma vez que nenhum deles conseguia provar
essa condição. Na realidade, estes jovens oriundos sobretudo do Senegal e
países vizinhos queriam juntar-se a familiares seus residentes em França e
noutros países europeus por questões económicas. Quando chegava a recusa de
permanência em território nacional Marisa Monteiro recorria sistematicamente da
decisão para os tribunais administrativos, ciente de que o recurso não seria
decidido no prazo máximo de 60 dias que a lei prevê que os candidatos a asilo
possam estar detidos. Quando finalmente os tribunais administrativos se
pronunciavam já os imigrantes tinham sido libertados e rumado além-fronteiras.
Segundo a
sentença, a arguida terá lucrado com esta actividade cerca de 130 mil euros,
uma vez que tinha de repartir os lucros com cúmplices que tinha nos países de
origem, e que lhe indicavam em que voos seguiam os candidatos a asilo e a que
horas chegavam ao aeroporto de Lisboa. A sua actuação tornou-se notada quer
pela quantidade de casos que conseguia angariar quer por apresentar
requerimentos em nome dos imigrantes antes mesmo de ter falado com eles no
Centro de Instalação Temporária. Muitos deles tinham embarcado com documentos
de identificação falsos ou roubados a compatriotas seus.
A decisão
judicial dá conta, entre outros casos, da situação de uma menor chamada
Marceline que chegou a Lisboa a 1 de Janeiro de 2017, nascida no Congo. Contou
às autoridades que tinha 15 anos e vinha do Senegal, onde se prostituía às
ordens de uma senhora que lhe dava abrigo e comida. Foi essa mulher, garantiu,
que a convenceu a viajar para a Europa, pagando-lhe a viagem e tratando-lhe da
documentação. Que não se preocupasse, porque teria alguém do sexo feminino à
sua espera na capital portuguesa. E assim era.
Por ser menor não
ficou no aeroporto: foi encaminhada para instalações do Centro Português de
Refugiados, donde saiu para voltar à prostituição. Viria a ser interceptada
pelas autoridades em Espanha num autocarro onde viajava acompanhada de um homem,
com destino a França. A advogada aconselhava sempre os imigrantes a abandonarem
Portugal pela via terrestre, por os controlos policiais serem menos eficazes do
que se viajassem por via aérea.
Para esconder das
autoridades o que ganhava com esta actividade, os pagamentos eram feitos ao
marido e a vários outros familiares através de agências de transferência de
dinheiro. Ao tribunal, justificou esta forma de trabalhar alegando que as duas
gravidezes que teve em pouco tempo, aliadas ao enorme volume de serviço, fez
com que tivesse tido de recorrer à sua ajuda. Nem esta nem outras explicações
que deu durante o julgamento convenceram a juíza, que acabou por a condenar por
50 crimes de auxílio à imigração ilegal.
A arguida terá lucrado com esta actividade cerca de 130
mil euros, uma vez que tinha de repartir os lucros com cúmplices que tinha nos
países de origem
Sucede que o
Ministério Público teve, durante a fase de inquérito do processo, expectativas
de punição mais baixas. Como considerou que todos estes casos correspondiam à
prática de um único crime – na forma continuada – remeteu o caso para um tipo
de tribunal, o chamado local criminal, que por lei só pode aplicar penas de
prisão até ao máximo de cinco anos. A juíza ainda tentou resolver o problema,
mas acabou por se conformar. Deixou, porém, escrito na sentença que a advogada
merecia ser condenada a sete anos e meio de cadeia, mas que estava impedida de
tomar semelhante decisão.
“A culpa da
arguida é elevadíssima, porquanto actuou durante um longo período de tempo e em
elevadíssimo número de vítimas”, observou. “Numa época de verdadeira crise
humanitária no que respeita a cidadãos estrangeiros que pretendem entrar no
continente europeu, muitos deles vítimas de pessoas como a arguida, a quem
pagam para arriscarem a vida no transporte, realizado por vezes em botes que,
naufragando, conduzem à morte, demonstrou, com a sua conduta, uma total
indiferença pela sorte destas pessoas, que podiam até ser vítimas de redes de
prostituição”.
O PÚBLICO tentou,
sem sucesso, falar com Marisa Monteiro.
